Image not available

886x350

192440885.png

🧵 I love this

Anonymous No. 16088349

I use this notation everywhere and I just want to share it with everybody. I even have a "notation.tex" file for this exact notation (and a couple of other things) that I use for things like homework assignments.

Do (you) have a favorite set of notations that you love? If so please share, I feel like having a specific notation that you love is really important for solving problems, e.g. pic rel notation helps me write things faster and in more accordance with my thinking.

Btw pic rel book is Bernhard Korte, Jens Vygen - Combinatorial Optimization

Anonymous No. 16088419

>>16088349
I did some work in combinatorics and I found most textbooks use notation pretty poorly. Combinatorics in particular has a bad habit of dropping notation (and proofs) as soon as a combinatorial explosion starts. It's genuinely hard to tell if they're being lazy, trying to not interrupt the flow of the work (they LOVE to put proofs [of the obvious sort only] inline or even mid-paragraph), or genuinely don't want to try to understand and represent the more complex cases.

For math in particular, this is kind of inexcusable since it's not like you have to revise the content you've developed proofs for, *ever*. Maybe some people just like revising math texts for the hell of it, who knows?

Anonymous No. 16088931

>>16088349
A graph is nothing but a binary relation that is irreflexive and (if undirected) symmetric. From the perspective of pure mathematics, the proliferation of such jargon is unnecessary and even harmful: why use the word "neighbors", with its connotation of a metric structure, for the already basic concept of set-theoretic image?
Though from the perspective of applied mathematics, these kinds of connotations are welcome precisely because they help to suggest particular manipulations and lines of inquiry. Maybe it's set-theoretic terminology that should be changed to adopt the graph jargon.

Anonymous No. 16088994

>>16088931
While I agree that it graphs are, from this prespective of pure mathematics, somewhat unnecessary, adding things like weights to the edges or even removing/adding edges/vertices etc. would be a lot more complicated to describe and thus are worth having, even at the cost of unnecessary jargon and repetitions.

Anonymous No. 16089001

>>16088931
bro if “neighbour vertex” is your idea of confusing notation then you ain’t seen nothing yet