Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

I heard or have read the following nice explanation for the origin of the convention that one uses (almost) always $x,y,z$ for variables. (This question was motivated by question Origin of symbol *l* for a prime different from a fixed prime?Origin of symbol *l* for a prime different from a fixed prime?)

It seems this custom is due to the typesetter of Descartes. Descartes used initially other letters (mainly $a,b,c$) but the typesetter had the same limited number of lead symbols for each of the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. The frequent use of variables exhausted his stock and he asked thus Descartes if he could use the last three letters $x,y,z$ of the alphabet (which occur very rarely in French texts).

Does anyone know if this is only a (beautiful) legend or if it contains some truth? (I checked that Descartes uses indeed already $x,y,z$ generically for variables in his printed works.)

I heard or have read the following nice explanation for the origin of the convention that one uses (almost) always $x,y,z$ for variables. (This question was motivated by question Origin of symbol *l* for a prime different from a fixed prime?)

It seems this custom is due to the typesetter of Descartes. Descartes used initially other letters (mainly $a,b,c$) but the typesetter had the same limited number of lead symbols for each of the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. The frequent use of variables exhausted his stock and he asked thus Descartes if he could use the last three letters $x,y,z$ of the alphabet (which occur very rarely in French texts).

Does anyone know if this is only a (beautiful) legend or if it contains some truth? (I checked that Descartes uses indeed already $x,y,z$ generically for variables in his printed works.)

I heard or have read the following nice explanation for the origin of the convention that one uses (almost) always $x,y,z$ for variables. (This question was motivated by question Origin of symbol *l* for a prime different from a fixed prime?)

It seems this custom is due to the typesetter of Descartes. Descartes used initially other letters (mainly $a,b,c$) but the typesetter had the same limited number of lead symbols for each of the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. The frequent use of variables exhausted his stock and he asked thus Descartes if he could use the last three letters $x,y,z$ of the alphabet (which occur very rarely in French texts).

Does anyone know if this is only a (beautiful) legend or if it contains some truth? (I checked that Descartes uses indeed already $x,y,z$ generically for variables in his printed works.)

Post Reopened by Kevin H. Lin, Mariano Suárez-Álvarez, Joel David Hamkins, François G. Dorais
Post Closed as "off topic" by S. Carnahan♦
Source Link
Roland Bacher
Roland Bacher
  • 17.9k
  • 3
  • 45
  • 113

Explanation why $x,y,z$ are always variables

I heard or have read the following nice explanation for the origin of the convention that one uses (almost) always $x,y,z$ for variables. (This question was motivated by question Origin of symbol *l* for a prime different from a fixed prime?)

It seems this custom is due to the typesetter of Descartes. Descartes used initially other letters (mainly $a,b,c$) but the typesetter had the same limited number of lead symbols for each of the 26 letters of the Roman alphabet. The frequent use of variables exhausted his stock and he asked thus Descartes if he could use the last three letters $x,y,z$ of the alphabet (which occur very rarely in French texts).

Does anyone know if this is only a (beautiful) legend or if it contains some truth? (I checked that Descartes uses indeed already $x,y,z$ generically for variables in his printed works.)