Of course exceptions are all that we need to prove that a universal rule is not universal.
Also, a lack of volume (or focus) for a discussion does not mean that a subject of the discussion is not an issue. But I think we are stumbling over the lack of definition for "standard mathematical notation". If it is defined as "existing practice" then (ironically) J is a part of "standard mathematical notation". If it is instead defined as "popular practice" then it must exclude most of mathematics. If there is some rigorous formal definition, no one here has identified it. Based on my personal experience (as a student, and as a tutor) when a person is having a problem with mathematical notation they will typically think of it as a problem they are having with "math" as a subject -- if they were capable of isolating their problems they would typically be able to get past them and on to other issues. That said, the lack of written materials using J to treat specific subjects is a huge problem -- for example, the amount of good materials cannot exceed the total amount of material. And a lack of good materials yields a problem with familiarity (among other things). Anyways, I see more interesting posts in this thread and I want to move on to them. -- Raul On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 December 2012 22:10, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> You had claimed that this issue -- notation -- is not a subject of >> discussion. > > And it is not. Of course, with rare exceptions that do not change the > overall picture. > >> I have documented cases where it is clearly being discussed. > > You have done none of that. What you have done is throwing a bunch > of titles, some of which are totally unrelated to notation, and others > talk of notations of quite a different nature and applicability. Both kinds > are irrelevant to my claim. > >> Your "few lines on each title" seems to have lost track of >> that aspect. > > Actually, you seem to have lost track of what we are discussing. > >> In any event, I have pointed you at examples where it was a part of >> the discussion. > > As I said just above, you have done none of that. We are discussing > the notation of school algebra and the potential problems it may > present as related to learning mathematics. My comments to your > 'examples' clearly indicate why the latter are almost totally > irrelevant to this. > >> That the discussions are not limited to this topic >> does not mean that the topic is not being discussed. > > The truth is not that 'the discussions are not limited to this > topic' – it is that they are not related at all to it, with minute > exceptions. But, as I said, and as it should be obvious in itself > in any similar case, there are always exceptions, but they are > just that: exceptions. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
