/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12765161]

what is the most cringe notation you see in maths?

[Anonymous No.12765195]

That weird curly shit they use on intergral

[Anonymous No.12765207]

>>12765161
Whenever people give up on having a single letter denote something and write out words. My professor used [math] \mathrm{Stab}_G(x) [/math] to denote the group stabilizer. Nigga please, I don't have the patience to type \mathrm{Stab} in Latex all the time or define a new command in every file.

[Anonymous No.12765211]

>>12765207
>copy and paste the same macro.tex file
wow so difficult

[Anonymous No.12765214]

>>12765211
>use a single Latin or Greek letter
wow, so difficult

[Anonymous No.12765266]

>>12765207
Mathrm shit is really aggravating. Like ran or Jac or other stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.12765269]

>>12765161
Needless subscripts on things

[Anonymous No.12765283]

>>12765161
Big O notation. So fucking inconsistent

[Anonymous No.12765284]

>>12765283
Nah you're just kinda dumb

[Anonymous No.12765297]

>>12765283
What's inconsistent about it?

[Anonymous No.12765299]

>>12765283
How?
>>12765266
This is definitely annoying.

[Anonymous No.12765304]

>>12765283
the only inconsistent thing about big o is whether one uses [math]O[/math] or [math]\mathcal O[/math]

[Anonymous No.12765335]

People who use sin^(-1) instead of arcsin

[Anonymous No.12765336]

>>12765161
NMR stuff. Took classes on advanced theory for it and by god the notation can get fucked. The calculations for solvation and coupling can get fucked, there is multiple repeated symbols and every book has completely different systems of variables and conventions that have to be slogged through.

Pic rel is just some simple density calculations and it already looks a mess.

[Anonymous No.12765349]

>>12765335
Go home anon, you're drunk. sin^(-1) meaning arcsin is clearly the correct notation. The notion of sin^2(x) being the square of the sine of x is retarded.

[Anonymous No.12765353]

>>12765335
this. Something raised to the -1 power is a reciprocal by convention.
>>12765349
I can't be fucked to write (sin(x))^2. The sin(x)^2 is even more confusing and retarded.

[Anonymous No.12765357]

>>12765353
>Something raised to the -1 power is a reciprocal by convention.
A number (or other ring member) raised to the -1 power is a reciprocal. But a function raised to the -1 power is an inverse, not a reciprocal. It's only for trigonometric functions that this weirdly inconsistent and ambiguous convention exists.

[Anonymous No.12765736]

>>12765161
= to define functions.

Post brought to you by the CS gang.

[Anonymous No.12765756]

>>12765161
[math] <\psi | O |\psi> [/math]

Whoever invented this notation needs to be drawn and quartered. Whoever enjoys it needs to be shot.

[Anonymous No.12765759]

>>12765161
Faggots who use mathematica terms for functions.
I've seen people who've written published papers with [math]f^{(0,1)}(x,t)[/math] for derivatives instead of normal human notation and even writing shit like WhittakerW for [math]W_{k,m}(z)[/math] or BesselJ when non retards would just write down the fucking function

[Anonymous No.12765764]

>>12765353
Embrace the chaotic evil.

[math] ^2 \sin(x) [/math]

[Anonymous No.12765863]

>>12765283
in academic settings, big O is perfectly consistent. its only outside of academic settings that you see software guys using big O poorly. big O is also super based and makes manipulating certain equations super easy since when things start to get messy you can just start using big O or Theta notation to immediately get rid of all the ugliness.

[Anonymous No.12765868]

>>12765214
it's too cryptic for teaching

[Anonymous No.12765944]

>>12765161
Math, not maths.

