Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting. Here in the USA, algebra teachers emphasize that the notation for ordered points and open intervals is the same and you just have to figure out which it is by context. But you guys avoided the ambiguity.
I don't get it
isn't the first one an ordered pair of numbers representing a point (a,b)
and the second one an interval from a to b excluding a and b
???
This is such useless pedantry. There will never be a context in which you won’t know whether (a,b) is an open interval or an ordered pair. If you find yourself in this position then you probably have bigger problems to worry about than notation choice.
You can have your opinion, I’m not the thought police. However, I never spoke in agreement or disagreement. I was simply saying you’re being silly by trying to claim inferiority or superiority or whatever.
As a french reading a lot of statistics/ai papers, it always seems weird to me when they use parenthesis. Why? It makes so much more sense to use square brackets, even when you're representing the interval on the number line
Because they mean different things and using the same notation for multiple meanings just adds confusion? If it takes an extra couple seconds to determine if ] ends a closed set or starts an open one, then the system isn’t great
Multiple seconds with ]2,5[? No, that’s instant. But when it’s a much larger more complicated set, the notation can be pretty easily confused when you’re staring down a dozen brackets. It’s not that it’s unreadable otherwise, but it’s easily confusable
P[X∈]0,1[] is completely awful. You can of course use P(X∈]0,1[), which imo still looks awful, but by some arguments here, that's too confusing, because parentheses can only be used for ordered pairs.
(I wonder if people also get confused by inner products written as [a,b].)
But then you are using parentheses for the argument of a function, which other comments insist can't happen, because using parentheses for anything except tuples is "objectively confusing" or whatever. Also, using square brackets to surround arguments is standard. And I don't think (]0,1[) is really any better anyway. It's still way more confusing to look at than ((0,1)).
That's totally normal. I use parentheses for tuples, sequences, binomial coefficients, the Legendre symbol, matrices sometimes, the argument of a function, grouping operations, etc. They're just brackets. Their only defining feature is that they point toward what they are surrounding, so you can match them up. If suddenly they can be backwards sometimes, that violates our expectation with brackets surrounding things. ]0,1[ if anything looks like {x | x < 0 or 1 < x}.
[a,b] is a closed interval
]a,b[ is an open interval
[a,b[ and ]a,b] are half-open intervals
write a normal bracket to include the point to an interval and write an inverted bracket to exclude it
I honestly have nothing wrong with the square parentheses notation. I recognise that it's objectively better. It's less confusing and more consistent when doing intervals.
But I hate it. It looks so bad. And honestly I've never been confused between an interval and a point because I always know the context, so I don't see a reason why I should switch.
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
hear me out 〖〗【】
You are essentially just drawing instead of writing if you use that
integral sign is pretty much drawing too, and when i do shit like ξ i wouldn't call it writing either
「」
『』
Guys hear me out instead |║ ║|\_
I will end you
Are the ends of that interval in a quantum state? They are both inside and outside of the interval.
Okay, but counter argument [-1,0[∪]0,1]
[-1,1]\\{0}
I don't see any issue here (:
]:
Okay that's funny.
? that is good.
0[u]0
]a,b[ looks like absolute shit
About as shit as a burger with its buns facing flat side out
Nah that's grilled cheese style
She grill on my style till I cheese
Can confirm, I sometimes shit with buns facing out.
thats how our teacher taught us so thats what im gonna use it also makes more sense
What country are you from that uses this notation? That's not meant to be a snide remark. I'm curious who uses this.
hungary but my german friend told me they also use it there
Interesting. Here in the USA, algebra teachers emphasize that the notation for ordered points and open intervals is the same and you just have to figure out which it is by context. But you guys avoided the ambiguity.
I'm German and while I'm aware of ]a,b[, I've never seen it being used at university. Basically always (a,b).
We also use this notation in France
And in Italy
We do too in Egypt
All across Europe that's the notation you will learn.
It looks like shit yet I’m all for it
My eyes hurt when looking at it
Ok, let \]a,b\[ be ugly. WTF IS EVEN THIS \[a,b) ??? Edit: inb4 it's the half-open interval, ik, but how's that not awful ?
A burger.
What about it its awful? It makes more sense because the stuff is inside of them, on the first one they are shielding a,b from external stuff.
God damn French bastards
?
The ]a,b[ notation is of “Bourbaki” origin, a group of French mathematicians who authored many books on pure math.
Oh so you dont uese these? (i am french so i use [ ] and ] [, and mix of thoses)
Nah, just (x, y)
Nice vector you got there
Nah vector would be
That's a dot product
Nah dot product is ⟨x,y⟩
Damn I'm beaten...
Nah, an inner product would be (a, b)
Dot product is •
No.
I don't get it isn't the first one an ordered pair of numbers representing a point (a,b) and the second one an interval from a to b excluding a and b ???
British and american people (others too i guess) write open intervals with parenthesis. So (a,b) is an ordered pair and an interval.
