3

The question Alternative notation for exponents, logs and roots complains that we represent strongly related concepts with vastly different notation (e.g. $x^y = z, \sqrt[y]{z} = x, \log_x z = y$) and asks if there is any alternative that would be better for pedagogical purposes.

I am wondering if there is a more general solution to simplify mathematical notation, either by reducing the number of notations or by using similar-looking notations for similar concepts (like the "triangle of power").

For example, we could do away with addition, subtraction and powers by defining $\color{blue}{\underline \phi} = \ln(\phi)$ and $\color{blue}{\overline \phi} = \exp(\phi)$:

$$\begin{align*} \color{blue}{\underline{\overline x \ \overline y \ \overline z}} & = x + y + z \\ \\ \color{blue}{x \ y \ z} &= x \cdot y \cdot z \\ \\ \color{blue}{\overline{i \pi}} &= e^{i \pi} \\ \\ \color{blue}{\overline{2 \ \underline x}} &= x^2 \\ \\ \color{blue}{\overline{- \underline 2}} &= \frac 1 2 \\ \\ \color{blue}{\overline{\overline{- \underline 2} \ \underline x} = \overline{\underline x / 2}} &= \sqrt{x} \\ \\ \end{align*}$$

Would something like this work in practice, or is there a mathematical need for the kind of motley notation we currently use?

Has anyone proposed a simpler notation such as this or a notation that is more graphically intuitive? What research has been done towards improving or standardizing mathematical notation?

Zaz
  • 1,544
  • 5
    Esperanto comes to mind when reading this... – Conrad Mar 08 '22 at 03:29
  • Well, for some reason, I find the notation $z = a +ib$, $\bar z = a -ib$ quite convenient and useful... – J.-E. Pin Mar 08 '22 at 04:21
  • 2
    It doesn't seem simple to me that $\overline{2\underline x}x =\overline{3\underline x}$. Maybe I could get used to it. But writing $\underline{\overline{\overline{2\underline x}}\overline x}$ in place of $x^2+x$ seems horrendous. – MJD Mar 08 '22 at 04:35
  • @J.-E.Pin: Well it doesn't have to be a bar. It could be a curve, a dot, a dash, or some combination of those. In fact, perhaps we could find some logical combination of those that allows us to still write sums simply. – Zaz Mar 08 '22 at 04:44
  • @MJD: It does indeed seem horrendous. Of course for that particular example you could write $x(\underline{\overline{1}\ \overline{x}})$. But I can't immediately see a good way to write unfactored polynomials. Do you think there's any alternative that could work? – Zaz Mar 08 '22 at 04:45
  • 4
    You're replacing each addition with a multiplication and two transcendental operations. This is never going to be simpler. – MJD Mar 08 '22 at 04:47
  • @Conrad: If we could decrease the time it takes to learn mathematics as much as Esperanto decreased the time it takes to learn a language, we should do so with great haste! Mathematics is already an artificial language; why not increase its regularity just as IUPAC did for chemistry? – Zaz Mar 08 '22 at 04:52
  • @MJD: I see your point. And if we start with $+$ instead of $\times$ then we have the issue that powers become more complicated. So we will indeed need more symbols. – Zaz Mar 08 '22 at 05:01
  • 3
    The computer programming language APL came from a project by the mathematician Kenneth Iverson to develop a more streamlined, uniform, "linear" mathematical notation. – DanielWainfleet Mar 08 '22 at 08:23
  • 2
    Mathematics is no more artificial than English as both developed organically across millennia and changed dramatically in doing so (try reading 1700 English in original not in modern transcription and same with mathematics of Newton etc) so your proposal is on the same par with Wilkins universal language of those times etc - ultimately an ideological approach that is absolutist (my way is THE way) in the name of this or that so it is a self serving way of getting attention – Conrad Mar 08 '22 at 13:50
  • 2
    I wrote a blog post that discusses this proposal in more detail. Thanks OP for the suggestion. – MJD Mar 09 '22 at 16:47

0 Answers0