Should we try to standardize notation?

Question

I misunderstand so many questions because I misread what the asker meant. E.g. sometimes 8y4 means 32y and other times the asker means 8y^4. Is there a way we can standardize the notation for this part of the site. Is it even desirable?

Because questions seem to hide after 2 or 3 answers, while the question is active, I'm going to put its address into the references part of questions I answer (and only questions I answer). If you are interested in this perhaps you could too

Suggest
+ means addition
- means subtraction
concatination (e.g ab) or * for multipication
^ means raise to a power
() and [ ] to set off terms for clarity
sqr or ^(1/2) for square root
log for log base 10, loga for log base a , ln for natural log.

Any ideas or additions?

I intend to submit the resolved question to the suggestions forum only if the general feeling is that it will help.

Pascal's response would be a good starting point. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjXQ7xNIUafOYdbLoW9t5gLsy6IX?qid=20061222124701AAVLoe2&show=7

I'm not trying to set the standard -- just trying to get support so Yahoo will put one up for us to reference.

Answer 1

5 months ago I made a post (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjXQ7xNIUafOYdbLoW9t5gLsy6IX?qid=20061222124701AAVLoe2&show=7 ) on how to write math formulas on Y!A. Even today, I still think that the contents of that post remain the best guidelines in existence for math notation on Y!A, and I would in no way object to that post being cited in the questions you answer. One note: I recommend the use of the actual square root sign "√" for square roots, and the notation log_a for the logarithm base a. Also, unicode subscript characters may be used as well -- for instance, I could write the logarithm base 2 of x as log_2 x, log₂ x, or ln x/ln 2.

Answer 2

I've wondered about something like this. I get tired of prefacing some explanation with, "If I understand your question correctly..." But how to get everybody on board... especially those asking the questions? Most of them are wrapped with conventions their teachers use.

Somebody suggested that the "order of operations" is simple enough. The "order of operations" varies. For some exponentiation is first for others it's negation. Some people think of multiplication and division as separate operations. Some think addition and subtraction are separate operations. People who work with computers may have a different view of the order of operations than a fourth-grade teacher, who only knows enough math to get through fractions. Maybe we're stuck with, "If what you mean to ask is..."

Another poster said that we're not going to get people asking questions to read the rules first. One of the reasons we don't have them, I guess. But we can suggest. For example, "In the future, if you indicate the exponent like this, a^n, you won't have to type, "a with a little n up to the right of it." I actually suggested the use of "log base 7" or whatever in lieu of "log with a little seven after it." I think such suggestions will catch on. They're faster to type, and they eliminate confusion on the part of the person asking the question. They'll see that in the answer.

I do agree that parentheses (), brackets [], and braces {} can't be overused. It helps so much to remove confusion as to what is being added to what. If somebody sticks anything after a function of log, they really need to put parentheses around whatever it is. I'm always wondering if sinx+y really means sin(x)+y or if they meant sin(x+y). Or How about sin(x)^2? Does it mean [sin(x)]^2 or does it mean sin(x^2). Most would write the former, sin^2(x), but one can't be sure. Of course sin^(-1)(x) could be either the arcsin(x) or 1/[sin(x)]. Perhaps, for our use, [sin(x)]^2 is best?

(a)(b+c) could also be used to indicate multiplication

Some of these people are pretty mathematically naive. When I'm talking to what sounds like a third-grader, (from the tenor of the question like, "How do I multiply fractions..." I still use "x" for multiplication. They seem to understand that. It's probably what their teacher writes on the board. For them
3/5 x 2/7 makes sense and doesn't introduce a factor of x. I know it kind of grates on math brains, but to write the problem for them as (3/5)(2/7) I think might be more confusing than helpful.

Just a thought..


Bless you for suggesting the use of ^(1/2) for square root. But I don't think sqr is good for square root. Looks too much like squared. I personally prefer the use of the exponent. That way we can show that it obeys the rules of exponents.


When I have to work with logs to bases other than 10, log, or 3, ln, I suggest, "Let's use L5 for log base 5", or L23 for log base 23." That way they understand that L23(23)=1. And it's a whole lot shorter. Ok, I'm an old dude and type slowly. So shoot me.

Other symbols I think we should use because they are standard are π α β γ δ θ ≥ ≤ ≠ ± ² ³: I saw a guy posting exponents higher than 3, but I can't find them anywhere in Word.


I'd like to see people who seem to just post their homework for somebody else to do, a little disappointed. Not ignored, but maybe have only one or two of the twenty posted, solved and explained. And I'd like to see us refrain from posting numeric answers as much as possible. I know sometimes we work it out that far just to see if it's correct, but let them figure it out once we tell them how. The numeric answer may be what they're looking for, but if I work it to 27π, anything I give them will be an approximation of that value. Problem is, that some of us seem inclined to do their work for them. Some just post an answer or answers without explanation. I guess that's an ethics problem, not a notation problem.

Answer 3

Nope...

If people have not learned standard notation before they start posting questions, they deserve exactly what they get from those of us who interpret posts by assuming standard notation.

How many kids looking for help with their homework are going to read the rules about posting?
.

Answer 4

i dont think there needs to be a standardize notation, because order of operations is easy to follow anyways. if it's not readable the writer is to blame.