Re:Examples of common false beliefs in mathematics
by BeetleB on Monday January 31, 2022 @11:42AM
(#30149991)
> (λy.M)[x := N] = λy.(M[x := N]), if x ≠ y and y ∉ FV(N)
As someone who spent a lot of time in mathy subjects, this is very readable to me - even though I don't know lambda calculus. I'd posit that if you have trouble with this, it is merely due to not spending much time in math.
Imagine someone who spent all his time in BASIC and he suddenly reads a Java codebase, and complains about the syntax.
> Why is it that software engineers in a few decades have come to the conclusion that proper variable naming is important and abuse of sigils a bad idea but mathematics don't feel the same way?
Because they've been doing it for a few hundred years longer than SW engineers have. I hear this refrain often here on HN. I would love to see someone write a textbook on electromagnetics or quantum mechanics using this verbose notation. The derivation of a harmonic oscillator (without ladder operators) takes a few pages of this concise notation. I shudder how lengthy it would be when more verbose.
As someone who spent a lot of time in mathy subjects, this is very readable to me - even though I don't know lambda calculus. I'd posit that if you have trouble with this, it is merely due to not spending much time in math.
Imagine someone who spent all his time in BASIC and he suddenly reads a Java codebase, and complains about the syntax.
> Why is it that software engineers in a few decades have come to the conclusion that proper variable naming is important and abuse of sigils a bad idea but mathematics don't feel the same way?
Because they've been doing it for a few hundred years longer than SW engineers have. I hear this refrain often here on HN. I would love to see someone write a textbook on electromagnetics or quantum mechanics using this verbose notation. The derivation of a harmonic oscillator (without ladder operators) takes a few pages of this concise notation. I shudder how lengthy it would be when more verbose.