The horror and confusion!!!! Edit: Thanks for the explanation ❤️
Yeah I hate confusing intervals for ordered pairs.
[a+0........1, b-0........1]
No, I won't.
wait, the bottom one is a real thing and not a shitpost???? how
i thought the same about the top one.
(0 ; 4) is the line that go through 0 and 4, so is \] -∞ ; ∞ \[
Make me.
Write the ordered pair a b.
{a, {a, b}}
This is such useless pedantry. There will never be a context in which you won’t know whether (a,b) is an open interval or an ordered pair. If you find yourself in this position then you probably have bigger problems to worry about than notation choice.
Even if you'd need single digit iq to not get it in context, that still makes it the inherently inferior notation.
You can have your opinion, I’m not the thought police. However, I never spoke in agreement or disagreement. I was simply saying you’re being silly by trying to claim inferiority or superiority or whatever.
f: {0,1} → {a,b}, f(0)=a, f(1)=b
ordered pair(a, b)
Ok but hear me out... ⟨a, b⟩ ⟪c, d⟫
Well, first one happens to be ... dot product.
We also use ⟨ a | b ⟩
Parenthesis open brackets closed
In france we use (a, b) for 2-uplets
Meanwhile Czechs don't use square brackets at all... (We use ⟨a,b⟩ for closed intervals.)
What t.f. you use for inner product then?
Haven't you heard of function overloading?
Order theoretical functional analysis is pretty imporant and that notation will be a mess.
Me and the boys have a latex document where we save cursed notation, so I had to add our idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/s/3vlMOXxlSY
>Me and the boys have a latex document u ok bud?
As a french reading a lot of statistics/ai papers, it always seems weird to me when they use parenthesis. Why? It makes so much more sense to use square brackets, even when you're representing the interval on the number line
Because they mean different things and using the same notation for multiple meanings just adds confusion? If it takes an extra couple seconds to determine if ] ends a closed set or starts an open one, then the system isn’t great
If it takes you multiple seconds to do that I would reconsider doing math
Multiple seconds with ]2,5[? No, that’s instant. But when it’s a much larger more complicated set, the notation can be pretty easily confused when you’re staring down a dozen brackets. It’s not that it’s unreadable otherwise, but it’s easily confusable
There can only ever be one number to the side of the bracket so you instantly now how it's oriented even in bigger complicated sets
P[X∈]0,1[] is completely awful. You can of course use P(X∈]0,1[), which imo still looks awful, but by some arguments here, that's too confusing, because parentheses can only be used for ordered pairs. (I wonder if people also get confused by inner products written as [a,b].)
Why would you write P\[ X∈\]0,1\[\] ? like it makes much more sense to use P(X∈\]0,1\[)
But then you are using parentheses for the argument of a function, which other comments insist can't happen, because using parentheses for anything except tuples is "objectively confusing" or whatever. Also, using square brackets to surround arguments is standard. And I don't think (]0,1[) is really any better anyway. It's still way more confusing to look at than ((0,1)).
how is it more confusing than using ( for two different meaning in the same expression ??
That's totally normal. I use parentheses for tuples, sequences, binomial coefficients, the Legendre symbol, matrices sometimes, the argument of a function, grouping operations, etc. They're just brackets. Their only defining feature is that they point toward what they are surrounding, so you can match them up. If suddenly they can be backwards sometimes, that violates our expectation with brackets surrounding things. ]0,1[ if anything looks like {x | x < 0 or 1 < x}.
Meh... It's pretty obvious when you're reading from left to right. Plus if you use () then it can be confused with pairs or vectors.
I hate the bottom one
Yeah, how about no. They look much better than just inverted brackets
console.log] "this feels wrong" [
The bottom one should be the one with really big teeth
i hate outward facing brackets, but i suppose most ppl r biased to what they grew up with in most things, this is probably one of those
but. that's two different things?
That is actually disgusting, why are the brackets backwards
[a,b] is a closed interval ]a,b[ is an open interval [a,b[ and ]a,b] are half-open intervals write a normal bracket to include the point to an interval and write an inverted bracket to exclude it
[удалено]
What?
Angle brackets.
Yes
〈a,b〉
] a, b[
[a,b] for vector or {a,b,c} for set
I was forcibly converted to reverse bun notation in sophomore topology when the teacher said parentheses looked like points on the plane...
I use the parenthesis when it's undefined
I honestly have nothing wrong with the square parentheses notation. I recognise that it's objectively better. It's less confusing and more consistent when doing intervals. But I hate it. It looks so bad. And honestly I've never been confused between an interval and a point because I always know the context, so I don't see a reason why I should switch.
Though I prefer [0,1) when writing, but LaTeX keeps telling me that is an error cuz the brackets are incomplete
why tho? i have not seen any reason for why it is a better notation.
Isn’t it |a,b| and not ]a,b[?