Admit your Brain lock

[coppice]

The Latin alphabet is used over much of the globe, for the purposes of information exchange. Until fairly recently, virtually all text was ASCII. A good number of those Unicode symbols look virtually identical, which is also a security vulnerability: look up homoglyph attack. There's no need for that crap in the field of mathematics. It's pure obfuscation.

Unicode is certainly a security nightmare. Between all the bugs in the character set (e.g. Chinese characters split into 2 separate ones that aren't actually different), the ability to express the same string in multiple ways, and other complexities, its nearly impossible to do a simple comparison between two pieces of text in Unicode. IBM produced a massive normalisation library in the late 90s, to try to make strings comparable, but its far from a complete answer, and isn't that widely used anyway.

[coppice]

In the UK I was impressed about how teaching arithmetic to 7-11 year olds had improved.

In my day it was "follow the algorithm" - which was admittedly useful when I've had to implement floating point arithmetic! Nowadays they are taught that you can get the right answer by several different "successive approximations", e.g. 99y is easily calculated as 100y-y. That encourages a much better "feel" for the "shape" of numbers and arithmetic.

The only things we were taught in maths as "follow the algorithm" were the basic arithmetic operations between 5 and about 9 years old. Everything else was derived, explained, and often alternatives were presented. Now the ONLY things taught in a way to develop understanding are the basic arithmetic operations. Everything beyond that is spoon fed. I'm not sure that "follow the algorithm" is a bad thing in primary schools. Until you've started to identify which kids are capable of anything more than following rote procedures, flexibility might be a problem.

[Zero999]

Absolutely not intentional obfuscation.  There are more than 26 unique concepts/entities in math and physics.  The people who started the use of these "special" characters did it to provide shorthand and avoid confusion with other entities.  The usage was productive and therefore adopted by others, eventually becoming widespread, used by people whose written language did not involve those characters. 

In today's world of ubiquitous data processors there is an argument that multi-character identifiers could be used, and commonly is for some symbols like pi.  But this all started when you had to write your ideas on paper with a pencil or pen and a terse notation is a benefit to avoid getting bogged down in the mechanics of writing equations.  Having a different notation for notebooks/scratch pads and publication made (and makes) no sense so it stuck.

I am unconvinced that long variable names would be an improvement.

Area_of_Circle Is_Identically_Equal_To Distance_Around_The_Rim Times The_Square_Of(Distance_From_Rim_To_Center) Times The_Ratio_Of_Circumference_To_Diameter

This expression still requires prior knowledge of terms like Equal, Identially, Rim, Square, Center, Ratio, Circumference and Diameter and is horribly unwieldy.  Imagine the fun for a truly complex expression.

Finally, as a native speaker of English, I will point out the 26 characters is not enough even to encode the languages common in Europe.  Even leaving the Greeks and Slavs out there are enough umlauts and tildes and diacritical marks to exhaust that limited set.  Unicode may go too far, but was done in a time when it had been found that even the expanded 255 characters in a byte weren't really enough and the obvious idea is to dedicate two bytes.

I'm not in favour of long variable names or even the complete elimination of non-Latin glyphs, but a happy medium. There's no reason to use lower case v and upper case V and similar looking glyphs ϵ and E in the same formula. Far from making it easier to write down, it introduces more room for error and confusion.

[IanB]

I'm not in favour of long variable names or even the complete elimination of non-Latin glyphs, but a happy medium. There's no reason to use lower case v and upper case V and similar looking glyphs ϵ and E in the same formula. Far from making it easier to write down, it introduces more room for error and confusion.

I'm sorry, but I think you are alone with this viewpoint.

There really is a reason to use different versions of letters in formulas. For example, \$v\$ can represent velocity while \$V\$ can represent volume, and both can appear in the same formula. If you tried to use the same letter \$v\$ for both, it would be hopelessly confusing. Similarly, we would typically have \$\epsilon\$ for an error, or for a small change, while \$E\$ would represent energy. Using symbols in a clear and consistent way like this aids communication and reduces ambiguity.

