←back to thread

The letter ℘: name and origin? (2017)

(mathoverflow.net)
283 points IdealeZahlen | 9 comments | 14 Nov 24 16:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.421s | source | bottom
Show context
cubefox ◴[14 Nov 24 21:46 UTC] No.42141573[source]▶
One thing I like about programming languages is that they usually constrain themselves to strings of ASCII characters, instead of using lots of more or less inscrutable symbols like mathematics does. For example, where a mathematician writes "Σ", a programmer simply writes "sum".
replies(1): >>42141869 #
mmooss ◴[14 Nov 24 22:26 UTC] No.42141869[source]▶
You are holding up code as an example of clarity and scrutability, and because it is mostly restricted to ASCII? Hex code is even simpler - only 16 characters.

> where a mathematician writes "Σ", a programmer simply writes "sum".

Communities develop shorthand and terms of art for things they write a lot. Mathematicians need to write lots of sums; programmers have their own shorthand and terminology.

replies(1): >>42143023 #
1. cubefox ◴[15 Nov 24 01:09 UTC] No.42143023[source]▶
Hex code doesn't allow you to write words. And "sum" is simply better than "Σ". There is no way to know in advance what the latter means, while for the former understanding of verbal English is enough. Mathematicians basically use an iconographic writing system like Chinese.
replies(3): >>42143413 #>>42144109 #>>42150400 #
2. anigbrowl ◴[15 Nov 24 02:23 UTC] No.42143413[source]▶
I wish they did, because then it would be more consistent and properly documented.
3. mmooss ◴[15 Nov 24 05:09 UTC] No.42144109[source]▶
We can think of many other strings used by programmers that are not common English, and many strings used by mathematicians that are.

I think the difference is that you are a programmer and not a mathematician (I'm guessing) and are saying, effectively, that what you are subjectively familiar with is objectively more universally understood.

replies(2): >>42144184 #>>42152231 #
4. card_zero ◴[15 Nov 24 05:29 UTC] No.42144184[source]▶
This argument works both ways, apart from it's the mathematicians who are wrong.
replies(1): >>42144511 #
5. mmooss ◴[15 Nov 24 06:56 UTC] No.42144511{3}[source]▶
Yes it does work both ways. Any mathematician or programmer who uses it is, afaict, just imagining their subjective perspective is some objective universal truth.
6. int_19h ◴[15 Nov 24 20:09 UTC] No.42150400[source]▶
Programmers also write something like *[3]int instead of "pointer to array of 3 integers" in most PLs.

(Modula-2 tried the latter, but it didn't stick.)

replies(1): >>42152376 #
7. cubefox ◴[15 Nov 24 22:57 UTC] No.42152231[source]▶
> We can think of many other strings used by programmers that are not common English, and many strings used by mathematicians that are.

Are you saying special symbols aren't more common in mathematics than in programming? I simply disagree. Mathematicians hardly use strings at all, e.g. for function names or variables, while they are very common in programming. Mathematicians mostly use single letters in Roman or Greek alphabet, and sometimes with various strange styles like fraktur, double strokes etc.

replies(1): >>42153039 #
8. cubefox ◴[15 Nov 24 23:15 UTC] No.42152376[source]▶
Yeah, though such special symbols are less common. I think they are still too common though. E.g. using the unnecessarily obscure "if (A) B" instead of "if A then B".
9. mmooss ◴[16 Nov 24 00:40 UTC] No.42153039{3}[source]▶
> Are you saying special symbols aren't more common in mathematics than in programming?

No, I agree that programming uses more ASCII. I'm saying that using a smaller alphabet (e.g., hex), doesn't make it easier to understand. Programming is just as arcane and difficult to understand - even programmers have trouble understanding each other's code, and generally it's believed that the understanding requires documentation in English.