Hacker News Reader

Comment by esharte | Hacker News Reader

As an undergraduate I sit in classes being taught to use meaningful variables in code. Then I walk into one of the many math and physics lectures and wonder what meaningless single letter variables are we see scribbled on the whiteboard today.

This wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a class with a different lecturer using different notation afterwards.

Should each lecturer introduce their notation the first time its used in class?

Why can't they just use use proper meaningful variable names?

View on HN

If you have a seminar-like class with a different lecturer every week, then, yes, it's a problem if they can't get consistent notation. I'd hope that's rare in undergraduate courses, though.

And meaningful variable names would be absolutely horrible for anyone trying to calculate with them or visually comprehend them. Energy = lorentzFactor * restMass * speedOfLight^2? You'd be writing all day to get anything done, and it would be hard to see the forest for the trees.

See also the brevity of notation in J, q, and APL, and the "tacit" style of J and "point-free" style of Haskell.

Having seen "i" used for 3 different things on the same blackboard at the same time and 4 in a single lecture, A reasonable shorthand seems like a great idea. Limit things to 4 or 5 letters and spL, lorzF, Enrg, rtMa are all clear in context and hardly wasteful.

The other option is to use 3 symbol code for common notation which might take a little effort to standardize and memorize, but could probably cover all of science, math, and engineering.

trying to construct a symbol code for a global context ensures it is suboptimal in every local context. not worth the trade off.

It's also pretty difficult to google for things like 'η'. And how do you actually type a formula with an integral sign without knowing how to type ∫

Physics and math needs an alternate notation without all these 'greek' symbols which aren't on keyboards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com