Function application without parentheses - Revision history

Spagety at 15:01, 21 October 2022

2022-10-21T15:01:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:01, 21 October 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:

	So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1036895727442644992 Earlier tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.		So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1036895727442644992 Earlier tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.

			Some people interpret \(\sin(x)^2\) to mean \(\sin(x^2)\) rather than \((\sin x)^2\), even though \(f(x)^2\) normally means \((f(x))^2\).

	Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, containing a wide range of exotic uses. In a handful of which, "f x" was indeed a function application.		Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, containing a wide range of exotic uses. In a handful of which, "f x" was indeed a function application.

Dginev: add example of "f x" used as function application

2021-07-09T11:54:19Z

add example of "f x" used as function application

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 9 July 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1036895727442644992 Earlier tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.		So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1036895727442644992 Earlier tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.

	Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, ~~but~~ a ~~quick glance didn't turn up any where \(~~f x\) was ~~unambiguously intended to mean "the~~ application ~~of the function \(f\) to \(x\)"~~.		Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, containing a wide range of exotic uses. In a handful of which, "f x" was indeed a function application.

			[[File:F-x-for-brevity.png\|thumb\|alt="To simplify expressions we often omit parentheses writing f x = f (x) etc." [math/0201098] \|Clear statement of the "f x" shorthand, from arXiv:math/0201098]]
	==References==		==References==
	<references/>		<references/>

Christian Lawson-Perfect at 14:57, 8 July 2021

2021-07-08T14:57:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:57, 8 July 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\[ \sin \theta, \ln x \]		\[ \sin \theta, \ln x \]

	So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.		So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref><ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1036895727442644992 Earlier tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.

	Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, but a quick glance didn't turn up any where \(f x\) was unambiguously intended to mean "the application of the function \(f\) to \(x\)".		Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, but a quick glance didn't turn up any where \(f x\) was unambiguously intended to mean "the application of the function \(f\) to \(x\)".

Christian Lawson-Perfect: Created page with "Category:Ambiguities It's sometimes OK to write a function name followed by its argument, without any parentheses. Because there's There is no function application symb..."

2021-07-08T08:22:44Z

Created page with "Category:Ambiguities It's sometimes OK to write a function name followed by its argument, without any parentheses. Because there's There is no function application symb..."

New page

[[Category:Ambiguities]]

It's sometimes OK to write a function name followed by its argument, without any parentheses. Because there's [[There is no function application symbol|there is no function application symbol]], this can look like a [[Missing multiplication symbol|multiplication]].

This is an example of [[juxtaposition means combine in the obvious way]].

This is most usually done with the trigonometric functions and logarithms, e.g.

\[ \sin \theta, \ln x \]

So is it only OK to omit the parentheses for well-known functions? Or is it for any function whose name is longer than one letter? Christian Lawson-Perfect asked<ref>[https://twitter.com/christianp/status/1412411447552917515 Tweet by Christian Lawson-Perfect], [https://mathstodon.xyz/@christianp/106534017984381320 toot by Christian Lawson-Perfect]</ref>, and got mixed responses.

Deyan Ginev searched for occurrences of <code>f x</code> in arXiv papers<ref>[https://gist.github.com/dginev/0587ce0264f03f2787503b6e4c14a342 A report on the direct uses of "f x" (without parentheses) in arXiv] by Deyan Ginev</ref> and found about 7,000 papers containing that pattern, but a quick glance didn't turn up any where \(f x\) was unambiguously intended to mean "the application of the function \(f\) to \(x\)".

==References==
<references/>