/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15852815]

reminder that math shouldn't be a pain in the ass to read

[Anonymous No.15852821]

>>15852815
Is the right supposed to be easier to read? Retarded thread.

[Anonymous No.15852826]

>>15852821
if you can add, multiply, and repeat steps, you can read the right hand side
the left is just undefined symbols (pull request denied)

[whydoiexist No.15852827]

both are equally as hard to read, specially since most programming languages dont write for loops the same way

also this do be easy to read, just know that these are a shorthand of writing a shitton of terms that follor a pattern, you can also write it as:

0 + 3 + 6 + 9 + 12
0 + 3 + ... + 3n + ... + 12

[Anonymous No.15852828]

The left side is much more compact than the right side tho

[Anonymous No.15852829]

>>15852815
the left side makes perfect sense though

[Anonymous No.15852832]

>>15852827
>since most programming languages dont write for loops the same way
irrelevant
just use appropriate english-language pseudocode eg.
>prod = 1
>n = 1
>loop while n <=4
>(prod = prod*n)>>15852828
>The left side is much more compact than the right side tho
legit complaint
boom done and even a 5 year old can understand

[Anonymous No.15852834]

>>15852826
You might have a valid point if you had written out n <- n+1 for the incrementer. n++ is programming-specific domain knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15852836]

>>15852834
it is absolutely a valid point because see
>prod = 1
>n = 1
>loop while n <=4
>(prod = prod*n
>n = n+1)
is self explanatory and intuitive
it's math with a well designed UI

[Anonymous No.15852838]

>>15852836
>>n = n+1)
That's my point. The pic in the OP doesn't say that, it says
>n++
which is just as esoteric as sigma summation notation. (Which of course isn't esoteric at all.)

[Anonymous No.15852841]

>>15852838
yes I agree, c/c++ is not the best notation
but it is a great starting point for basic principles, owing to its origin as a git-er-done systems programming language
my pseudocode above is a more refined form, meant to use only the bare minimum elements
much like BASIC but with some key differences for simplicity to non-coders

[Anonymous No.15852845]

>>15852815
>literally billions of different coding languages
>math is the same in every country across the world

[Anonymous No.15852846]

the idea is that if somebody can read a shopping list and do basic arithmetic, they should be able to intuitively read ALL the math
there should be no constant roadblocks due to symbol lookups
that's time wasted and time is too precious

[Anonymous No.15852848]

>>15852845
I'm not advocating using a programming language, that is a common misconception
I'm advocating using plain language instruction lists
in other words, pseudocode, but a universalist form
a pidgin language for the wild west of computing and technology
allow me to refine my previous example further
>prod = 1
>n = 1
>loop while n <=4 (
>prod = prod*n
>n = n+1)
a small change but the parenthesis movement makes the nested instruction list clearer to read
do you see what I mean, this is something anybody who can follow a recipe and look at and immediately figure out
you could teach an lost amazon tribe how do it in about 30 minutes

[Anonymous No.15852854]

>import sympy
>f'=sp.diff
Huh wtf is a diff?

[Anonymous No.15852856]

>>15852846
>>15852848
This verbosity takes too long to write out. Imagine writing a real analysis exam like this? The time invested in learning the standard notation pays dividends as soon as you start using it.
You're also introducing statefulness where it wasn't before, although that could be addressed by writing functional pseudocode.

[Anonymous No.15852861]

>>15852856
exactly, functions are the next logical inclusion
and with that, in practice, the verbosity problem is solved
your real analysis complaint has been solved as there are real analysis libraries already written in code
it is merely necessary to translate them into the pidgin language
and this can of course be done automatically via an appropriate compiler
then it's merely a matter a of learning the code like any other library
easier with instructions but always doable eventually just by patience and brute force

[Anonymous No.15852863]

>>15852848
>I'm advocating using plain language instruction lists
why the fuck do you think we developed algebraic notation in the first place you idiot? we tried writing things out in full for thousands of years and it was shit

[Anonymous No.15852866]

also I will add that real analysis is not exactly what I would consider practical
I am concerned chiefly with practical applications of math
namely enabling the people of the world to get shit done fast without needing to memorize a billion symbols
>>15852863
yes because writing technology was shit
we have computers and smartphones now
they are the defacto standard of communication for 8 billion people
lets make it intuitive
the limiting factor is no longer chalk or ink, it's human time and attention

[Anonymous No.15852870]

>>15852836
>n = n+1
>intuitive
lol

[Anonymous No.15852872]

allow me to make another comparison
here we have traditional music notation vs piano roll
tradional notation is symbols that denote meaning in a way that is not intutitive
one must memorize the shapes and little extra accents etc
it is highly influenced by its history of accumulated incremental additions
it is optimized for compactness at the expense of losing the simple bar length = note length relationship
traditional notation is cryptic and difficult to master for many, much like traditional math notation
so in practice we must adapt to the future and adopt the simple intuitive approach
the piano roll wins (or it's guitar equivalent, the guitar tab) and so too will simple instructions in the common language of the day and time
which is currently simple english, some traditional arithmetic symbols, a few custom additions to make it pseudocode with functions, and boom, a universal language of the mathematical future
a lowest common denominator of meaning that is turing complete

[Anonymous No.15852886]

>>15852821
Right is always better, you commie piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.15852888]

>>15852815
Next time use pre-increment. Don't use post increment unless is strictly necessary.

