938:'formal' in the strict sense of the word. By "notation" I just mean, a symbol or symbolic expression intended to have a precise semantic meaning. (I say, "intended", because there are always philosophical questions about certain things.) In this sense, I don't consider, say, Venn diagrams to be notation, because they aren't intended to have a precise meaning, there's simply visualisation of certain things about sets. The same goes for the various physical ways of getting a hold on Green's theorem (or Stoke's theorem, generally) through visualising flux and vector fields. These are more pictures intended to evoke a concept, idea, or thought process. But drawing a picture of a ball with flux arrows and drawing it chopped up into pieces as a way to illustrate Stoke's theorem is not "notation" to me, because it's not intended to have a precise meaning. Confusing the two can be deadly, e.g. when the picture leads you to a false conclusion. I certainly think these things are useful, I think any math person is lying to say they don't use tools like this all the time, but they're not what I would call notation. Maybe this is just a disagreement over terms.
762:- a visualization of the integrals of T and U, which are the summations over a domain which is plane A, with altitudes = the values of the sums of T and U over the area A. Then the straightforward readout of the altitudes along a contour D, summed over the contour projected on A is the value of the integral. It's very concrete this way, and the notation in the Green's theorem article overwhelms the basic idea of a fluid set of T and U (Newton's fluents). Now I admit that the concreteness of the example is probably not in the spirit of a formalism, but Newton did not use the notation that we were trained in, and obviously did not think of things the way we have been trained in. Once we have the conditions
264:
254:
233:
200:
346:
191:
1330:
514:, unless they are given a precise definition which can be codified. This is true, e.g. in some areas of graph theory and commutative diagrams. Look, I'm not telling you not to use these things, I'm just saying strictly speaking, they're not notation. They're other kinds of aids. So, just keep the distinction clear.
1046:
of a programming language. What is then implemented on the computer is these rules, the semantics, using the built-in semantics of, usually, a register machine. What the compiler actually does is translate a program written in programming language A to a program written in programming language B, and
500:
Why shouldn't other sensory records and reactions help in notation? What do you think that the marks on clay tablets were? Although some mathematicians, like Galois and Ulam actually did everything in their heads before committing to paper, other mathematicians found writing, internet, letters, etc.
1050:
In any case, saying that a compiler implements the rules of evaluating expressions, i.e. that a compiler implements the semantics is false. The compiler only transforms the program or expression from one form to another, hopefully in a way that is executable by the machine. The machine can then be
521:
I would add that informal mathematical discourse (writing, letters), does not preclude the use of formal notation. And not using other nonformalised notation doesn't mean one is left with only "doing everything is one's head" (???) You don't seem to realise that a lot of formal notation is used in
937:
I don't think I mean to be that restrictive. And I don't think our difference of opinion is based on a distinction between formalism and constructivism. Informal mathematical discourse (which is basically all mathematical discourse) incorporates formal notation...very little actual mathematics is
897:
Newton did not use our modern notation, true. But, he did mean for the notation he used to have a definite meaning. Of course, if you can develop any of these visualisation processes into formalised language, fine. But I think a clear line should be drawn between formal notation and visualisation
854:
then our imaginations need to find T and U. What we need in a notation is for it to help us transform one thing into a related thing which we can solve. Now we can either work it all out with individual cases, laboriously, where a text-based notation might not help us, until we have translated it
509:
Obviously, you didn't read what I wrote. I said they are useful AIDS in discovering and learning math, but there is a difference between AIDS and strict notation itself. "Mouse clicks on a web page are not 'notation'". Venn diagrams help visualise logical statements and statements about sets, but
1047:
often A is a high-level language, such as C or Java, and B is machine language (either the native one or one of a virtual machine). The semantics of the machine language depend on how the computer has been put together and since this is mostly electronics, it's not relevant here.
665:
481:
I don't understand the last section (Isaac Newton?). All these are very useful AIDS in learning mathematics, but does anyone really think visual pictures or tactile or auditory data are really going to become useful NOTATION for precisely expressing thoughts?
