On 9 December 2012 01:36, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > That sounds like the approach of an orthodoxy rather than of a > scientific research community.
Then let the 'scientific research community' produce at least one study of the kind you said you don't know to exist. Until then what you call orthodoxy I consider plain common sense. > If that is a valid representation of your point of view Of course not, but don't let this bother you. > For that matter, contrast: > > 2dx+3dy > > with > > 2dm+3km I don't see your point, and even the relevance to algebraic notation. > x0 + x1 + x2 > e0 + e1 + e3 > 2x0 + 2x1 + 2x2 > 2e0 + 2e1 + 2e3 > > The resolution to these issues, of course, is to be very careful what > we write (for example, if the class uses scientific notation we avoid > using e as a variable in a context where it might be confusing). So what? Symbols are always interpreted in a context. What is the point of your example? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
