Live data from Hacker News

Mathematical Notation Is Awful

blackhole12.blogspot.com

41–50 of 97 posts

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#41
post #13

These are just issues that someone unfamiliar with a field would face. None of them are problems for those of us in the field. First, the expectation thing. He's using a special case, E(X), and complaining that the more general case doesn't follow the general case. It's like saying "Well the plural of mouse is mice but the plural of house isn't hice!". The general definition of expectation (for a discrete probability…

> "Well the plural of mouse is mice but the plural of house isn't hice!"

That's the strangest defense. English notation is awful.

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#42
If you're doing math, you need to be able to manipulate the symbols easily. These notations develop because they're easy to work with: consistency is less important than brevity. Lambda calculus terms may be easier to read, but they're much slower to write, and and they take up more space on the page or blackboard.

That said, once you've arrived at some kind of result, you could switch to a more consistent notation for explaining whatever you've found. It doesn't necessarily have to be textual, either (see http://worrydream.com/KillMath/).

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#43
I had an exam in probability theory yesterday, so these topics are still quite fresh in my mind. The confusion already starts when he uses the equation

  E[X] = \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} x_i p(x_i)
for the expectation. In my class it was introduced as

  E[X] = \sum_{\omega \in \Omega} X(\omega) P(\omega)
       = \sum_{ x \in X(\Omega)} x p_X(x)
which totally makes sense if you know that X is a function that assigns a value to each possible outcome. In most cases we don't actually care about the outcomes, so there is the second description using p_X.

The subscript X is important to highlight that p is not just some arbitrary function, it is p_X, the probability mass function of X.

Now when you want to compute the expectation of X^2, you use

  E[X^2] = \sum_{\omega \in \Omega} X^2(\omega) P(\omega)
         = \sum_{x^2 \in X^2(\Omega)} x^2 p_{X^2}(x^2)
i.e. the substitution he wanted to do actually works when you make the dependency of p_X on X explicit.

Now p_{f(X)} is not that easy to compute from p_X in general, because you have to account for multiple possible ways to reach the same value, e.g. x^2 = (-x)^2. For f(x) = x^2 we have

  p_{X^2}(x^2) = p_X(x)             for x = 0
    and        = p_X(x) + p_X(-x)   otherwise 
If f is more complex, there is a third way using

  E[f(X)] = \sum_{x \in X(\Omega)} f(x) p_X(x)
which amounts to the same thing, but is usually easier to calculate.

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#45
The post is a pretty childish rant. One of the great facets of mathematical writing (and not learning, unfortunately) is that you can explicitly define your own notation, and then use said notation whenever you want. The author even notes this in his final paragraph, but doesn't seem to see it as an advantage of mathematical writing.

Prior to modern notation, mathematics was written out in english in full. What we have now is significantly better than what existed before modern mathematical shorthand.

Also, the expectation is an operator and not a 'function' (in the sense that it does not take values in one of the canonical scalar fields e.g. R, C). The notation makes perfect sense in this setting. For example, the expression E[x^2] should be interpreted as E acting on the function x -> x^2 and not on a number x.

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#46
post #13

These are just issues that someone unfamiliar with a field would face. None of them are problems for those of us in the field. First, the expectation thing. He's using a special case, E(X), and complaining that the more general case doesn't follow the general case. It's like saying "Well the plural of mouse is mice but the plural of house isn't hice!". The general definition of expectation (for a discrete probability…

"These are just issues that someone unfamiliar with a field would face. None of them are problems for those of us in the field."

How is this argument different from defending code with bad variable naming by stating that it doesn't cause issues to anyone familiar with the code base?

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#47

One interesting observation that popped into my mind when I read the OP: Mathematicians don't write mathematical notation in papers/books by hand anymore, they use a far more verbose language called LATEX. Wouldn't it be great if every time you saw a mathematical formula there was a little widget to push that would show you the "source code" in LATEX++, and LATEX++ was like LATEX but made up of stringently defined ma…

LaTeX... now that is unreadable. Traditional mathematical notation is just fine.

Well, when I write TeX (and I stick to the "good practice" of defining "semantic" macros for common symbols), I often notice myself finding the TeX source code more readable than the PDF it produces.

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#48
I have similar feelings with music notation too. we never applied our "user experience" standards to mathematical notation and music notation. If these things were invented today, we might come up with better ideas.

One painful experience I have reading math is telling which variables are "vectors" and which are "scalars". another is the similar looks of certain greek characters and english characters, such as alpha and a.

Re: Mathematical Notation Is Awful

#50
post #13

These are just issues that someone unfamiliar with a field would face. None of them are problems for those of us in the field. First, the expectation thing. He's using a special case, E(X), and complaining that the more general case doesn't follow the general case. It's like saying "Well the plural of mouse is mice but the plural of house isn't hice!". The general definition of expectation (for a discrete probability…

I have taken ten years of math in school and then calculus, discrete math, linear algebra. That's all useless if I want to follow math in a simple research paper because they're using notation common in THAT field and it has nothing to do with the notation in another math field.

And it's all V hat superscript pi subscript h. It's not like code, where I get descriptive variable names. And you thought pi meant pi? No, it means policy in THIS context.

Post reply on HN