1006:
The key idea is consistency of notation - the rules of the grammar, and the parser which detects conformance with the rules. It takes a mathematical POV to utilize the notation consistently. Do you think a sentence should be crafted for the article?
1273:
I think the other article is still long enough to stand on its own, and the topics are sufficiently different that someone looking for "abuse of notation" may be confused if they end up here. The other article does need some work, though. — Carl
949:, I do not mean formal in the sense of the formalist school of philosophy, I mean formal in the sense of symbolic expressions intended to have precise meaning, regardless of whether this occurs in the context of a strict formal system.
1213:
I found this site looking for a description of some various things like a bold letter, a vector etc. and found nothing? Perhaps this page needs a list of what a differential looks like what the times sign looks like etc...
153:
1310:, because it is true that they are related... also, there could be a section here describing it, and then a "Main Article" link. <- That's probably the best. I'll be glad to work on both articles soon =)
541:
849:
806:
754:
711:
1258:(which really needed it). As it stands now, it's fairly slim and could probably fit nicely into a single section here, so I thought I'd add a proposal and see if anyone else had thoughts.
320:
1380:
147:
1235:
This seems like the preface to a more comprehensive article. The subject matter is vast and even collecting together the most common notations with explanations is missing
1385:
1370:
886:, they're visualisation of data, doodling, scribbling, imagining, visualising...all very important, but they don't belong here really because they're not notation. By
530:
It looks like an example is in order. I am trying to illustrate a thinking process in the style of a visualizer. The closest example I can come up with is from the
1058:
implement some of the rules, for example when you use macros in Lisp or Scheme to do computation at compile time, but this is certainly not the whole picture.)
1039:
First of all, what on Earth is a computer language? Without delving further in that, let us assume the author of the piece of text meant programming languages.
44:
204:
1395:
1375:
310:
79:
1302:... I think it would be nicer to have separate articles, and once this article gets more developed, it will be nicer to have them separated. I added a
1400:
1390:
1365:
1035:
A mathematical expression is a sequence of symbols which can be evaluated. ... In a computer language, these rules are implemented by the compilers.
956:
Maybe we just need a better example of a kind of visualization which is well-defined enough to count as notation? I'm thinking of something like a
286:
85:
1221:
1068:
1360:
1089:
1107:
I'd like to insert an example of how the same notation can mean different things in different contexts. Here are a few possibilities:
882:
You're missing my point. I don't disagree that such things are useful and helpful. I'm not saying don't use them!! All I'm saying is,
913:(me). Clearly there needs to be notation which bespeaks the rules and constraints gathered from the centuries of mathematics and the
660:{\displaystyle \int _{C}Pdx+Qdy=\int \!\!\!\int _{D}\left({\frac {\partial Q}{\partial x}}-{\frac {\partial P}{\partial y}}\right)dA}
277:
238:
168:
960:, which is constructed so it identifies one mathematical object unambiguously, and can be transformed according to precise rules (
135:
99:
30:
104:
20:
929:, the formal grammar, etc. with a set of requirements for a well-formed set of expressions etc, and its impact on notation.
995:
74:
859:
like the mountain ranges (or definite integrals) to help us solve the problems. Our notations could be more visual. The
213:
811:
768:
716:
673:
129:
65:
984:
I would have thought that "mathematical notation", by definition, is notation used in mathematics. The discussion at
125:
1085:
1225:
1072:
190:
1093:
175:
1342:
1263:
1199:
1185:
969:
921:
15:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) The good thing is that this lays out a program for the improvement of this article.
109:
400:
1059:
393:
354:
219:
24:
263:
1240:
1217:
1064:
419:
350:
758:
What we need instead of the integrals of T and U or the concrete partial derivatives are 2 sets of
863:
161:
141:
55:
1023:
There should be a mention of TeX because it led to the standardization of mathematics typography.
285:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1338:
1315:
1295:
1259:
1195:
1181:
961:
269:
70:
253:
232:
925:
If I understand you, what you have in mind for the article is a discussion of the evolution of
1307:
1255:
992:
965:
51:
1008:
985:
930:
918:
875:
531:
502:
454:
1236:
914:
917:
that refers to them. And I bow to all of you who have contributed to this noble subject.
890:, notation is formal. What you're talking about it GREAT, just don't call it "notation".
910:
450:
1354:
1311:
1281:
1170:
950:
939:
926:
899:
891:
871:
523:
515:
483:
408:
989:
957:
874:
map could be used a lot more. What else might we learn with such added notation?
1346:
1319:
1286:
1267:
1244:
1229:
1203:
1189:
1175:
1097:
973:
867:
282:
459:
428:
259:
999:
906:
438:
898:
processes. They are BOTH useful and complementary; they are NOT the same.
1299:
1277:
1166:
434:
1303:
1042:
The rules of evaluating the value of expressions is contained in the
1051:
used to execute the program, and this is where evaluation happens.
988:
indicates that this may not be so. The article doesn't help here.
447:
424:
1031:
The current claim under the section
Expressions is simply wrong:
860:
1298:: I can see why you thought of merging them.. but I agree with
336:
184:
15:
1115:| could be an absolute value, a norm, or the cardinality of
855:
into a standard notation, or we might build up a toolbox of
490:
Mouse clicks on a web page have helped the User interface.
378:
372:
366:
360:
160:
905:
So the divide we are speaking across is that between
814:
771:
719:
676:
544:
1194:...and I don't think #1 above causes any ambiguity.
670:
Now we need to imagine functions T and U such that :
281:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
844:{\displaystyle U={\frac {\partial P}{\partial x}}}
843:
801:{\displaystyle T={\frac {\partial Q}{\partial x}}}
800:
749:{\displaystyle U={\frac {\partial P}{\partial x}}}
748:
706:{\displaystyle T={\frac {\partial Q}{\partial x}}}
705:
659:
1159:) are very different but have parallel notation.
493:Venn diagrams help to visualize logic statements
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1381:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Mathematics
586:
584:
582:
501:to be useful in propagating their discoveries.
174:
8:
1254:I just gutted quite a bit of the article at
188:
1027:About evaluating expressions and computers
227:
1386:Start-Class vital articles in Mathematics
821:
813:
778:
770:
726:
718:
683:
675:
626:
603:
592:
549:
543:
1054:(In certain special cases, the compiler
986:Talk:Mathematics#Tautologous definition?
1371:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics
1337:. Okay, removed the proposal then. --
229:
1163:Personally I like #2 the best. — Carl
7:
275:This article is within the scope of
218:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1396:High-priority mathematics articles
1376:Start-Class level-5 vital articles
832:
824:
789:
781:
737:
729:
694:
686:
637:
629:
614:
606:
14:
444:Hindu-Arabic notation for numbers
399:some of this properly belongs in
295:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1401:Knowledge pages with to-do lists
1391:Start-Class mathematics articles
1366:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1328:
392:Give proper definition. ---: -->
344:
298:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
262:
252:
231:
198:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1084:Anyone care to comment on this
315:This article has been rated as
1075:) 09:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
406:The first use of a symbol for
1:
1287:02:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
1268:22:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
1103:Example of differing notation
974:16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
945:Just to be doubly clear — by
884:those things are not notation
289:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1230:02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
1204:16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1190:16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1180:Please: Write sin, not sin.