[Anonymous No.15852892]

>>15852815
It's not unless the author's retarded
>I will now use greek letters that are used for 13 different quantities throughout my own fucking literature.
>it is left as an exercise for the reader to translate my notation OUT OF THE GIVEN FORM so that it can be used

[Anonymous No.15852948]

>>15852815
sigma and pi notation are easy to read though

[Anonymous No.15852953]

>>15852815
why do you use += and *=? Those symbols are incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.15853023]

>>15852872
>piano roll
lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq3bUFgEcb4

[Anonymous No.15853042]

>>15852815
The implicit assumption in your post that "for( something; something; something){something}" is somehow more natural notation than [math]\sum_{i=a}^bf(i)[/math] is quite biased.
Go back to writing out math with full sentences like they used to do if you'd like, I'm sure journals will be very happy to receive papers that are 3 times as long than before.

[Anonymous No.15853072]

>>15852815
It is always the CS undergrads who are just dying to change mathematical notation. Sum/product, pi, logarithms, derivatives, you name it.

[Anonymous No.15853076]

>>15852815
Ah
A programmer complaining about math's readability

That's hilarious

[Anonymous No.15853079]

>>15852848
I do not speak english
The hell does loop and while mean??

One advantage to the math notation ks it's language agnostic.

[Anonymous No.15853085]

>>15852872
The piano roll is a lot harder to figure out at a glance once you know both systems.

Also as a musician, having to flip pages mid-song is a fucking pain. Piano roll omöy makes that worse.

Not to mention how the hell do you make a piano roll for brass and the like? Their notes don't map to their buttons 1 to 1. One button press can be anywhere from 2-5 possible notes depending on how you blow into it.

[Anonymous No.15853094]

>>15852872
This is actually a great comparison, and here's why.
Just like ignorant amateurs (programmers and pseudo intellectuals) are convinced they know better about mathematical notation, the naivety of your musical "comparison" shows the complete lack of understanding of musical notation as well.

So it is indeed a great comparison, basically screaming "leave shit to professionals". I know it's 4chin where you think that you are all smarter than the rest of the population, but the irony is just too on the nose.

[Anonymous No.15853128]

>>15852815
I dont understand
Notice: Undefined variable: sum in C:\Users\Barkun\Documents\math.php on line 1

[Anonymous No.15853135]

>>15852848
>this is something anybody who can follow a recipe and look at and immediately figure out
same thing with sigma and pi notation

[Anonymous No.15853155]

>>15852815
it isn't.
the one on the left needs few definitions to understand, the one on the right needs lots. on the other hand, one on te right is easiest to type out.
in fact, mathematics and popular programming languages are currently written in some of the best ways i can think of. you shouldn't be proud to advertise yourself as a brainlet.

or is this post proof the ai is actually sentient and only understands computer language, so is pushing for changes of convention? because that is how i read this.

[Anonymous No.15853169]

>>15852815
"any sufficiently expressive programming language can serve as a foundation of mathematics"

[Anonymous No.15853373]

>>15852866
>>15852832
>>15852836
>>15852848
People still [math]\mathbf{do}[/math] math with pen and paper, you massive midwit.
Stop being such a baby and get used to index notation already, undergrad. You will never amount to anything if you throw childish temper tantrums over conventions people far smarter than you have used to accomplish great things.
Not to mention, if your alternative is supposedly this much superior, why not write a university-level math book in it? Oh right because you're nothing more than a mischievous shitposter with little to say. Go back to doing homework, son

[Anonymous No.15853544]

>>15852815
is there a programming language that supports
\sum_{n=0}^{4}3n ?

[Anonymous No.15853552]

>>15853544
I puke

[Anonymous No.15853553]

>>15852815
>replace cool greek letters with some programming language
yeah great idea

[Anonymous No.15853586]

>>15852815
>muh one formal language is better than other reeeeeee
Humans aren't computers you CS retard
kys

[Anonymous No.15853591]

>>15853128
Me neither
>main.c:2:2: error: ‘sum’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> sum = 0;

[Anonymous No.15853625]

>>15853552
APL:
+/×∘24

[Anonymous No.15853628]

>>15853625
ahem
[math]+/\times\cdot 2\iota 4 [/math]

[Anonymous No.15853640]

>>15852815
what if the index set you are summing/multiplying over isn't integers?

[Anonymous No.15853646]

>>15852815
I Fixed your notation bro.

[Anonymous No.15853647]

>>15853646
Maybe I should have put "0,4" and "1,4" in brackets.

