Personally, particular interesting info i've learned is that, for all my trouble in the past decade expressing problems of traditional math notation, i learned from his article this single-phrase summary: “traditional math notation lacks a grammar”.
The article is somewhat disappointing though. I was expecting he'd go into some details about the science of math notations, or, as he put it aptly: “linguistics of math notations”. However, he didn't touch the subject, except saying that it haven't been studied. Xah On Aug 15, 10:54 pm, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote: > Xah's Edu Corner: The importance of syntax & notations. > > http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/mathml/mathml_abstr... > > this article should teach the coding sophomorons and computer > “science” idiotic authors who harbor the notion that syntax is not > important, picked up by all the elite i-reddit & twittering & hacker > news am-hip dunces. > > Further readings: > > • The TeX Pestilence > http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/TeX_pestilence.html > > • A Notation for Plane Geometry > http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/plane_geometry_notation.html > > • The Concepts and Confusions of Prefix, Infix, Postfix and Fully > Nested Notations > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/notations.html > > • The Problems of Traditional Math Notation > http://xahlee.org/cmaci/notation/trad_math_notation.html > > Xah > ∑http://xahlee.org/ > > ☄ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
