>"The authors showed in previous work that..."
>no citation where they showed it
>people who use [math]2^A[/math] instead of [math]\mathcal{P}(A)[/math]
>people who only use single letters to name functions and sets
>>7652770
>>people who only use single letters to name functions and sets
Programmers gtfo.
>people who use log instead of ln
Log will always be base 10 to me :3
>>7652882
This so much
>people who use foo and bar as variable/function names in example code
>>7652882
>not thinking naturally in terms of a base number with an infinite number of arbitrary digits
fucking pleb
i bet you prefer degrees to radians too
>>7652923
It's more common in pure logic courses, but for undergrad maths students they use function notation because that's what the kiddies are used to.
>>7652882
Log is base 10. log is the same as ln. The capitalization is important here.
>>7652923
[math]\mathit{transform}(\mathit{extract}(A))[/math] vs [math]\tau(\epsilon(A))[/math]
Guess what is a good way to communicate ideas and what is squeezing to get everything on required amount of pages
>>7652949
Also if you write multiple letters it can make it hard to see what's actually going on, as there's just a big fuck-off wall of text.
>>7652882
What log means depends on the context, but the common shorthand is:
lb - binary logarithm (base 2)
lg - common logarithm (base 10)
ln - natural logarithm (base e)
>>7652951
see, you start by trying to be pedantic (no one uses complex log), then you show your lack of pragmatism and knowledge by asking who uses base 10.
Chemists for one, and anyone who works with decibels if you must know.
>>7652973
I've seen most often lg for binary logarithm, log or Log for base 10 and log or ln for natural logarithm.
To avoid confusion I usually use ln for natural logarithm and [math]log_a[/math] for everything else.
>>7652882
log is always always always base 2, ln is natural log, log base 10 is useless
t. computer science student
>>7652770
My pet peeve is when they call it 'maths' instead of just 'math.'
>"the proof of this important theorem is left as an exercise"
>>7652770
People who use log and ln interchangeably. Yes ln and log both work in the nernst equation but it was derived empirically as a ln relationship so get it right.
Anyone who uses polish notation, ever. Regardless of how much "more correct" it is.
Tau people. Eighth ring of hell just opened for you guys.
Laplace transformations because to this day I hear my nasally second year prof's voice in my head every time I see a curly L.
When people use = to define a variable's nomenclature instead of triple bar.
People who don't use the equation feature in word to format their maths.
People who still don't apply significant digits.
Oh and I remember this one textbook that literally refused to use ln functions; everything was always expressed as natural exponents instead regardless of how redundant it was or how much extra space it was using. Heat and mass transfer, still remember even my prof was like... "this notation really bothers me, please don't do this on an exam..."
All I have off the top of my head.
>>7653027
bruh like 99.999% of the uses for log base 2 are in computer science, which, fucking newsflash, does not get to decide the convention for mathematics >:D
>math is beautiful
lol suck a dick fags
>>7653075
y = |sin(x)| + 5*exp(-x^100)*cos(x) from -3 to 3
no u
>>7653075
lol u told em bro high five XD
>>7653075
>>7653085
>math is for le initiated
fag
>>7652770
>people who only use single letters to name functions and sets
What else would you use?
>>people who use 2^A instead of P(A)
The fuck is wrong with this you little nigger? It makes complete sense and is intuitive.
>>7653027
O(log_10 n)=O(log_2 n) though so it doesn't really matter
>>7653034
gtfo you uncivilized colonist
>>7653213
sin(x) instead of s(x)
erf(x) instead of e(x)
dirac(x) instead of d(x)
Don't go crazy enterprise software mode though, sd(X) is better than standardDeviation(X)
But I'm a CS major do what do I know
>>7653244
>Set theory wankery and ambiguous notation is intuitive
>sin^(x) instead of arcsin(x)
>>7653367
>arcsin(x)
tips fedora feather
>>7653367
I write as(x) for arcus sinus and s(x) for sinus
>>7653394
>arcus
>sinus
Triggered.
>people who say "coze" when talking about taking the cosine
Started in high school geometry and has followed me since then.
>>7652770
When people write something like [math]x \left( \sin x + \frac{1}{2} \right) [/math]. It's ambiguous as fuck, stop doing that.
>>7653372
what
in the country of mathematics (france), this is how it's written.
Get over it.