[Anonymous No.15853660]

anyone know of any resources that are good to truly learn the notation of math? I know wikipedia lists all the major stuff but it would be good to find a resource that explains things a bit better and provides examples

[Anonymous No.15853680]

>>15852821
fpbp
Computer notation was made for computers, not for humans to read.

[Anonymous No.15853727]

I read math faster than code (YWNBAW). The thing that varies is most important shit, then its the thing we do, summation, product, integral. then are the limits.

code is pain in the ass to read actually. you initialized two things, sum and n. then that obscure ++ <= ;; notations

[Anonymous No.15853739]

>>15852815
[eqn] x=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} {\frac{1}{2}}^n [/eqn]
Try writing this you fucking retard lol

[Anonymous No.15853769]

Math notation is the description of what something *is*. "This is the summation of 3*n, for each n from 0 to 4".
Imperative code like that is the step-by-step procedure to arrive at the result, but it is not descriptive.

[Anonymous No.15853778]

>>15853640
I assume [math]\displaystyle\sum_{n \in Set} f(n)[/math]

[Anonymous No.15853797]

>>15852826
>pull request denied)
What the fuck does this even mean you stupid fucking nigger? Go back to your tranny board >>>/g/

Fucking despise CS chucklefucks.

>>15852848
This already existed as math was primarily all language or geometric shapes before the likes of Viete cleaned it up for ease of use. You are trying to talk on a topic you have no idea about.
Its simply a form of abstraction that you SHOULD have learned about, but didn't, as CS education the last 20 years has comprised entirely of webshit Javascript copy pasting and zero academic rigor. Never met a CS major that wasn't borderline subhuman intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15853905]

>>15852821
fpbp

t. compsci fag

[Anonymous No.15853913]

>>15852886
What on earth? The left is much easier to read. The reason those symbols exist in the first place is to make it as easy to read as possible. On the right I don't even know that the n++ is supposed to mean so it's not like the right one is any better.

[Anonymous No.15853917]

>>15852815
Left is better in every way. You're just can't into pen&paper. Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15853922]

>computers are calculators
>computers are math
>being such a retard that you discriminate math notation vs. computer math notation
ngmi

[Anonymous No.15853923]

>>15852848
>I'm advocating using plain language instruction lists
That's how maths was done prior to the 15th century and it was a pain in the ass. It's clear you're just a brainlet, and using plain language to do maths would not be of ANY help to you. Because, I am so sorry for repeating myself: you're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.15853995]

>>15853739
>while(true)

[Anonymous No.15854000]

>>15852815
compshit science fags fear the greek letters.

[Anonymous No.15854031]

>>15852815
nice b8, worthy of sage

[Anonymous No.15854163]

>>15853628
Oh no it's actually [math]+/\times\circ 2\iota 4[/math]

[Anonymous No.15854201]

>>15853995
>>while(true)
If it doesn’t end how can x eventually equal 2 as it does in the way I wrote it?

[Anonymous No.15854204]

The code is harder to read.

[Anonymous No.15854272]

>>15852846
It takes 5 minutes to learn and speeds up everything afterwards

[Anonymous No.15854340]

>CS midwit rage thread
Yeah, I want to understand a concept by just looking at it instead of untangling your pajeet-style ramblings on the right which will mostly contain errors for anything more complex than your puny example.

[Anonymous No.15854356]

Uh-huh, express this
[math]\int_{0}^\pi \Gamma(0.5\cdot z) \mathrm{d}z[/math],
bitch.

[Anonymous No.15854360]

>>15853660
You could google it
A lot of university and school resources out there.

You can also simply go visit your local library, they should have something

[Anonymous No.15854370]

>>15853922
To be even more precise, computers are flawed math

They have a lot of limits to what they can do. Rounding errors abound

[Anonymous No.15854380]

>>15853739
LMAO
https://godbolt.org/z/We1hvEzdj

[Anonymous No.15854594]

I'm a csfag and the left is far easier to read and more powerful. You just need to get used to it first (doesn't take that long unless you're a niggercattle codemonkey)

[Anonymous No.15854615]

>>15852815
In J this is just
[math]
\;\;\;\texttt{+/ 3 * i.>:4}\\
\texttt{30}\\
\;\;\;\texttt{*/ 2 * >:i.4}\\
\texttt{384}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.15854674]

>>15853739
Okay, now what?
[math]
\;;;\texttt{inf =: _}
\;\;\;\texttt{n =: 2}\\
\;\;\;\texttt{(+ verb :'n =: 0.5 * n')^:inf (0)}\\
\texttt{2}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.15854686]

>>15854674
typo
[math]
\;\;\;\texttt{inf =: _}\\
\;\;\;\texttt{n =: 2}\\
\;\;\;\texttt{(+ verb :'n =: 0.5 * n')^:inf 0}\\
\texttt{2}
[/math]

[Anonymous No.15854793]

>>15854356
>gamma function
AHHHH WOLFRAM SAVE MEEEEEE!!

[Anonymous No.15854822]

>>15853646
How about [math]\underset{n \in 0..4}{+}(3n)[/math]?

