Timeline for Is the notation $f(x)$ "deprecated by professional mathematicians" (as claimed by Wolfram)? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 26, 2013 at 21:10 | history | unprotected | S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Jun 26, 2013 at 21:10 | history | unlocked | S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Jun 26, 2013 at 21:10 | history | protected | S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Jan 13, 2011 at 0:55 | history | locked | S. Carnahan♦ | ||
| Oct 20, 2010 at 18:43 | history | edited | Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 4, 2010 at 13:37 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | Harry: google for «the FP programming language». | |
| Oct 4, 2010 at 13:05 | history | unlocked | François G. Dorais | ||
| Oct 4, 2010 at 13:04 | history | locked | François G. Dorais | ||
| Oct 4, 2010 at 13:04 | history | edited | François G. Dorais | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
closed poll
|
| Oct 1, 2010 at 20:01 | history | closed |
Charles Matthews Harry Gindi user3456 Jonas Meyer HJRW |
not constructive | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 16:59 | comment | added | Harry Gindi | I think that there are certain cases involving morphisms depending on $n$ variables (and taking on different roles). For example, it's hard to say certain things about $Hom$ without filling in variables (For instance, the definition of composition is $M_{XYZ}:Hom(X,Y)\times Hom(Y,Z)\to Hom(X,Z)$ seems like it would be very tough to write without plugging in. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 10:27 | history | edited | S. Carnahan♦ | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2010 at 9:16 | comment | added | Charles Matthews | It's not a great question as formulated. A discussion of function notation with a free variable may or may not be something to deprecate, depending on how x is treated (y may be as good as x but equating f(x) = f(y) is in remarkably bad taste). With no reasons given, it is kind of hopeless. MathWorld will have had reasons, but how deep do they go? Serge Lang was influential with the barred short arrow, category theory is influential in elementless notation. Bound variable clash is an artefact of poorish notation. What are we talking here? | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 8:38 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | meta thread: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/692/poll-question-about-wolfram (please vote for this comment so that it appears "above the fold") | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 7:55 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | Okay, I've unilaterally turned this in to a "poll" question. If someone wants to keelhaul me for doing so, please open a thread at meta to do so. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 7:54 | answer | added | Andrew Stacey | timeline score: 32 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 7:53 | answer | added | Andrew Stacey | timeline score: 52 | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 7:51 | history | edited | Andrew Stacey | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Forgot to add the motion!
|
| Oct 1, 2010 at 7:41 | comment | added | Andrew Stacey | As is, the question is too vague. There are three question marks denoting three distinct questions. The actual questions are more suited to a blog post, I feel. I have some sympathy with the "request to rescue" based on countering the disinformation but feel that the question needs rewording in order for it to fit that mode. Given that it is borderline as is, I'm going to edit it to fit that. Those with sufficient rep can, of course, edit it themselves or revert it if it's felt I've not done it correctly. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:47 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | @Theo, it might make sense to keep this question open. Although mathematicians may know when to trust the Wolfram site and when not to, I think the site has credibility in the general population as Wolfram is the producer of a popular mathematics software package. So this thread would have something of an "outreach" role, at least as a rebuttal to the statement "depreciated by professional mathematicians". This is definately a borderline question though so I have no strong feelings either way. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:36 | comment | added | Theo Johnson-Freyd | I don't think that this is a good question for MO. Then again, I don't feel sufficiently strongly to vote to close --- moreover, I don't have a great reason for feeling this way. It's just that I think this would make a better discussion on a blog (or in a bar) than on MathOverflow (or in a mathematics seminar). | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:26 | comment | added | J. M. isn't a mathematician | "deprecated by professional mathematicians" - which ones, I wonder? | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:23 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | The question asked in the title is not the question asked in the body. Can you make up your mind as to what exactly you would like to know, and edit accordingly? | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:16 | comment | added | S. Carnahan♦ | I agree with Ryan. That is a strange claim by Wolfram, especially the part about "most rigorous notation". I should note that I've seen some CS-oriented people write $f = \lambda(x \mapsto x^2)$ instead of $f(x) = x^2$ or $f: x \mapsto x^2$. As long as the reader can understand what is happening without ambiguity, I don't see a reason to impose a standard. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 4:06 | comment | added | Ryan Budney | Take the advice on the Wolfram site with a dose of skepticism. People write $x \longmapsto f(x)$ rather than simply writing $f(x)$ when one needs to make clear what the variable is -- for example try to walk through the proof that a finite-dimensional vector space is isomorphic to its double dual without using this notation and you'll see why people like it. But it really only becomes important to make these distinctions when it's difficult to "identify" the variable in a functional expression. | |
| Oct 1, 2010 at 3:57 | history | asked | user9704 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |