Re:Mathics - A free, light-weight alternative to Mathematica
by stch2 on Sunday February 10, 2013 @04:55PM
(#5198099)
On point (2) -- In four years of being a math major, I don't think a single professor ever used brackets in that situation, only additional parentheses.
Re:Mathics - A free, light-weight alternative to Mathematica
by defrost on Sunday February 10, 2013 @09:59PM
(#5199090)
I'm inclined to agree that it's use would be uncommon, I've not encountered it in 30 odd years of reading papers and talking math (or rather I don't recall noticing it's use).
What I must point out is you make a weak case based on myopia- for example; in 15 years of working with tens of thousands of hours of high resolution radiometrics I've never once met and talked to a dendrochronologist who's looked at the radiometric signature of individual bands of Japanese pine trees.
It's my understanding that such beasts do exist.
Re:Mathics - A free, light-weight alternative to Mathematica
by sn6uv on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @07:54PM
(#5210645)
Another math major here (in my final year). My professors routinely use square brackets after the second or third level of bracket nesting.
I think it must depend on the professor/university.
Re:Mathics - A free, light-weight alternative to Mathematica
by DoubleCluster on Monday February 11, 2013 @02:32AM
(#5199823)
It's common in engineering. I like it because it makes matching parenthesis much easier.
Not true at all:
1) Operators acting on a distribution: E[X], Var[X], Cov[X,Y]
2) Square brackets are used in nested parentheses to avoid confusion: [1(2 + 3) + 4]/5
3) Functionals: L[f] for lagrangian
The main reason why [] isn't used as frequently as () is because most domains interpret the square brackets to mean something special. For example:
1) [x] is often used to denote floor(x)
2) [i=j] is used to denote the kronecker delta