[Anonymous No.15854823]

>>15852815
both are piss easy to read

[Anonymous No.15854829]

>>15854370
Deprecate floats! Exact real arithmetic now!

[Anonymous No.15854844]

>>15854356
LMAO, you are not even trying.

https://godbolt.org/z/qTo7Tf1sr

[Anonymous No.15854864]

>>15854844
>floatshit

[Anonymous No.15854893]

>>15854356
Are you fucking retarded? That is easy to express in code. Just use some library to calculate that, or store it as a string containing a syntactically valid expression that can be parsed by some algorithm: ∫(1, π, Γ(.5 * z), z)

[Anonymous No.15854965]

>>15852815
I saw this on X and I love seeing these posts from SV people loudly announce that they are dumb as shit.

[Anonymous No.15854968]

>>15852886
Right side does not allow you to easily insert a sum or product into a larger expression or manipulate it, it's code not a term in an equation.

[Anonymous No.15855032]

>>15854968
It just needs syntax candy to turn it into an expression, here an example in C++20 featuring arbitrary integer precision:

https://godbolt.org/z/8drhvMsMr

[Anonymous No.15855035]

>>15855032
>syntax candy
and how is this any better than mathematical notion, again?

[Anonymous No.15855037]

int != integer
float != real number

try brute-force summing over a countably infinite number of terms and call me when you computer halts.

[Anonymous No.15855038]

>>15855035
> notion
notation

[Anonymous No.15855044]

>>15855035
You can type it fast and copy/paste it into code, no need to deal with trash tier hand writing.

[Anonymous No.15855066]

>>15855037
LMAO, nobody rational does that.
In real world applications those calculations go on until datatype precision, time, or memory allocated to solve the problem depletes.

[Anonymous No.15855069]

>>15852815
Both are easy to read.

[Anonymous No.15855071]

>>15855066
>In real world applications
math doesn't require an application
also, analytics are strictly superior to numerics, when available

[Anonymous No.15855186]

>>15852815
Pen and paper supports anything. In the other side you have notation developed in times where computers only supported a very reduced set of characters, mono spaced fonts, and strict left to right, top down order.
If you believe left is easier to read you are delusional.

[Anonymous No.15855211]

>>15854686
This loops forever, x will never equal 2

[Anonymous No.15855219]

>>15852815
the preference for the right is more or less why i "can't" do math/physics. if you explain the process linearly, in the english language or an english language like way (i.e. a programming language) then i can follow it, but if i have to disentangle a messy visual structure full of arbitrary letters or symbols (i.e. all but the simplest equations) then i'll inevitably lose track of things, even if you explain the correct way to parse it. the extra load brings the whole thing to a halt.

i'd love to know why that is, even if it's just that i'm dumb and this is true of all dumb people.

[Anonymous No.15855274]

>>15855211
It actually only loops for half a millisecond

[Anonymous No.15855378]

>>15852815
Now write [math] \sum_{x \in (0,1)} a_x [/math] in programmer "notation".

[Anonymous No.15855526]

>>15852821
yes it is codelet

[Anonymous No.15855602]

>>15855219
>even if it's just that i'm dumb and this is true of all dumb people
I know /sci/ is unresonably toxic when it comes to this topic, but you just might be a little retarded.
You really can't look at the left and feel/see it roll out into a full sum or product? Literally all you have to learn is sigma means sum and pi means product.
It would be impossible to get anything done if I had to do any reasonably complex math in pseudocode. It's just not dense enough to write by hand.

[Anonymous No.15855710]

>>15854822
Very nicely done! It's an improvement, but I think [math]\in[\math] may be a little too scary, so perhaps replace it with [math]=[\math].

[Anonymous No.15856394]

>>15855378
>>/thread/

[Anonymous No.15856450]

>>15855378

[Anonymous No.15857062]

>>15855602
>feel/see
statements of the utterly deranged

[Anonymous No.15857163]

>>15855378
>write an impossible statement
No?

[Anonymous No.15857168]

[Anonymous No.15857181]

>>15857163
how is it impossible?

[Anonymous No.15857203]

>>15854674
>>15854686
Okay, shit for brains. Now tell us all the error margin here. Because you know what champ, computers are pretty terrible at storing real numbers.
We all wait on your, no doubt, well thought out and accurate response.

[Anonymous No.15857207]

>>15857181
It’s impossible to iterate over the real numbers, since there is no concept of a successor. What you wrote is infinitist schizophrenia of the uncountable variety, which is doubly retarded and utterly useless to consider in the real world

[Anonymous No.15857209]

>>15857207
since when is summation iteration
mathlets always crack me up when their shitty mental models break

[Anonymous No.15857211]

>>15857209
>since when is summation iteration
How do I find the next value to sum?

[Anonymous No.15857218]

>>15857211
you don't. you sum an entire set. its only your shitty mental model of iteration that requires there to be a closed form (or countably infinite) summation.

