Timeline for Suggestions for good notation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11 at 13:06 | comment | added | Guillermo BCN | @JoshuaZ: Yes, that is better. A symmetric relation should be denoted with a symmetric operator. | |
| May 21, 2020 at 11:16 | comment | added | JoshuaZ | Similar notation I've used is to put the (n) over the congruence symbol. | |
| Jan 28, 2018 at 4:42 | comment | added | Jim Conant | That is indeed a cool looking Fermat's theorem. | |
| Jan 27, 2018 at 22:06 | comment | added | Mr Pie | I still like this though... :) | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 18, 2015 at 19:31 | comment | added | LSpice | this notation has the advantage that it chains nicely: although we all know what it means, there is (I think) no logical sense in which $a \equiv b \equiv c \pmod n$ is the result of concatenating $a \equiv b \pmod n$ and $b \equiv c \pmod n$; whereas $a \equiv_n b \equiv_n c$ clearly is. One drawback: It may lead to useless chains like $1 \equiv_2 5 \equiv_3 2$. | |
| S Dec 16, 2014 at 0:57 | history | answered | echinodermata | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Dec 16, 2014 at 0:57 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by echinodermata |