- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>
- Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2023 07:53:35 +0200
- To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: www-math@w3.org
- Message-ID: <EF696C82-44D1-452C-8970-DF732F20B70F@hoplahup.net>

On 8 Sep 2023, at 0:10, Neil Soiffer wrote: > As always, Cajori is an interesting read for those who want to know > something about the history of math notation. It is also a reminder > that math notation is an evolving topic. It gives a little comfort to > me that if we don't get the naming of intents right, we will be in > good company for not getting it right the first time. Indeed the Cajori page really shows that things have emerged from a full mess and that notations remain to be invented. I was presenting the diversity of math cultures in a workshop on Wednesday and tried to justify why it is acceptable that math notations is diverging. Among the arguments: - Math is learned extremely early, that means that it is at the same time as language for much of the concepts (so contexts of learnings are different, and a big need of simplification is there) - Math notation is often connected to elements of the language (so it varies) - Math notations are considered to be explainable: At least in the course of a textbook it is not rare that authors will introduce a new notation in a proper documented fashion. That means that forthcoming authors have this right too! The last statement is reassuring to me. There’s a lot of notations to be enhanced for supporting understandability. The future has a some space! Paul

Received on Friday, 8 September 2023 05:53:44 UTC