35 thoughts on “Symbols that Math Urgently Needs to Adopt”

You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve needed that first one more times than I can count. I mean, I actually wrote it as an equal sign with a question mark above it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.

Regarding the “so much greater” one: I’ve seen >> and >>> used many places (more accurately, the LaTeX symbols \gg and \ggg).

Also, theoretical CS uses big versions of the union, intersection, conjunction, and disjunction operators for their respective iterated forms (\bigcup, \bigcap, \bigwedge, and \bigvee). I see no reason a big circle couldn’t be used (aside from lack of LaTeX symbol) to iterate composition as well. You might want to put the part before the (t) in brackets though.

Don’t forget {H}x/y}, which is the Hootenian Finagle Factor: = the number you must multiply your answer by to get the answer in the back of the book… 🙂

On the topic of “and then some algebraic steps follows…” I once took a formal logic class in which, after we started doing predicate logic, we were permitted to just write down “SL” for any steps that were ‘just’ sentential logic… 🙂

I love your blog! This one in particular is hilarious. Another symbol I find myself needing is “I know it’s not right but I’m clueless.” Thanks for the laugh.

I disagree with the square notation for the sin, and would in fact use that to complain about the notation for inverse functions, but that aside this is a rather funny post 🙂

You know, I’m pretty sure I’ve needed that first one more times than I can count. I mean, I actually wrote it as an equal sign with a question mark above it. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t.

Regarding the “so much greater” one: I’ve seen >> and >>> used many places (more accurately, the LaTeX symbols \gg and \ggg).

Also, theoretical CS uses big versions of the union, intersection, conjunction, and disjunction operators for their respective iterated forms (\bigcup, \bigcap, \bigwedge, and \bigvee). I see no reason a big circle couldn’t be used (aside from lack of LaTeX symbol) to iterate composition as well. You might want to put the part before the (t) in brackets though.

My formal logic teacher would turn in his grave (if he were dead) hearing you asking for brackets here. Really, no, don’t do it.

Anyway, one of the best posts of my favourite blog.

The command \bigcirc gives a big circle 🙂

HahahahahahahahhhHHahahahah

Sent from my iPhone

Shouldn’t there be an explicit one for handwaving that entails waving hands?

Isn’t it a little self-defeating to make hand-waving explicit?

@Cal Filkin: not if you’re the type of hand-waver who wishes to make clear what s/he’s doing and needs to get the job done quickly and effectively.

I NEED THAT LAST ONE, OMG 😜

Yeah!

What should we call it?

Equal to, hopes so 😉 awesome blog

hahahaha This is really a great blog. Well done!!

hahaha great post ,can you give me some tips about how to attract viewers and what should be the qualities in blog post???

Don’t forget {H}x/y}, which is the Hootenian Finagle Factor: = the number you must multiply your answer by to get the answer in the back of the book… 🙂

Thanks Tom. I had mislaid that factor and it has been driving me crazy. Thanks again. I owe you one. LOL.

On the topic of “and then some algebraic steps follows…” I once took a formal logic class in which, after we started doing predicate logic, we were permitted to just write down “SL” for any steps that were ‘just’ sentential logic… 🙂

If math was always portrayed like this, I would have learned more and the studying would be easier 😀

interesting n hilarious

I like the sequence-composition operator a lot.

I always love to see mathematics reaching a broader audience. Your blog achieves this wonderfully! Thank you!

u made me laugh, which in itself is not unusual , but fr me laughing about amything mathematical is unusual and a relief, miss u paul

My daughter is studying for her HSC (final school exam in Australia) – thank you for bringing a smile to her face!

How about a symbol in formal proofs for “its obvious that…”

Wait what is so obvious about that?

Pingback: Nuevos símbolos que las matemáticas deberían adoptar urgentemente | BLOG PCTIENDA

Pingback: Nuevos símbolos que las matemáticas deberían adoptar urgentemente | allrss

Pingback: Nuevos símbolos que las matemáticas deberían adoptar urgentemente | Blog de Alcocer Sotil

Pingback: Nuevos símbolos que las matemáticas deberían adoptar urgentemente | Microsiervos (Humor)

I love this!!! We need some symbols for medicine too!!!

I love your blog! This one in particular is hilarious. Another symbol I find myself needing is “I know it’s not right but I’m clueless.” Thanks for the laugh.

Engineers would do everything to get the “some algebraic steps which should lead to this conclusion”. Sometimes we are lazier than mathematicians!

How about a halo above the 3 on the right to indicate “forever and ever”

10/3=3,333

as a graduate of an engineering course, I enjoyed this. 😀

Pingback: Friday Five: #5 | Wonder in Mathematics

I disagree with the square notation for the sin, and would in fact use that to complain about the notation for inverse functions, but that aside this is a rather funny post 🙂