[Anonymous No.15857221]

>>15857218
>you sum an entire set
How? You still haven’t answered
>y-you just do!! I used the magical symbol therefore it’s all taken care of!!!
Schizophrenia

[Barkun No.15857223]

>>15857221
'coming off wrongly'

[Anonymous No.15857224]

>>15857221
the computation is dependant on what's being sum. That's where the whole math thing comes in. You fundamentally misunderstand the point of mathematical notation. A symbol doesn't need to tell you how to evaluate it.

[Barkun No.15857226]

>>15857224
'g force hijack' hello?

[Anonymous No.15857232]

>>15857224
>A symbol doesn't need to tell you how to evaluate it.
And I am asking you how to specifically evaluate that expression.
Pro tip: you can’t because it’s schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.15857235]

>>15857232
how do you evaluate a + b? Is addition schizophrenia?

[Anonymous No.15857246]

>>15857235
I just calculate the successor of n for b times starting from a

Simple as

[Anonymous No.15857248]

>>15852815
[eqn]
f(x)=\begin{cases}
1 & x=1 \\
0 & x \neq 1
\end{cases}\\
\sum_{x \in \mathbb{R}}^{}f(x)
[/eqn]
What now forloopfag

[Anonymous No.15857634]

>>15857207
i.e. it's impossible to implement in a programming language like cslets want to turn math into
and yet [math]\sum_{x \in (0,1)} a_x + \sum_{x \in (0,1)} b_x = \sum_{x \in (0,1)} [a_x + b_x][/math] is a perfectly valid formula when each $a_x, b_x > 0$; by limiting your expressive power you have no way of proving it

[Anonymous No.15857647]

Left is significantly easier to read AND manipulate. Right is extremely difficult to manipulate. Like literally a lot of summation and product proofs are based around extreme manipulation of the terms that is just ugly and hideous to do in code speak.

Like pulling terms out individually to cancel other terms or to show how a sum is just another form of a different sum, etc.

It may be naively simpler to READ but reading is different than understanding and manipulating.

[Anonymous No.15857713]

>>15857248
LMAO

[math]printf("1");[/math]

[Anonymous No.15857720]

>>15857634
>formula

[Anonymous No.15857723]

>>15857207
A sum over an uncountable subset is defined as the supremum over the sums of all countable subsets.

[Anonymous No.15857945]

>>15852845
math isn't the same even within the same university. different domains constantly appropriate names and symbols used by other domains.

[Anonymous No.15857981]

>>15852815
Isn't everything when you don't have prior exposure? The fuck does a + mean to a dog?

[Anonymous No.15857983]

>>15857221
>How do I find the next value to sum?
graph reduction

[Anonymous No.15858009]

>>15857983
Graph reduction of the real numbers?

[Anonymous No.15858074]

>>15857723
an elegant way to put it. OP in shambles

[Anonymous No.15858102]

>>15858074
>OP in shambles
lol schizophrenics truly are retarded
>uhmmm actually you can define an uncountable sum as a limit over an uncountable number of sums
Wow you sure showed me

[Anonymous No.15858127]

>>15852815
I understand the C and the math. both valid, both correctly equivalent. whats yr point anon ?

[Anonymous No.15858130]

>>15853739
yeah rtd do that in C

[Anonymous No.15858167]

>>15858009
No, that's a set, not a graph. The graph which the reduction rules are applied to is the directed graph that the entirety of the program is broken down into. The set of real numbers is nothing more than a single function in the wider graph.

[Anonymous No.15858171]

>>15858127
C is more fundamental than the jewish schizophrenia we have been taught to believe is math.
We should dispense of these archaic and confused symbols, and teach mathematics in pseudocode as god intended.

[Anonymous No.15858181]

>>15852815
The left hand side is much simpler both to read and write once you know what it stands for. Conversely, if you had to use the notation every time you wanted to do a sum or a product over a sequence of numbers, it would be very cumbersome to both write all of that and read all of that every single time.

[Anonymous No.15858184]

>>15858181
*the notation on the right

[Anonymous No.15858186]

>>15852845
>>math is the same in every country across the world
Then solve this nigger
6/2(1+2)=?

[Anonymous No.15858194]

>>15852815
Love it!

[Anonymous No.15858203]

>>15858102
you wanted to know how to calculate the infinite sum. You have it.
>inb4 supremums dont exist

[Anonymous No.15858207]

>>15858203
Supremumists are not welcome here. This is the gayborhood! BLACK TRANS LIVES MATTER!

[Anonymous No.15858583]

>>15857203
This isn't about using real computers retard, it's notation

[Anonymous No.15858800]

>>15858203
>doesn't give a way to calculate
>”you have it”
LOL

[Anonymous No.15859112]

>>15853739
(%i1) x = sum(1/2^n, n, 0, inf);
(%o1) x = 2

[Anonymous No.15859131]

>>15854615
Based.

[Anonymous No.15859278]

>>15853680
>Computer notation was made for computers, not for humans to read.
Fucking retarded statement. Sure thing fuckface.

