Timeline for The assumption of knowledge of what notation means
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2021 at 14:53 | comment | added | JRN | Is $0\in\mathbb{N}$? | |
| Jul 22, 2021 at 11:22 | history | undeleted |
Gerry Myerson Moishe Kohan Toby Mak |
||
| Jun 29, 2021 at 19:43 | history | deleted | Prime Mover | via Vote | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 15:58 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @AsafKaragila I agree. Unreadable book. Nearly as bad as Finnegan's Wake. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 15:20 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | You miss the fact that mathematics is a language just like any other. You don't give someone who wants to learn English a copy of Ulysses. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 15:17 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @PrimeMover: In this case? Very. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 15:00 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @AsafKaragila You don't need to explain it, you need to define it. "where the above means M is a model for p therefore the upper closure of x is in the upper closure of y". Or whatever it means. How certain are you that everybody uses the same notation as you? | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 14:18 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I don't see why someone who is asking a question about forcing needs to explain the notation $M\models p\Vdash\dot x\in\dot y$ to a level that someone who is not a set theorist could understand it. I'm not saying it can't be done, but for me, as someone who might answer this question, it is a complete waste of my time, since it means that a question that was previously two or three paragraphs and well-written for me, is now a few screen-lengths with stuff that I've known since a decade, and nobody is expected to learn from MSE anyway. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 14:16 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I strongly disagree with this requirement. Starting to include explanation for each bit of notation, each small term, each so and so, that sounds like too much work. If I were a serious student who wanted to ask a serious question here, knowing that I have to essentially practice-run the preliminaries section of my thesis on the site before each question would be a great reason to never ask any serious question. What this question is saying, essentially, is that any question that cannot be understood by a freshman is not giving enough context, and with that I strongly disagree. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:48 | comment | added | Xander Henderson Mod | It would take almost no extra work to write "$\mathbb{F}_2$ (the field with two elements)" and "$\langle x^2+x+1\rangle$ (the ideal generated by the polynomial $x^2+x+1$". These brief explanations of notation are helpful, and should be included in the question. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:32 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @ArcticChar No it wasn't, but it was in the same, er, field. :-) | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:30 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC Yes I like to think I would. Whether I would actually do so or not is beside the point: this for me would be revision of stuff that I'd done long years ago but since forgot. But whether I did or not is completely irrelevant. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:26 | comment | added | Arctic Char | Just saw this. Is that the one you saw? | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:26 | comment | added | user1729 | @JonathanZsupportsMonicaC Personally, I was taught $(x^2+x+1)$ denotes the ideal generated by the element $x^2+x+1$ (I also found that Brilliant.org uses this notation, and other people+places too - including the question Arctic Char just linked to, below). So I assume that $\langle x^2+x+1\rangle$ means the same thing, and could probably solve the question under this assumption. But I shouldn't have the make this assumption. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 13:02 | comment | added | JonathanZ | To address the specific post you asked about, if you had had $\mathbb F_2$ and $\langle x^2 + x+1\rangle$ explained to you, do you think you would have been able to answer the question? Do you have experience with finite fields and ideals in rings? | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:31 | history | edited | Prime Mover | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:31 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @CalvinKhor Amended the relevant sentence to say "need". Apologies, I get where you're coming from now. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:22 | comment | added | user1729 | @CalvinKhor +1, but the question is specifically about notation. I read it to mean that, for example, $\mathbb{F}_2$ should be stated as denoting the field with two elements, but there is no need to define a field. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:22 | comment | added | Calvin Khor | Right, which is precisely what I meant; give the definition, and not the definitions used by the definition. This is not quite the same as "include as much information as you can". Sorry for the rather tangential point, it was a reflex in response to such a strongly worded paragraph ("with no exception") | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:20 | comment | added | Prime Mover | @CalvinKhor I'm not saying include a textbook. All I'm suggesting is that you include a few short words: "... where $\Bbb D$ denotes an arbitrary ordered integral domain" or whatever. It can then be up to the reader to go and look up what an ordered integral domain is, which would be impossible to do unless you throw the poor reader a bone by stating that it's an ordered integral domain in the first place. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:14 | comment | added | Calvin Khor | I agree with the spirit of your Question, but not the first paragraph; you simply cannot include a textbook into your Question, and once you do, the Question becomes something I would vote to close for lack of clarity. I think giving the definitions is good, but perhaps don't bother to define the terms in the definition. Another solution is to add links to e.g. wikipedia. | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 12:05 | comment | added | user1729 | I agree that notation like this should be defined (especially if asked). It ensures that the asker knows their definitions, while notations and conventions can vary from place-to-place and between areas. (The "purpose" of MSE is a can of worms, but I think giving definitions like this beneficial, regardless of MSE's "purpose".) | |
| Jun 29, 2021 at 11:35 | history | asked | Prime Mover | CC BY-SA 4.0 |