On 10 December 2012 22:10, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > You had claimed that this issue -- notation -- is not a subject of > discussion.
And it is not. Of course, with rare exceptions that do not change the overall picture. > I have documented cases where it is clearly being discussed. You have done none of that. What you have done is throwing a bunch of titles, some of which are totally unrelated to notation, and others talk of notations of quite a different nature and applicability. Both kinds are irrelevant to my claim. > Your "few lines on each title" seems to have lost track of > that aspect. Actually, you seem to have lost track of what we are discussing. > In any event, I have pointed you at examples where it was a part of > the discussion. As I said just above, you have done none of that. We are discussing the notation of school algebra and the potential problems it may present as related to learning mathematics. My comments to your 'examples' clearly indicate why the latter are almost totally irrelevant to this. > That the discussions are not limited to this topic > does not mean that the topic is not being discussed. The truth is not that 'the discussions are not limited to this topic' – it is that they are not related at all to it, with minute exceptions. But, as I said, and as it should be obvious in itself in any similar case, there are always exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