[Anonymous No.15861230]

>>15852815
try writing actual equations like that (physics for example) and do algebra with them. you just went back to Greek times when math was paragraphs

[Anonymous No.15861237]

>>15861230
soul

[Anonymous No.15861246]

>>15861230
You can't "do algebra". That's the schizo shit that got us into this mess.
A retvrn to true mathematics like the Greeks had would be ideal. Code is the language of mathematics perfected. Enumerative, logical, countable, and pristine.

[Anonymous No.15861477]

>>15852815
>>15852848
>csfags post shit like this and have the gaul to think that they're mathematicians

[Anonymous No.15861557]

>>15858171
whatever contrarian

[Anonymous No.15861560]

>>15857207
>it's impossible to integrate
This is your brain on Computer "Science"

[Anonymous No.15861629]

>>15861560
While they're certainly better than the twitterbaiters, /pol/acks, and the leftoids trying to stir shit up. Why are these spergs on here and not /g/?

[Anonymous No.15861653]

>>15852821
You got me fucked up fr if you think I'm writing 3 lines when a sum suffices
No cap

[Anonymous No.15861700]

>>15852872
You just proved why nobody should ever listen to you.

[Anonymous No.15861722]

>>15852815
The left side is already basically perfect as is. The Greek letters are really the main point of contention, but all you have to do is swap them with a more commonly used symbol.
The secondary point of contention is that we could just use set notation to display the range of the operation.
All things taken into account, I think pic related is the most adequate replacement.
>>15853646
>>15853647
>>15854822

[Anonymous No.15861739]

>>15861722
> but all you have to do is swap them with a more commonly used symbol.
But that's just unnecessary, once you've associated capital Sigma with "sum" and capital Pi with "product" its an easy convention to remember, use, and understand.
It doesn't need changing because some code mongrels think themselves smarter than they actually are.

[Anonymous No.15861750]

>>15861739
>It doesn't need changing
It doesn't need to be changed, obviously. My proposal was based on the hypothetical "IF we were going to change it (to improve it), how would we change it?", and I think this would be the best way to do it.
As for Sigma standing for sum and Pi standing for product, it's definitely intuitive once you're familiar with sigma and pi, but most people encounter summation long before they are familiar with sigma. It's for this reason that I'd argue that the plus sign is *more* intuitive than sigma, though sigma is also fairly intuitive.

[Anonymous No.15861844]

>>15852815
If you just picked array position instead of Natural Number, it would be great.

[Anonymous No.15861940]

>>15857945
OK but Sigma and Pi for sum and product are definitely universal.

[Anonymous No.15861946]

>>15861246
You need to understand real math to optimize numerical methods. A real computer scientist should be able to tell me why Runge-Kutta is better than the Euler method. Do you even know what those words mean?

[Anonymous No.15861953]

>>15853544
I know of Maple and Mathematica. There's a symbolic math package for Python too, but it was kinda janky when I tried to use it. I'm sure there are other ones out there.

[Anonymous No.15862036]

>>15852815
fucking faggot where are the semicolons ?

[Anonymous No.15862048]

>>15852815
that is readable to me, are you afraind of the greek alphabet or something

[Anonymous No.15862523]

This thread is now about shilling your favorite nonstandard notations. Pic related shows some examples of [math]{\rm \bf signed~digits}[/math]. Draw a line over a digit and the digit becomes negative. It can be useful as an intermediate form if you're doing arithmetic by hand. I find it a bit faster than borrowing once you get used to it, and formalizes a lot of the clever shortcuts like doing 9x by 10x-x (since 9 can be rewritten as [math]1\bar{1}[/math]). Another use: You can represent real numbers as streams of signed digits, and you can do arithmetic operations on them without getting stuck when the answer is close to or equal to a terminating decimal. For example, if you tried to multiply an ordinary digit stream representing [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] by itself, you'd never have enough input digits decide whether the output stream should start with 1.999... or 2.000... . With signed digits this is no problem; you can just output 2.000... confident you can just throw in a negative digit the answer turns out to be less than 2.

[Anonymous No.15862701]

>>15852815
check the thread chat here

discord,gg/4channel

[Anonymous No.15863278]

>>15852815
nah, the real problem is naming the variables a,b,c, n,k,l,h

[Anonymous No.15863351]

>>15862523
that's actually kinda neat

[Anonymous No.15863526]

>>15852845
If you know just one programming language you can understand that it's a for loop in literally any other programming language.

[Anonymous No.15863540]

>>15853135
sigma balls lol! :)

[Anonymous No.15863919]

>>15863278
Another programmer misconception. It isn't a problem, we don't care about the names of things because we work with abstract things and short names again help to make the forms of expressions easier to discern.

[Anonymous No.15864003]

>>15861722
>The secondary point of contention is that we could just use set notation to display the range of the operation.
That means a different thing.

