Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #1 2012-10-17 08:55:38

ShivamS
Super Member

Offline

### Limits

Limits are weird. Alas, now no one can change the notation from:
lim f(x) = b to lim f(x) = ->b
x->a              x->a

I have discovered a truly marvellous signature, which this margin is too narrow to contain. -Fermat
Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. -Archimedes
Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. - Neumann

## #2 2012-10-17 09:44:58

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

Why would anyone want to change it. If we included the arrow, then the limit operator would be redundant...

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #3 2012-10-17 10:23:37

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

Math notation is still evolving. There are many bits of notation that have not been standardized.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #4 2012-10-18 01:53:36

ShivamS
Super Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

Although I highly doubt anyobne would give heed to my suggestion.

I have discovered a truly marvellous signature, which this margin is too narrow to contain. -Fermat
Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world. -Archimedes
Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. - Neumann

## #5 2012-10-18 05:47:57

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

You should first give good arguments on why you think your notation is better and then publish it somewhere and somehow...

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #6 2012-10-18 09:09:00

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

Usually someone writes a paper on something else and includes his idea/notation. Others see and go crazy over it.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #7 2012-10-18 10:24:28

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

True, but I remember a document by Knuth about the use of Iverson brackets.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #8 2012-10-18 10:31:25

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

Iverson brackets. I haven't heard that phrase in over a millennium.

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #9 2012-10-18 10:58:15

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

I like those, for some reason. They remind me a little of the "if" statement in programming languages and is very useful.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #10 2012-10-18 11:10:51

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

The trouble is it conflicts with the sometimes usage of the integer function [ ].

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

## #11 2012-10-18 11:47:23

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Limits

Well, the differ by the argument and you can also use the floor function notation to represent the integer function.

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #12 2012-10-18 11:59:37

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

Hmmmm. But didn't the integer function come first? I do not see what right that upstart Iverson operator has to steal some other operators symbol?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

kapila
Novice

Offline

## #14 2013-12-26 21:52:28

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Limits

Hi;

Is this the problem?

In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.