>>7653063
What's polish notation?
>onto
>one-to-one
>one-to one and onto
Use the Bourbaki nomenclature, stupid americans
>>7653307
Not a lot.
>>7653058
>not wanting to improve your studies and understanding
>>7653413
>>>/google/
Not even trying to be a dick but seriously, you realize googling it will give you results faster than asking here, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_notation
>>7653413
It's reverse reverse polish notation
So it's basically lisp but without parentheses
Think + 3 4 would be 7
>>7653416
even better is how things need to keep changing
>high school: one-to-one
>early university: injective
>later: monomorphism
>>7653058
The people who wrote your book know math better than you do and have probably been doing it for decades longer, if they think it makes for an exercise it's probably for your own good
>>7653294
>maths
>abbreviation of mathematics
>implies "mathematic" is a singular, and you still need to count multiple "mathematics"
Seriously, it's fucking "math."
>>7654589
This.
"Mathematics" only has an s because of the way it was translated from the Greek "mathēmatikós". Nothing else about the English language or its usage implies plurality, it's always singular. Just look at the words you use around "maths", they're all grammatically incorrect for something plural.
>>7654592
If we universally agreed to change maths to math, soon we'd have to change physics to physic.
And that's just not a world I want to live in.
>>7654592
and yet we say athletics, genetics, economics etc
it's just the nomenclature of a field, containing several subfields. Algebraic math, geometric math, analytic math etc
it is plural... you say "mathematics are beautiful", not "mathematics is beautiful". But now it is also used as a singular word.
>>7654790
also it wouldn't make sense, because of the rest of my post
>>7652949
If you're typesetting this in LaTeX then you better be writing your functions in upright letters (defining them as mathoperators or whatever). Functions should never be rendered as a string of italic characters in LaTeX because then it looks like a bunch of variables.
Either way, giving functions and sets full names is very uncommon in mathematics. It can end up particularly confusing when working in branches of math that have a lot of function composition (eg. category theory).
>>7654802
>it is plural... you say "mathematics are beautiful",
maybe if you're an eight year old with downs syndrome
>>7653410
What's ambiguous about it ?
>>7653063
Polish notation explicitly shows you that things are binary functions tho.
>When people use = to define a variable's nomenclature instead of triple bar.
Triple Bar is an equivalence relation. Definitions are written like
d:= the number of dicks your mother has sucked.
>People who don't use the equation feature in word to format their maths.
Are you retarded?
>People who still don't apply significant digits.
People who care about significant digits is my pet peeve. Seriously that shit is for dumb monkeys in physics and engineering.
>>7653244
>The set of functions from the set P(A) to the set 2.
It does make sense and it is at times useful to talk about stuff like A^B but I wouldn't say this is more intuitive than just "the power set".
>>7653367
>arcsin
this is bait
>>7653394
>sinus
funny bait
>>7653406
The fuck? Reminds me that earlier this week I heard someone pronounce it "cosin".
>>7653416
This bothers me too, but only because I learned injective and surjective first (in the US).
>>7653938
An injective morphism is not the same thing as a monomorphism. An injective morphism is left invertible while a monomorphism is left cancel-able.
My pet peeve: People being pretentious and using big words that they don't really understand.
>>7654809
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mathematics
>plural noun
get rekt son
at least I have an education
>>7654813
>arcsin
>this is bait
>sinus
>funny bait
not him but everyone in several countries writes it like this so stop being a mongoloid.
>>7654822
Yea, and it's still retarded. It's like people who still use the term "osculating".
>>7654836
sorry it's not retarded, it's your fault that you can't speak french, not other people's fault that they didn't adapt to your shit language.
Saying "x is positive" for x > 0, and "x is non-negative" for x ≥ 0, instead of using "strictly positive" for the former and "positive" for the latter.
Same with "increasing" instead of "strictly increasing", "non-decreasing" instead of "increasing", etc.
>>7654802
*except that it would because physics is derived from greek phúsis
>>7654810
Is it [math] x \sin (x) + \frac{x}{2} ~~ \text{or} ~~ x \sin \left( x + \frac{1}{2} \right) [/math]?