[Anonymous No.15864005]

>>15862523
>Another use: You can represent real numbers as streams of signed digits, and you can do arithmetic operations on them without getting stuck when the answer is close to or equal to a terminating decimal. For example, if you tried to multiply an ordinary digit stream representing 2‾√ by itself, you'd never have enough input digits decide whether the output stream should start with 1.999... or 2.000... . With signed digits this is no problem; you can just output 2.000... confident you can just throw in a negative digit the answer turns out to be less than 2.
I do not understand.

[Anonymous No.15864718]

>>15864005
Let's say you have a digit stream representing the square root of 2. But your algorithm to multiply it by itself doesn't know that. It just knows the digits it reads from the stream. When it has read 1.414 all it knows is that the number is somewhere between 1.414000... and 1.414999... inclusive. Since 1.414^2 < 2 and 1.415^2 > 2, it doesn't have enough information to decide whether the output is less than, greater than, or equal to 2. And it never will. So if it outputs a stream of digits starting with 2.0 then based on the information it has it might be wrong because the correct product might be less than 2, and it can't go back and change the digits it has already output. Same situation if it outputs 1.9; given the information it has, that could be wrong because the correct product could be greater than 2. So it's stuck forever, unable to decide whether to put a 1 or a 2 in the ones place of the output.

With signed digits it's fine to output 2.0 as soon as you know the product is between [math]2.0\bar{9}\bar{9}\bar{9}\ldots = 1.9[/math] and [math]2.0999\ldots = 2.1[/math] inclusive. Which you know as soon as you read the initial digits 1.41 from the input, since that tells you the number you're trying to square is between 1.40 and 1.42 inclusive, making its square between 1.96 and 2.0164 inclusive.

[Anonymous No.15865666]

>>15854893
Expressing in code is not the same as solving, you dumb CS tard.
>easy
Do it.

[Anonymous No.15866084]

>>15852815
>left
>runic symbols used because math autists thought they look cool
>gatekeeps mathematics

>right
>practical
>understandable
>accessible
>boring

[Anonymous No.15866368]

>>15861246
put down your phone and tech and live like an ancient Greek then. Last time I checked, algebra and the mathematisation of physics and engineering is what's responsible for modern tech and computers (plus programming languages ironically).

If you're not good at math, so be it. no shame in that. Just don't try to act like it's everyone else that is stupid cuz you're just outing yourself as stupid and ignorant

[Anonymous No.15866491]

>>15866368
I'm great at math. It's just the schizo shit I have no time for.

[Anonymous No.15866505]

>>15862523
Free groups use this notation.

[Anonymous No.15866540]

>>15853680
>Computer notation was made for computers, not for humans to read.
No, programming languages are designed to be easily readable for humans.

[Anonymous No.15866542]

>>15852854
the diff method found in sympy

[Anonymous No.15869060]

>>15852815
>thread
https://files.catbox.moe/rhxs00.png

[Anonymous No.15869132]

>>15853739
Close enough
https://files.catbox.moe/g2tntc.png

[Anonymous No.15869191]

>>15869132
The fact is in all modern research it is infinitely more useful to find patters with a computer that you can then research then to analytically solve sums and integrals that have had algorithms for decades.

[Anonymous No.15870351]

>>15852815
gay retard

[Anonymous No.15870385]

>>15852815
Found the pajeet.
Come back when you can poo in the loo

[Anonymous No.15870904]

>>15870385
toilets are too hard to understand how it works sar,
hole in the ground with shit is easy! pajeet is happy.

[Anonymous No.15870917]

i hate codefags so much. left is recognizable in an instant and you can add complexity elegantly in a way that is very quick to read

[Anonymous No.15870971]

I'm trans if that matters.

[Anonymous No.15871001]

>>15852845
she looks 16. I like it.

[Anonymous No.15871118]

>>15870971
Disgusting. Also the code.

[Anonymous No.15871932]

>>15852815
Left side: declarative expression
Right side: imperative procedure that mutates state
Not comparable

[Anonymous No.15871940]

>>15852815
>CTRL-F
>"Matlab"
>0 results

you have all failed as a collective

[Anonymous No.15872062]

>>15866491
If you think algebra and what's beyond it is schizo shit, then you're not great at math. you're a 4th grader at best

[Anonymous No.15872087]

>>15871940
>CTRL+Faggot
Matlab is for gay homos.

[Anonymous No.15872126]

>>15852826
The right’s got just as much syntax

[Anonymous No.15872506]

>>15871940
Haven't had to use matlab since I was in school m80

[Anonymous No.15872552]

>>15871940
>Matlab
Matlab has been deprecated since launch. Use Maple.

[Anonymous No.15872798]

>>15859112
>ERROR: expression inf undefined

[Anonymous No.15873340]

why do cs undergrad brainlet subhumans keep thinking we need to reinvent mathematics to please them

[Anonymous No.15873350]

>>15873340
they think that they're mathematicians

[Anonymous No.15873430]

>Matlab
You misspelled Octave

[Anonymous No.15874440]

>>15852836
>n=n+1
>this should be the standard
Why are programmers so retarded?

[Anonymous No.15874932]

>>15874440
Because they're only taught java script and how to google solutions. How else would they have undone all the gains in performance made possible by better hardware?

