Symbols that Math Urgently Needs to Adopt

20160418145837_0000120160418145837_00002

20160418145837_0000320160418145837_0000420160418145837_0000520160418145837_0000620160418145837_0000720160418145837_0000820160425071213_00001

35 thoughts on “Symbols that Math Urgently Needs to Adopt

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

  3. 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… 🙂

  4. 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… 🙂

  5. 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

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

    Wait what is so obvious about that?

  7. 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.

  8. 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 🙂

Leave a Reply to Jonathan Kaplan Cancel reply