|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Mod notation can be bulky and counter-intuitive. Here is a mod notation that simply removes the middle line from the equivalence sign, places the modulus inside and drops the now moot 'mod'.
| | This category collects conventions that just make you feel yuck. |
| | |
| The following 3 Latex macros are used to produce the alternate notation suggested below:
| |
| | |
| [[File:modmacros.png|Alternate mod notation macros]]
| |
| | |
| | |
| Examples:
| |
| | |
| In lieu of $x\equiv y \mod{z}$, we have $x\bm{z}y$
| |
| | |
| | |
| Rather than take both sides $\mod{m}$, we would take both sides $\bm{m}$
| |
| | |
| | |
| Taking all $m\bm{7}1\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ gives $\{1,8,15,\dots\}$
| |
| | |
| | |
| A non-equivalence can be written $9\bmn{4}3$
| |
| | |
| | |
| It can be chained ala $27\bm{11}5\bm{3}2$
| |
| | |
| | |
| and even be adapted to carry quotient information as in $77\bmq{13}{5}12$.
| |
| | |
| It is better because it is more compact, intuitive, flexible, prettier, puts the modulus in the middle where it belongs and there is no dead mathematician named Mod being dishonored and forgotten and even if there were, he or she should be.
| |
