← Back to context

Comment by WillAdams

7 days ago

Reading up on the history of mathematics really makes that clear as shown in

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1098132.Thomas_Harriot_s...

(ob. discl., I did the typesetting for that)

It shows at least one lengthy and quite wordy example of how an equation would have been stated, then contrasts it in the "new" symbolic representation (this was one of the first major works to make use of Robert Recorde's development of the equals sign).

Although if you look at most maths textbooks or papers there's a fair bit of English waffle per equation. I guess both have their place.

  • People definitely could stand to write a lot more comments in their code. And like... yea, textbook style prose, not just re-stating the code in slightly less logical wording.

  • As somebody that occasionally studies pure math books those can be very, very light on regular English.

    • That makes them much easier to read though, its so hard to find a specific statement in English compared to math notation since its easier to find a specific symbol than a specific word.

  • Textbooks aren't just communicating theorems and proofs (which are often just written in formal symbolic language), but also the language required to teach these concepts, why these are important, how these could be used and sometimes even the story behind the discovery of fields.

    So this is far from an accurate comparison.

    • > Textbooks aren't just communicating theorems and proofs

      Not even maths papers, which are vehicle for theorem's and proofs, are purely symbolic language and equations. Natural language prose is included when appropriate.

  • Yes, plain language text to support and translate symbology to concepts facilitates initial comprehension. It's like two ends of a connection negotiating protocols: once agreed upon, communication proceeds using only symbols.