[Anonymous No.12765960]

>>12765161
Category theory

[Anonymous No.12766748]

>using variables other than x,y,z,t
>using capital and small letter as different variables (eks T and t, S and s, O and o)
>using x1 and x2 as different variables
>the real,rational, integer, etc set weird letters
>set symbols in general (i still look up which one is intersection and which one is union)
just fuck off. literally making shit more confusing for no reason

[Anonymous No.12766757]

>>12765161
The use of Jewish letters as:
[math]\aleph \quad \aleph_0 \quad \beth \quad \gimel[/math]

[Anonymous No.12766762]

>>12765297
technically I suppose he could say [math]o(x)=O(x)[/math] but [math]O(x)=o(x)[/math] but nobody would use that anyway

[Anonymous No.12766763]

>>12766762
I meant [math]O(x)\neq o(x)[/math] obviously

[Anonymous No.12766770]

>>12765759
f^(0,1) can make things less ambiguous.
If you wanted to plug in different variables where x and t are, df/dt becomes ambiguous.
What if you wanted to swap x and t?
f^(0,1)(t,x) is easily understood.

[Anonymous No.12766771]

>>12766748
Math is just a language, we can easily make up another one to replace math.
The thoughts behind a formula are what matters, not the symbols, not the words.

[Anonymous No.12766774]

>>12765161
Unironically Penrose notation

[Anonymous No.12766779]

>>12766757
vs. The use of German Fraktur letters:

[math] \mathcal{L}\{f(x)\} \quad \mathfrak{Heil \ Hitler! Heil \ das 3rd \ Reich} [/math]

[Anonymous No.12766793]

>>12766770
Yes, it's easily understood. The thing I don't like about it is that I've been reading it a lot in papers which have significant amounts of obvious copy-pasted Mathematica output.

[Anonymous No.12766797]

>>12766771
Sometimes the notation makes things easier/obvious.
Leibniz notation makes things like the chain rule obvious.
[math]e^{a \partial_x}[f(x)]=f(x+a)[/math]
Opens the door for generalization more than f(x+a) alone.

[Anonymous No.12766800]

>>12766779
Much better

[Anonymous No.12766841]

>>12766771
yeah when i am doing a 2 hour test i don't want to be confused with similar looking notations that mean different things

[Anonymous No.12767026]

Professors using words/anything more than two letters as sub scripts. E.g. " let [math]T_{amb} [/math] denote the ambient temperature"

[Anonymous No.12767027]

>>12766797
>ea∂x[f(x)]=f(x+a)ea∂x[f(x)]=f(x+a)
Hahahahahaha what the fuck is this

[Anonymous No.12767036]

>>12767026
>[math]T_amb[/math]
[math]T_\mathrm{amb}[/math]

[Anonymous No.12767043]

>>12765944
No, American, euros invented Maths first, we take precedence in the proper spelling of it. I know Americans like to be different but they're on their own with that, verses the world.

The world calls it Maths. It's Maths no MAFFFFFFFFFFF.

[Anonymous No.12767819]

absolute value is a bullshit rule

[Anonymous No.12767863]

>>12766762
thats not inconsistent though

[Anonymous No.12767984]

from Hardy's The Theory of Numbers

[Anonymous No.12768026]

>>12765335
Fuck arcsin, i ain't writing that shit out every goddamn time.

[Anonymous No.12768029]

>>12767984
holy shit

[Anonymous No.12768062]

>>12766748
T vs. t makes sense though. They are distinct shapes. S vs s or O vs o is cancer.

Using sequential x1 notation is great for sets of variables that share a commonality x but iterate producing unique entries in a vector.

>Using equations that can be satisfied with 4 variables
We need more than just x,y,z,t

[Anonymous No.12768119]

>>12767984
No way, man. That du bois reymond shit is great. from Hardy's Orders of Infinity.

[Anonymous No.12768144]

>>12767984
WTF? Where do the [math]A[/math]s come from, and why aren't they the same? Why not us different symbols like [math]A[/math] and [math]B[/math] or even [math]A_1[/math] and [math]A_2[/math] to represent them if you aren't even going to have them be equivalent to each other? What do they even represent, can they be any number? What the fuck was this pajeet-loving faggot thinking?

[Anonymous No.12768162]

>>12768144

It's like writing x^2 + 1 = x^2 "where the x on the right is naturally not the same as the one on the left".

