Timeline for Suggestions for good notation
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2021 at 0:59 | comment | added | peter | @AntonPetrunin have you never seen people talk about "the function f(x)" ? | |
| Jun 28, 2012 at 22:01 | comment | added | LSpice | This point of view is espoused in Munroe's 1958 AMM article "Bringing calculus up to date" (jstor.org/stable/2308879). He gives a very little bit of history, mostly without references. | |
| Nov 25, 2011 at 1:54 | comment | added | Ryan Reich | This one is nice both because: a) it makes sense of the reverse-Polish notation for functions, $f(x) = xf$, and b) it makes sense of the term "random variable" in probability, which it took me a long time to understand the meaning of. | |
| Nov 8, 2010 at 22:00 | comment | added | David MJC | Any book which describes a function f as a relation y=f(x) between dependent and independent variables is using this notation, so in that sense I didn't invent it. Also for mathematicians such as E.Cartan, points were always variable, i.e., functions on some unspecified parameter space: $x\in X$ means "x is a function on an unspecified domain with values in X", which is Grothendieck's "functor of points". However, I don't have a reference for my interpretation, and it does generate a laugh (e.g. in a colloquium) to say that confusing a function and its values amounts to omitting pullbacks. | |
| Nov 8, 2010 at 1:00 | comment | added | Anton Petrunin | Did you invent it your-self? If not did you see this notation in some books? | |
| Oct 22, 2010 at 21:20 | history | answered | David MJC | CC BY-SA 2.5 |