>>7654907
to avoid ambiguity you should use "non-negative" and "strictly positive", never positive IMO
>>7654836
[math]\sin^{2}(x)=\sin(x)\sin(x)[/math]
[math]\sin^{-1}(x)=\frac{1}{\sin(x)} ?[/math]
[math]\ln^{-1}x=e^{x}[/math]
[math]y^{p^{-1}}=y^{\frac{1}{p}} [/math]
This is the world you want to live in.
>>7654814
>[USUALLY TREATED AS SINGULAR]
>>7654907
Holy crap! You want zero to be positive? That's nuts. I suppose then zero would have to be negative too. And perhaps zero would be non-zero then?
>>7655067
>changing goalposts
>>7655224
my only contention is that anyone who thinks "mathematics are beautiful" sounds fine is literally retarded
>>7653082
nice graphical dick
>>7654956
The latter.
>>7652902
FUCKCCKCKCKINGGGGG THISSSSSSSSSSS
....
THISSSS
...
>this
>>7655664
its clearly the former
>>7654802
>saying "are" after the word mathematics
>implying that isn't grammatically incorrect
>Mathematics is the study of . . .
>>7652770
>People who call it math
>>7657196
Mathematics is the study of the logic behind geometry, number theory, etc. Keep in mind there are different branches of mathematics that hardly talk to eachother. Pereleman was able to solve Poincare by using theorems from a broad number of categories, and it was admitted that no one had officially connected the dots in that way before. Mathematics at the high level is laden with idiosyncrasies.
The one to prove that Mathematics is a singular noun ought to have a unifying theorem for every branch. Not engage in this needless wordplay and appeal to non-mathematical authority.
>>7657507
Why are you using Mathematics as a singular noun if you are trying to prove it isn't? And why are you inventing utter nonsense to qualify what is or isn't allowed to be a singular noun of plural form? Surely you do not believe there is a unified theory of economics.
>>7657535
Haha yeah i fucked that up, you win this one.
>>7653027
>log base ten is useless
in astrophysics, we use a formula that relates absolute and apparent magnitude
it's the only place I've seen [math]log_10[/math] used
[math]m - M = 5(log_10d-1) [/math]
>>7658836
how do I into latex...
I meant [math]log_{10}[/math]
I have only seen it used in this expression
[math] m - M = 5(log_{10}d-1) [/math]
When lecturers explain every single step as if we were a bunch of idiots. I can't believe how much time we've wasted on our multivariable analysis course (like 4-5 classes) with our lecturer explaining over and over again the Einstein summation convention and index notation (delta and epsilon)...
![2844368-7013621392-Point[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/psuc8Ox.jpg "2844368-7013621392-Point[1].jpg")
>>7654935
pic related
>>7655049
this
>>7657939
>>7657507
this guy is not me.
>>7657535
you didn't win, you were just talking to a fucktard
>>7659601
this is why I stopped showing up years ago
pls bomb usa
>>7653416
These are probably the most retarded names ever.
When people use equal signs when it's not actually equal?
>>7654802
Which is your favorite mathematic, anon?
>>7652914
At least I have a degree, senpai
>>7653416
These trigger me so fucking hard man. Like
ONTO IS A FUCKING PREPOSITION NOT AN ADJECTIVE
the function is at
the function is with
the function is under
the function is after
OH FUCKING NO YOU COCKWITS
>>7661858
sounds cool though. One-to-one sounds like a middle school math thing, but I had a GENIUS tier number theory prof who would say
injective
onto
bijective
When you show all your work and get the question right, but theres some proprietary bullshit the professor didnt ask for in the question so you only got partial credit.
>>7662274
>propietary bullshit
elaborate
>>7661874
injective, surjective, bijective. use them and only them.
Why is this such a cancerous thread? Worst thread of the year.
>>7662284
Like a damn sign chart for proof.
I fucking did that in calc 1, this "baby me" culture in uni is slowing students and making professors weak.
>>7653063
>Spending 5 minutes wondering why that proof is incorrect then realizing you've left your calculator in Degrees instead of Radians.
I'm ashamed at how often I do this.
>math is not an opinion
it fucking is
>>7652770
>Please refer to [figure / table / diagram / graph] in the previous section or wherever the fuck we decided to put it instead of here where it is exclusively being used
>Physical copy
Fuck you Theory of Price
>>7662319
>proof
>calculator
Wut
>>7662288
I use interjective, rejective and adjective tbvh famitsu
>>7662566
Bitches don't know about LaTeX's 'float' package