[Anonymous No.12768305]

>>12767027
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shift_operator
It shows up in Lie groups (infinitesimal generators)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_group#The_exponential_map
Quantum mechanics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_operator_(quantum_mechanics)#Momentum_as_generator_of_translations
The generating function of Bell polynomials (how to write the taylor series of a composition of functions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_polynomials#Generating_function

[Anonymous No.12768377]

>>12766762
That's just because people are lazy. The proper notation is [math]f \in O(g)[/math]. For example, [math]o(x \mapsto x) \subset O(x \mapsto x)[/math] but [math]o(x \mapsto x) \not\supset O(x \mapsto x)[/math].
Mathematicians do this much better with their [math]\ll[/math] notation but that typically already means something else in the context of physics and CS.

[Anonymous No.12768399]

>>12767027
It's just the unitary [math]U(a) = e^{iaP}[/math] generated by the self-adjoint "momentum operator" [math]P = -i \partial_x[/math]. "Momentum generates translations", as the physicists say.

[Anonymous No.12768582]

>>12765161
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_notation

[Anonymous No.12768984]

>>12765195
The calculus swoosh?

[Anonymous No.12769014]

>>12768984
think he means this shit

[Anonymous No.12769055]

>>12765335
I use arcsin but as long as there are no brainless in the room it's fine if somebody uses sin^(-1), we all know what it means

[Anonymous No.12769075]

>>12766748
>I still look up which one is intersection and which one is union
On the off chance this isnt b8, union looks like a big fucking U, intersection is just the other one

[Anonymous No.12769092]

0x0=2

Is it possible to disprove this with logic and reasoning?

[Anonymous No.12769283]

>>12769075
But how do you know to remember the word "union" instead of "intersection"

[Anonymous No.12769287]

>>12769283
Because big U looks like "U"nion, and the operation is the two sets joining together to make a union

[Anonymous No.12769513]

>>12765161
I hate seeing niggers write arcsinh, arctanh, etc instead of arsinh, artanh when they have nothing to do with circular arcs.

[Anonymous No.12769543]

>>12765161
Anything that denotes with [math]π[/math] as if it's just another letter of the Greek alphabet
Also fuck topology in general

[Anonymous No.12769728]

>>12767036
huh? there was no latex typo?

[Anonymous No.12769969]

>>12769092
Eh, according to Wikipedia you have to assume a bunch of things by definition:

Firstly the peano axioms to define the natural numbers. In which case, the symbol "2" is defined as S(S(0)). These axioms also state that there does not exist an n, such that S(n) = 0. Though, I think you could alternatively just say that
0 =/= 1 .

Then you have to define multiplication. And again, by definition, 0*n = 0.
Therefore, 0*0 = 0

If 0*0 = 2, then 0 = 2
But then that means 0 = S(S(0)), which contradicts the assumption that 0 isn't the "successor" of anything.

Alternatively, if 0 = 2, then 0*(1/2) = 2*(1/2)
In which case, 0 = 1, which contradicts the alternative axiom I gave.

[Anonymous No.12769981]

>>12769543
That first sentence is pure gold when followed by that second sentence. Thanks for the laughs.

[Anonymous No.12769985]

>>12769969
i think the general claim would be that 0^N = N. It's a fairly consistent number system

[Anonymous No.12770486]

>>12769985
wat

[Anonymous No.12771330]

>>12765161
>[math] \alpha [/math]
literally just a in a different font

[Anonymous No.12771334]

How am I supposed to use this shit?

[Anonymous No.12771338]

>>12765161
mine, it's the most autistic shit ever.

[Anonymous No.12771340]

>>12766748
>>using variables other than x,y,z,t
So if more than 4 variables are necessary then what do we use?

[Anonymous No.12771341]

>>12771334
idk what you mean, fren. looks perfectly intuitive.

[Anonymous No.12773658]

>>12771340
a b c d e f g k m n p q r u v w. don't ask why i didn't include some letters

[Anonymous No.12773995]

>>12765756
Surely [math]\mathrm{\rho O}[/math] is better.

[Anonymous No.12773998]

>>12773995
I meant tracing it.

[Anonymous No.12774008]

>>12771334
I was able to figure it out by looking at the picture, so it can't be that bad