Re: Any macro for inserting math "normally"

On Apr 6, 11:28 pm, "Andy Freeman" <ana...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:05 am, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

If it is so straightforward like you claim, why do mathematicians
reject it masively?

Mathematicians write for other mathematicians. They don't have to get
it correct because readers make the same mistakes.

There are mathematicians writing for no-mathematicians: engineers,
physicists... mathematicians writing for computers...

In all but the latter case, it's as I wrote, math-trained humans
writing
for math-trained humans. They make and correct for the same mistakes.

Are LISPERs error-free?

When mathematicians write for computers, they make precedence errors.

I know of mathematicians writting programs and they make no mistakes.
In fact, i know of mathematicians who generated algorithms with no
counterpart on LISP community.

If that's acceptable to you, feel free to use an input format that
uses
precedence. If it isn't acceptable, you can't rely on precedence.

Language of math is optimised for communication.

I'm always amused by folks who think that communication is independent
of the sender and/or receiver.

And who are those folks?

Lisp syntax has been known for decades and its impact on mathematics,
science, and engineering is epsilon (when epsilon tends to zero).

None of those domains have to work with the wide variety of operators
that programmers deal with every day. (Note that even programming
languages with infix operators only use them for a small fraction of
the operations.)

Could you offer examples? A list? Number of operators used in each
field?

For the sake of comparison, of course.

And, programming isn't math.

I though that fields like computational mathematics and similar had
borrowed the distinction.

If the results of your exercise don't have to be correct (perhaps
because
the reader will correct), feel free to use infix.

Apart from your arrogance anyone does not using LISP syntax is wrong,
it appears you confound 'arithmetic' syntax with infix syntax, no?

If you actually care about strict correctness,

I have worked on science, math, language, and computers and everyone
care about 'strict correctness'.

When a chemist publishes a new algorithm on _Computers and Chemistry_,
the algorithm is correct (and computer understand!!!).

When a physicist publishes a paper on _Physical Review_, the math is
correct (and readers understand!!!).

you're not going to get
it
from infix if you have more than two operators.

Sure i can.

I am not sure to understand you completely, but if I did then reply is
not "argument from authority" but "pure statistics"; a 90-95% of
people do not use your "straightforward lisp syntax".

I'm not discussing popularity, I'm discussing correctness.

I've never seen a mathmatical proof of the form "95% of people believe
X,
therefore X is true". Is that new math?

No, it is not new [*].

[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_truth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Physics and Geometry. / My opinion./
    ... By studying the effect of thermodynamics, physicists came to the ... began to study one individual particle. ... Mathematicians use Non- Euclidian geometry and they do not know ... Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help
    ... >>competent mathematicians. ... You are confident that Gene Ward Smith and Will Twentyman failed to ... >> derivation in terms of v and not u. ... >> the physicists find troubling. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help
    ... >>competent mathematicians. ... You are confident that Gene Ward Smith and Will Twentyman failed to ... >> derivation in terms of v and not u. ... >> the physicists find troubling. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Nature of Mathematics - a plea for help
    ... >>competent mathematicians. ... You are confident that Gene Ward Smith and Will Twentyman failed to ... >> derivation in terms of v and not u. ... >> the physicists find troubling. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)
    ... I really wonder the opinion of physicists, ... mathematical realism, ... otherwise bored souls of some mathematicians. ... May I suggest you may be overlooking what the "real" philosophy behind ...
    (sci.math)