• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fake and gay.

    No way the engineer corrects the mathematician for using j instead of i.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The mathematician also used “operative” instead of, uh, something else, and “associative” instead of “commutative”

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        “operative” instead of, uh, something else

        I think they meant “operand”. As in, in the way dy/dx can sometimes be treated as a fraction and dx treated as a value.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The operand is the target of an operator

            Correct. Thus, dx is an operand. It’s a thing by which you multiply the rest of the equation (or, in the case of dy/dx, by which you divide the dy).

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                You’re misunderstanding the post. Yes, the reality of maths is that the integral is an operator. But the post talks about how “dx can be treated as an [operand]”. And this is true, in many (but not all) circumstances.

                ∫(dy/dx)dx = ∫dy = y

                Or the chain rule:

                (dz/dy)(dy/dx) = dz/dx

                In both of these cases, dx or dy behave like operands, since we can “cancel” them through division. This isn’t rigorous maths, but it’s a frequently-useful shorthand.

                • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I do understand it differently, but I don’t think I misunderstood. I think what they meant is the physicist notation I’m (as a physicist) all too familiar with:

                  ∫ f(x) dx = ∫ dx f(x)

                  In this case, because f(x) is the operand and ∫ dx the operator, it’s still uniquely defined.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    operative?

    Also mathematicians use i for imaginary, engineers use j. The story does not add up. I have never seen a single mathematician use j for imaginary.

    • sartalon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      As an EE, I used both. Def not a mathematician though. Fuck that, I just plug variables into programs now.

    • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Engineer here: mostly use i, but have seen j used plenty. First time I saw j used was by a maths professor.

  • laserm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why would a mathematician use j for imaginary numbers and why would engineer be mad at them?

    • ThePuy@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Mathematicians are taught to be elastic with notation, because they tend to be taught many different interpretations of the same theory.

      On the other hand engineers use more strict and consistent notation, their classes have a more practical approach.

      Using the same notation makes it faster to read and apply math, a more agile approach helps with learning new theories and approaches and with being creative.

  • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think rather d/dx is the operator. You apply it to an expression to bind free occurrences of x in that expression. For example, dx²/dx is best understood as d/dx (x²). The notation would be clear if you implement calculus in a program.

    • jyl@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wtf mate, nothing that serious. Anon teased him and the score was settled when they did the thing later that night.

      The story looks pretty fake and gay anyway, but it’s more wholesome than your idea.