Re: I think Omitting the multiplication sign is a big mistake
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg120222] Re: I think Omitting the multiplication sign is a big mistake
- From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
That's a wonderful example illustrating the difficulties of traditional mathematical notation, the sort of thing that makes one appreciate why so many students don't understand it. The fact that traditional math notation was designed to handle single-letter variables with aplomb makes thing even more confusing when students have to deal with multi-character variables. A couple of programming languages have built on, among other things, the principle that every operation must be explicitly indicated with a symbol (so no space and no juxtaposition to denote multiplication). Such of those languages that I know (APL and J) also abandon any hierarchy of operators of the same kind, e.g., no precedence of multiplication over addition (but they impose a different kind of precedence among "functions" and "operators" or, as Ken Iverson later preferred to call them, "verbs" and "adverbs" and "conjunctions"). On 7/13/11 3:11 AM, a boy wrote: > In philosophical sense, to omit the multiplication sign is incorrect. > Space-key or null is always describe the place of objects. > A little student may think a(b+c)=ab+ac ==> 2(3+4)=23+24 ? > In Mathematica, array[[n]] puzzled almost all of new ones who never > used the software. > -- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305