1176:13:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
1347:15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
1098:14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
1002:| 04:03, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1417:
1361:Start-Class vital articles
1320:04:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
1245:21:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
933:20:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
878:23:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
505:21:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
486:20:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
314:
247:
226:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1011:08:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
953:22:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
942:22:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
902:10:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
894:10:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
526:21:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
518:21:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
441:-- when they first arose
321:project's priority scale
394:added a first cut at it
278:WikiProject Mathematics
1080:Placement of exponents
845:
802:
750:
707:
661:
477:question from Revolver
401:History of mathematics
75:avoid personal attacks
846:
803:
751:
708:
662:
538:Given P and Q, where
420:Diophantine equations
355:Mathematical notation
205:level-5 vital article
100:Neutral point of view
25:Mathematical notation
870:and the colors of a
812:
769:
717:
674:
542:
522:INformal discourse.
301:mathematics articles
105:No original research
1296:User:Deacon Vorbis
1000:Why restrict HTML?
962:Reidemeister moves
841:
798:
746:
703:
657:
587:
585:
583:
384:Updated 2015-01-23
270:Mathematics portal
214:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1308:abuse of notation
1285:
1256:abuse of notation
1220:comment added by
1174:
1076:
1067:comment added by
839:
796:
744:
701:
644:
621:
474:
473:
335:
334:
331:
330:
327:
326:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1408:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1275:
1232:
1164:
1062:
850:
848:
847:
842:
840:
838:
830:
822:
807:
805:
804:
799:
797:
795:
787:
779:
755:
753:
752:
747:
745:
743:
735:
727:
712:
710:
709:
704:
702:
700:
692:
684:
666:
664:
663:
658:
650:
646:
645:
643:
635:
627:
622:
620:
612:
604:
597:
596:
554:
553:
468:Priority 1 (top)
385:
348:
347:
337:
303:
302:
299:
296:
293:
272:
267:
266:
256:
249:
248:
243:
235:
228:
211:
202:
201:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1351:
1350:
1329:
1327:
1306:with a link to
1252:
1215:
1211:
1105:
1082:
1029:
1018:
982:
915:category theory
831:
823:
810:
809:
788:
780:
767:
766:
760:mountain ranges
736:
728:
715:
714:
693:
685:
672:
671:
636:
628:
613:
605:
602:
598:
588:
545:
540:
539:
532:Green's theorem
479:
470:
469:
466:
455:Graham's number
359:
345:
300:
297:
294:
291:
290:
268:
261:
241:
212:on Knowledge's
209:
199:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1414:
1412:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1353:
1352:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1290:
1289:
1251:
1250:Merge proposal
1248:
1222:76.234.243.206
1210:
1207:
1161:
1160:
1149:
1119:
1104:
1101:
1081:
1078:
1069:130.232.103.63
1060:130.232.103.63
1037:
1036:
1028:
1025:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1012:
981:
978:
977:
976:
954:
943:
927:formal systems
923:
922:
911:Constructivism
903:
895:
852:
851:
837:
834:
829:
826:
820:
817:
794:
791:
786:
783:
777:
774:
742:
739:
734:
731:
725:
722:
699:
696:
691:
688:
682:
679:
668:
667:
656:
653:
649:
642:
639:
634:
631:
625:
619:
616:
611:
608:
601:
595:
591:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
552:
548:
528:
527:
519:
495:
494:
491:
478:
475:
472:
471:
467:
465:
464:
463:
462:
457:
451:arrow notation
445:
442:
431:
422:
417:
409:free variables
397:
387:
342:
340:
333:
332:
329:
328:
325:
324:
313:
307:
306:
304:
287:the discussion
274:
273:
257:
245:
244:
236:
224:
223:
217:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1413:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1356:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:Deacon Vorbis
1335:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:Deacon Vorbis
1257:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1196:Michael Hardy
1192:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:Michael Hardy
1178:
1177:
1172:
1168:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1102:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:74.10.197.201
1087:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1015:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1001:
997:
994:
991:
987:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
952:
948:
944:
941:
936:
935:
934:
932:
928:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
896:
893:
889:
885:
881:
880:
879:
877:
873:
872:doppler radar
869:
865:
862:
858:
835:
827:
818:
815:
792:
784:
775:
772:
765:
764:
763:
761:
756:
740:
732:
723:
720:
697:
689:
680:
677:
654:
651:
647:
640:
632:
623:
617:
609:
599:
593:
589:
579:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
550:
546:
537:
536:
535:
533:
525:
520:
517:
513:
510:they are NOT
508:
507:
506:
504:
498:
492:
489:
488:
487:
485:
476:
461:
458:
456:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
436:
432:
430:
426:
423:
421:
418:
415:
411:
410:
405:
404:
402:
398:
395:
391:
390:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
358:
356:
352:
341:
339:
338:
322:
318:
317:High-priority
312:
309:
308:
305:
288:
284:
280:
279:
271:
265:
260:
258:
255:
251:
250:
246:
242:High‑priority
240:
237:
234:
230:
225:
221:
215:
207:
206:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1333:
1326:
1253:
1234:
1212:
1209:Is this all?
