rasensprenger

joined 2 years ago
[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

About the ambiguity: If I write f^{-1}(x), without context, you have literally no way of knowing whether I am talking about a multiplicative or a functional inverse, which means that it is ambiguous. It's correct notation in both cases, used since forever, but you need to explicitly disambiguate if you want to use it.

I hope this helps you more than the stackexchange post?

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If you read the wikipedia article, you would find it also stating the distributive law, literally in the first sentence, which is just that the distributive property holds for elemental algebra. This is something you learn in elementary school, I don't think you'd need any qualification besides that, but be assured that I am sufficiently qualified :)

By the way, Wikipedia is not intrinsically less accurate than maths textbooks. Wikipedia has mistakes, sure, but I've found enough mistakes (and had them corrected for further editions) in textbooks. Your textbooks are correct, but you are misunderstanding them. As previously mentioned, the distributive law is about an algebraic substitution, not a notational convention. Whether you write it as a(b+c) = ab + ac or as a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c is insubstantial.

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Klingt lustig, hast du eine Verknüpfung?

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

Please learn some math before making more blatantly incorrect statements. Quoting yourself as a source is... an interesting thing to do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_property

I did read the answers, try doing that yourself.

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

I don't know what you're on about with your distributive law thing. That just states that a*(b + c) = a*b + a*c, and has literally no relation to notation.

And "math is never ambiguous" is a very bold claim, and certainly doesn't hold for mathematical notation. For some simple exanples, see here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1024280/most-ambiguous-and-inconsistent-phrases-and-notations-in-maths#1024302

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Oder einfach nur als pdf, ohne ausdrucken, kann man ja trotzdem am handy vorzeigen

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Ja, nur "c km/h" ist so ähnlich wie "5 km/h km/h", denn c ist nicht nur eine zahl, sondern beinhaltet bereits eine einheit. Korrekt sollte man also "120km/h - c" schreiben. Ist aber völlig egal.

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago

Aaah vielen dank :)

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wer sind die abgebildeten Personen?

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

What does type() mean here?

[–] rasensprenger@feddit.de 11 points 2 years ago

The effective vibe is much more important than any underlying biology.

Tomatoes are vegetables.

view more: ‹ prev next ›