Unlocking Thread: Ambiguity in Algebraic Notation - Request for Discussion

[uart]

I'd like to request that a recent thread be unlocked.

This one : https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=489514


Background to the locking of this thread.

There was recently another thread asking a somewhat related question in the form of a poll. The related thread degenerated into a lot of "yes it does" "no it doesn't" type of arguments.

This particular thread has generated no such arguments and my opinion is unlikely to do so. I was hoping to further discuss other cases of potentially ambiguous algebraic notation with other members. I really think that this is a topic worthy of discussion.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[micromass]

I understand your arguments, and I do agree that this thread has more mature arguments then the original thread. However, on the other hand, I feel that every possible argument has already been discussed. So there's nothing really novel that could still happen. So I do understand that the thread was locked...

 

[uart]

I understand your arguments, and I do agree that this thread has more mature arguments then the original thread. However, on the other hand, I feel that every possible argument has already been discussed. So there's nothing really novel that could still happen. So I do understand that the thread was locked...

Hi micomass. How do you know what will happen. I had other notations that I wanted to discuss, particularly functional notations. As I've typed this material twice already I'd rather not start another thread and repeat myself a third time (possibly only to have it locked again).

The linked thread is much more of a discussion than an argument in any case. Surely the way we communicate as mathematicians is worthy of discussion.

 

[berkeman]

Yes, please do not start any more threads similar to this one. We are discussing the situation in the Mentor forums now...

 

[Borek]

This particular thread has generated no such arguments

yet

and my opinion is unlikely to do so.

and here we differ, my experience tells me otherwise.

But - as Berkeman already mentioned - we are discussing the problem. For some reasons subject seems to be hot, not only here.

 

[uart]

Yes, please do not start any more threads similar to this one. We are discussing the situation in the Mentor forums now...

Ok no problems Berkeman.

The discussion of which mathematical notations are preferred in particular circumstances and identifying common notations that are potentially ambiguous is something that is of interest to me at the moment. I can see no valid reason why such a topic of discussion should be outlawed.

 

[jhae2.718]

It's kind of like the 0.999... = 1 thing; sure, you can discuss it, but it spirals out into an uncontrollable mess and nothing good happens. I.e. the unstoppable force and immovable object.

 

[uart]

It's kind of like the 0.999... = 1 thing; sure, you can discuss it, but it spirals out into an uncontrollable mess and nothing good happens. I.e. the unstoppable force and immovable object.

You seem to have generalized quite a lot from just one instance there jhaee.

 

[jhae2.718]

It's my opinion that that particular topic has been discussed to death already.

 

[gb7nash]

It's kind of like the 0.999... = 1 thing; sure, you can discuss it, but it spirals out into an uncontrollable mess and nothing good happens. I.e. the unstoppable force and immovable object.

I agree on this too. Some topics bring a lot of misconception with them and a lot of people come up with their own theory on what should be the answer. Then you get back and forth nonsense that pretty much goes nowhere. This is particularly true with .999... = 1 and the division sign in an expression. If you're still not convinced, you can go through the many threads that have spiraled out of control.

 

[uart]

It's my opinion that that particular topic has been discussed to death already.

Without any knowledge of what other related notational inconsistencies might have been brought to light with such a discussion. That seems incredibly presumptuous to me.

 

[uart]

I agree on this too. Some topics bring a lot of misconception with them and a lot of people come up with their own theory on what should be the answer. Then you get back and forth nonsense that pretty much goes nowhere. This is particularly true with .999... = 1 and the division sign in an expression. If you're still not convinced, you can go through the many threads that have spiraled out of control.

Then can you please link some of the other operator precedence threads that have gone out of control. I know of only the one.

 

[gb7nash]

All of them got deleted as far as I'm aware. I remember posting on one and couldn't find it later.

However, here's a .999... = 1 thread. It gets pretty insane:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=484046

 

[uart]

Yes I'm well aware of all the [itex]0.999... \neq 1[/tex] threads, I've been a member here for nearly eight years. This however was the first time I've ever seen a thread on operator precedence get out of control.

PS. To those who say nothing new can be added to the discussion. That's surely a self fulfilling prophecy when every thread on the topic is locked.

 

[jhae2.718]

While philosophically I would not be opposed to continuing the discussion on the topic, I can't help be feel that the ultimate result of such a thread would be another uncontrollable argument/proof by calculator/etc*. It's an interesting discussion, but these subject generally tend to get out of control quickly. Recall that the original thread started out as a "civilized" discussion, but soon plummeted out of control, not to mention the innumerable deleted threads started about the particular equation in question.

Yes, it may very well be presumptuous of me, but I don't really see anything further that can be added to that particular subject. Both sides articulated (and in some cases, screamed with overly large font) their points, and we ended at an impasse. The only way I can see something productive resulting is if the "my way is the correct way/only way/best way" arguments can be avoided, and, this being the Internet, I don't see that happening.

*For the first thread on the issue, the blame for this falls on both sides.

 

[uart]

Hi jhaee. I hope people realize that I have no interest at all in re-hashing [itex]24 \div 2(7+4) = ?[/tex] or anything similar. I was wishing to broaden the discussion to other examples of where juxtaposition multiplication could potentially alter precedence. (Say for example with the [itex] \sin 2x[/tex] notation I previously mentioned).

I also had other examples of common notations that I wanted to discuss and get peoples opinions on. At this point however I have moved my discussion to another venue, so unless anyone else wants to discuss it further I am happy for the topic to remain closed.

 

[berkeman]

Note that one of the things we are discussing in the Mentor forums about this is a more productive approach -- how to avoid ambiguity in equation presentation. After all, that is what we all want, I would think.

Still no decision on what do to about re-opening a thread or making a Library entry on the subject. Stay tuned please...

 

[uart]

Note that one of the things we are discussing in the Mentor forums about this is a more productive approach -- how to avoid ambiguity in equation presentation.

Well that's just great, since those were precisely the things that I wished to discuss, but had my efforts thwarted -twice!

 

[micromass]

I tend to agree uart. I think a discussion on ambiguity of notations could be very benificial. And I would welcome a discussion very much! I just don't want to see people hijack the thread and post their own theories. And believe me or not, but this WILL happen!

It's sad that people hijack interesting discussions to post nonsense. If it were for me, I would re-open the thread, however I don't want to see another thread spiralling out of control...

 

[JaredJames]

Surely the issue was answered?

If you don't want ambiguity, use as many parenthesis as required to indicate exactly how you want it to be interpreted.

If you don't do this, then you should expect ambiguity in interpretation and no amount of debate will change the fact everyone will read the equation differently.

To continue the debate is going to be splitting hairs. Arguing over personal thoughts on what should / shouldn't be done. Debating, as per a lot of threads, definitions over substance of the argument.

So far, two things have been firmly established:

1) The above holds true regarding ambiguity and use of parenthesis.

2) There isn't a standard set of rules on the matter. So any 'conclusions' will be based solely on personal preference / teaching and certainly (as shown) won't be accepted across the board.