←back to thread

The Grammar According to West

(dwest.web.illinois.edu)
65 points surprisetalk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.256s | source
Show context
zero-sharp ◴[] No.45074184[source]
You encounter abusive language/notation basically everywhere in math. Open up a calculus/real analysis textbook. A lot of the old ones write sequences in the curly brace/set {x_n} notation:

"let {x_n} be a sequence"

As the author points out, a sequence is a function. The statement {x_n} is the set of terms of the sequence, its range. A function and its range are two different things. And also sets have no ordering. It might seem like a minor thing, but I thought we were trying to be precise?

A second example: at the high school level, I'm pretty sure a lot of textbooks don't carefully distinguish between a function and the formula defining the function very well.

The author of this web page has a section on what he calls "double duty definitions". Personally, I don't find anything wrong with the language "let G=(V,E) be a graph". G is the graph and we're simultaneously defining/naming its structure. So, some of this is a matter of taste. And, to some extent, you just have to get used to the way mathematicians write.

replies(5): >>45074635 #>>45075072 #>>45075792 #>>45077063 #>>45077805 #
1. ◴[] No.45075792[source]