1193:
1179:
1162:
1156:
1152:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:) could be (
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1106:
1083:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1030:
1022:
1019:
983:
966:EricDBurgess
958:knot diagram
946:
924:
887:
883:
856:
853:
759:
757:
669:
529:
511:
499:
496:
480:
433:symbols for
413:
407:
388:
381:
375:
369:
363:
349:
343:
316:
276:
220:WikiProjects
203:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1216:—Preceding
1063:—Preceding
1009:Ancheta Wis
931:Ancheta Wis
919:Ancheta Wis
876:Ancheta Wis
868:weather map
503:Ancheta Wis
429:proportions
292:Mathematics
283:mathematics
239:Mathematics
210:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1355:Categories
1237:Nickhonner
1155:) and sin(
1016:LaTeX /TeX
980:Definition
909:(you) and
888:definition
460:O notation
412:(Egyptian
351:To-do list
1044:semantics
907:Formalism
534:article:
435:Integrals
208:is rated
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1334:Not done
1312:Popcrate
1218:unsigned
1065:unsigned
951:Revolver
940:Revolver
900:Revolver
892:Revolver
524:Revolver
516:Revolver
512:notation
484:Revolver
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1304:hatnote
379:refresh
367:history
319:on the
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1136:)) or
947:formal
864:fields
857:models
425:Ratios
403:, but
216:scale.
126:Google
1088:?
1086:query
990:Brian
866:of a
448:Knuth
373:watch
197:This
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1343:talk
1316:talk
1300:carl
1282:talk
1264:talk
1241:talk
1226:talk
1200:talk
1186:talk
1171:talk
1151:sin(
1094:talk
1073:talk
1020:Hi,
970:talk
861:flow
808:and
713:and
497:etc
439:sums
437:and
427:and
414:heap
361:edit
353:for
311:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1278:CBM
1167:CBM
1148:)).
1056:can
964:).
176:TWL
1357::
1345:)
1318:)
1280:·
1266:)
1243:)
1228:)
1202:)
1188:)
1169:·
1096:)
998:|
972:)
833:∂
825:∂
790:∂
782:∂
738:∂
730:∂
695:∂
687:∂
638:∂
630:∂
624:−
615:∂
607:∂
590:∫
580:∫
547:∫
453:-
156:)
54:;
1341:(
1314:(
1284:)
1276:(
1262:(
1239:(
1224:(
1198:(
1184:(
1173:)
1165:(
1157:x
1153:x
1146:x
1144:(
1142:f
1140:(
1138:f
1134:x
1132:(
1130:f
1126:x
1124:(
1122:f
1117:x
1113:x
1111:|
1092:(
1071:(
996:d
993:j
968:(
836:x
828:P
819:=
816:U
793:x
785:Q
776:=
773:T
741:x
733:P
724:=
721:U
698:x
690:Q
681:=
678:T
655:A
652:d
648:)
641:y
633:P
618:x
610:Q
600:(
594:D
577:=
574:y
571:d
568:Q
565:+
562:x
559:d
556:P
551:C
416:)
396:.
382:·
376:·
370:·
364:·
357::
323:.
222::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