[Anonymous No.15876000]

HOW DO I WRITE THE FOLLOWING IN A SIMPLE WAY YOU RETARTED MONKEYS?
[eqn]\sum_{d\mid n }^{} f(d)[/eqn]
OR
[eqn]\sum_{I\in\binom{[2n]}{n} }^{} [/eqn]
OR
[eqn]\sum_{S,T\subseteq [n]\atop{ S \cup T =X\atop S\cap T = \emptyset }}^{} [/eqn]
OR
[eqn]\vdots[/eqn]
GET THE FUCK OUT OF /SCI/.

[Anonymous No.15876086]

>>15876000
CHECKED

[Anonymous No.15876099]

>>15852827
Yeah now do that inline for the KL-Divergence without using up multiple lines of text…

[Anonymous No.15876144]

>>15876099
>replying to the namefags

[Anonymous No.15876836]

>>15852848
retard, the left hand has 7 (SEVEN) whole characters, what does this dogshit accomplish? Is it too much trouble to remember a few more symbols and abstractions to reduce the volume of shit to parse? Clearly it is too much to ask of you!

[Anonymous No.15876838]

>>15852872
You aren't turing complete

[Anonymous No.15876839]

>>15876000
Irrelevant schizo shit.
The burden is on (You) to prove any of that garbage actually exists.

[Anonymous No.15877047]

>>15876839
dude they are all finite summations, obviously they exists.
These examples just show that summation over a countable set cannot always be expressed in "for loops".

[Anonymous No.15877065]

>>15877047
Retard

[Anonymous No.15877080]

>>15877047
Utterly deranged

[Anonymous No.15877140]

>>15877065
>>15877080
t.

[Anonymous No.15877275]

>>15877140
3 + 1

[Anonymous No.15878988]

>>15871001
>she looks 16.
This is your brain on 40+ hags

[Anonymous No.15878993]

>>15876000
Why do you care if you haven't even read knuth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iverson_bracket

[Anonymous No.15879050]

>>15862523
Interesting. Ive seen something like this - though only when dealing with log tables. Of course that wasnt what your describing here
>>15853769
This is the answer.

Also, its just cooler. I like feeling like a wizard when I doing real analysis lol

[Anonymous No.15879058]

>>15878993
Imagine being so pretentious that you name a simple worthless horrible notation after yourself.

[Anonymous No.15879095]

>>15878993
You're right, let me write
[eqn]\sum_{S,T\subseteq [n]\atop{S \cup T = X \atop S\cap T=Y}} f(S)g(T)[/eqn]
as
[eqn]\sum_{S,T} f(S)g(T)[S\cup T=X][S\cap T=Y][/eqn]
so I can write it in code as

for(set<int> S, T; (idk); (idk)) if(S.union(T) == X && S.inter(T) == Y){
res += f(S)g(T);
}

or whatever the fuck you're expecting me to write.

[Anonymous No.15879164]

>>15879095
It's literally just the dot product. Stop being retarded.
sum (X ∊ S , T) / (Y ∊ S T) +.× (f S) × g T

[Anonymous No.15879166]

>>15879164
sum is an identifier, should have been
sum <--

[Anonymous No.15879239]

Holy shit I hate /sci/ so much. Why can't you tards just TRUST that the people teaching you might, MIGHT, just know a bit more than you and have given proper thought to what needs to be taught and what doesn't.
If your teacher wants you to read Thomas's calculus and Lay's linear algebra over spivak/apostol and hoffman&kunze THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR IT.
If they want you learning math notation instead of programming or iverson notation. THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR IT.
PAY; SHUT UP AND LISTEN. THAT'S WHAT'S EXPECTED OF YOU AS A STUDENT.

[Anonymous No.15879372]

>>15879239
Didn't think we could have lower iq person than OP in this thread, but you just proved me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15879383]

>>15879239
>Thomas's calculus and Lay's linear algebra over spivak/apostol and hoffman&kunze THERE IS A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR IT

[Anonymous No.15879384]

>>15852815
sum(0,3,4)
prod(1,2,4)

[Anonymous No.15879387]

>>15879372
>>15879383
post IMO medals (or cf rating) or they are right.

[Anonymous No.15879389]

>>15879387
"They" are automatically wrong because I have had better experience following textbooks of my own choice.

[Anonymous No.15879404]

>>15852845
>literally billions
>literally

[Anonymous No.15879487]

>>15879372
>>15879383
Google MKM and know that either of those books contain just 0.0001% of knowledge and is only slightly relavant to less than 1% of all math. that would be appropriate to teach as math to students of mathematics.
Calculus wouldn't be popular unless there was large pressure to tech it to engies, analysis wouldn't be popular unless there was large pressure from physics departments. Most phds are structured such that we obtain new methods for solving pdes because that's what is needed NOW.

[Anonymous No.15879833]

>>15852827
>both are equally-
wow a fucking contrarian here lets see what he says
>as hard to read
wow you picked the worst spot to be a contrarian nice kys