Skip to main content
Question Unprotected by S. Carnahan
Post Unlocked by S. Carnahan
Question Protected by S. Carnahan
Post Locked by S. Carnahan
edited tags
Link
Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen
  • 24.8k
  • 3
  • 58
  • 114
Post Unlocked by François G. Dorais
Post Locked by François G. Dorais
closed poll
Source Link
François G. Dorais
  • 44.4k
  • 6
  • 150
  • 233

Wolfram's MathWorld website, at the page on functions, makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

This poll has now run its course. The final tally can be seen below.

Wolfram's MathWorld website, at the page on functions, makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

Wolfram's MathWorld website, at the page on functions, makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

This poll has now run its course. The final tally can be seen below.

Post Closed as "not constructive" by Charles Matthews, Harry Gindi, user3456, Jonas Meyer, HJRW
added 7 characters in body
Source Link
S. Carnahan
  • 45.7k
  • 6
  • 114
  • 220

MathWord from WolframWolfram's MathWorld website, at the page on functions, makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

MathWord from Wolfram, at the page on functions makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

Wolfram's MathWorld website, at the page on functions, makes the following claim about the notation $f(x)$ for a function:

While this notation is deprecated by professional mathematicians, it is the more familiar one for most nonprofessionals.

From context, it appears that this is referring to the use of $f(x)$ to refer to the actual function, rather than just to a particular value, when $x$ is (in the context) a dummy variable.

Is this true? Do professional mathematicians "deprecate" this notation?

To avoid long and windy discussions as to the values or otherwise of this notation (which would be much more appropriate in a blog), this question should be viewed as a poll. As MO runs on StackExchange 1.0, it doesn't have the feature whereby the actual "up" and "down" votes for an answer can be easily seen. Therefore I shall post two answers, one in favour and one against, the following statement. Please only vote up. A vote for one answer will be taken as a vote against the other. The Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold here. The motion is:

This house believes that the notation $f(x)$ to refer to a function has value in professional mathematics and that there is no need to apologise or feel embarrassed when using it thus.

Forgot to add the motion!
Source Link
Andrew Stacey
  • 26.8k
  • 12
  • 113
  • 187
Loading
Source Link
user9704
  • 167
  • 1
  • 2
Loading