←back to thread

283 points IdealeZahlen | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.354s | source
Show context
non- ◴[] No.42139412[source]
One thing I've always struggled with Math is keeping track of symbols I don't know the name of yet.

Googling for "Math squiggle that looks like a cursive P" is not a very elegant or convenient way of learning new symbol names.

I wish every proof or equation came with a little table that gave the English pronunciation and some context for each symbol used.

It would make it a lot easier to look up tutorials & ask questions.

replies(24): >>42139503 #>>42139508 #>>42139524 #>>42139550 #>>42139564 #>>42139813 #>>42140054 #>>42140141 #>>42140285 #>>42140537 #>>42140722 #>>42140731 #>>42140919 #>>42141247 #>>42141746 #>>42141968 #>>42142338 #>>42143308 #>>42145853 #>>42147470 #>>42148120 #>>42148896 #>>42148973 #>>42149956 #
mindcrime ◴[] No.42140919[source]
As somebody who spends a fair amount of time studying math heavy material that uses math that I never studied formally, this stuff is the bane of my existence. It's one thing to see a random Greek letter, where at least I very likely know what the character "is" (eg, "rho" or "psi" or whatever) and can at least pronounce it to myself and make a mental note "go back and see what rho stands for in this equation". But exactly like you say "squiggle that looks like a cursive P" doesn't easily admit a mental placeholder, AND it's hard to look up later to find out exactly what it is. I've really wanted to tear my last hair out over this a few times. And I am pretty sure one recent such occasion involved this exact character, so this really hits home!

And never mind that cognitive load that comes from managing the use of symbols that are the "same symbol" modulo something the typeface. Trying to read something like

"Little b equals Fraktur Bold Capital B divided by (q times Cursive Capital B) all over Gothic Italic B", blah, blah... then throw in the "weird little squiggle that looks kinda like a 'p' but not quite". It's insane.

replies(4): >>42141820 #>>42142232 #>>42143974 #>>42146554 #
wwalexander ◴[] No.42143974[source]
I also find it frustrating, but I’ve come to appreciate that it’s a way to at least partially sidestep the hard problem of naming things. There are still idioms and choices to make, but using abstract symbols makes it easier to play with the abstract concepts being presented.

My most-used programming language is Go, but I’ve been writing mainly Swift for the past year or so. While there’s a lot I like about Swift, its verbosity leads me to waste an inordinate amount of time pondering what the correct verbiage ought to be, and I often miss Go’s more terse, often single-character naming convention.

replies(1): >>42144249 #
lmm ◴[] No.42144249[source]
> My most-used programming language is Go, but I’ve been writing mainly Swift for the past year or so. While there’s a lot I like about Swift, its verbosity leads me to waste an inordinate amount of time pondering what the correct verbiage ought to be, and I often miss Go’s more terse, often single-character naming convention.

Huh. I was expecting that comparison to go the other way given Go's notorious verbosity in terms of error handling, generics etc.. Maybe people compensate for verbosity in one area by being more concise in others (though that doesn't explain e.g. APL).

replies(1): >>42147623 #
1. wwalexander ◴[] No.42147623[source]
I would say that Go is extremely explicit, but I wouldn’t say it’s verbose.

Or, I suppose you could say that Go is semantically verbose (explicit error handling, no/low use of generics, no operator overloading), but syntactically concise (short variable names). Swift is the opposite, being semantically concise (extremely heavy use of generics, default arguments) but syntactically verbose (labeled arguments, English-like clauses, result builders).