[IanB]

Unicode is certainly a security nightmare. Between all the bugs in the character set (e.g. Chinese characters split into 2 separate ones that aren't actually different), the ability to express the same string in multiple ways, and other complexities, its nearly impossible to do a simple comparison between two pieces of text in Unicode. IBM produced a massive normalisation library in the late 90s, to try to make strings comparable, but its far from a complete answer, and isn't that widely used anyway.

Bear in mind we are talking about text documents and communication. How are there security problems arising from the text in a technical paper or a book?

[IanB]

There can ALWAYS be greater clarity in the workings. There is ALWAYS the possibility of an insightful way to speed up the derivation of an answer that would deserve an extra mark or two. 100% says nothing could be better. I award you 0%, must try harder.

I think you are simply wrong about this. When we consider public exams like GCSE or A-levels, there is a defined marking scheme, and every examiner is supposed to follow the scheme consistently. There are cross-checks and adjudication procedures to ensure all exam candidates get equal and fair treatment. There is no opportunity for a person marking a paper to allocate extra marks for creativity outside the marking scheme. This would be heavily frowned upon and may get the examiner removed from their job.

[coppice]

Unicode is certainly a security nightmare. Between all the bugs in the character set (e.g. Chinese characters split into 2 separate ones that aren't actually different), the ability to express the same string in multiple ways, and other complexities, its nearly impossible to do a simple comparison between two pieces of text in Unicode. IBM produced a massive normalisation library in the late 90s, to try to make strings comparable, but its far from a complete answer, and isn't that widely used anyway.

Bear in mind we are talking about text documents and communication. How are there security problems arising from the text in a technical paper or a book?

Think things like URLs. Two strings are identical as text on the screen. The actual string of bytes isn't. So, you don't know which web site you are actually going to. There have been exploits based on this. Its probably a big part of the reason non-ASCII domain names have not been a huge success.

[coppice]

There can ALWAYS be greater clarity in the workings. There is ALWAYS the possibility of an insightful way to speed up the derivation of an answer that would deserve an extra mark or two. 100% says nothing could be better. I award you 0%, must try harder.

I think you are simply wrong about this. When we consider public exams like GCSE or A-levels, there is a defined marking scheme, and every examiner is supposed to follow the scheme consistently. There are cross-checks and adjudication procedures to ensure all exam candidates get equal and fair treatment. There is no opportunity for a person marking a paper to allocate extra marks for creativity outside the marking scheme. This would be heavily frowned upon and may get the examiner removed from their job.

These days this is true for most public exams. However, they have been massively dumbed down compared to the past. I had a maths and a physics teacher who marked O-level and A-level papers in the early 70s. They had to attend a training course to try to maximum the consistency of marking between the various people marking the same papers, and the marking was expected to be quite brutal back then.

[tggzzz]

I'm not in favour of long variable names or even the complete elimination of non-Latin glyphs, but a happy medium. There's no reason to use lower case v and upper case V and similar looking glyphs ϵ and E in the same formula. Far from making it easier to write down, it introduces more room for error and confusion.

I'm sorry, but I think you are alone with this viewpoint.

There really is a reason to use different versions of letters in formulas. For example, \$v\$ can represent velocity while \$V\$ can represent volume, and both can appear in the same formula. If you tried to use the same letter \$v\$ for both, it would be hopelessly confusing. Similarly, we would typically have \$\epsilon\$ for an error, or for a small change, while \$E\$ would represent energy. Using symbols in a clear and consistent way like this aids communication and reduces ambiguity.

As I noted earlier, there are other reasons too...

Frequently lower/upper case is used to convey information, by conventions. For example, in my first week at university my "Senturia and Wedlock" textbook section 2.3.4 is "Notation Conventions" indicates these conventions are in widespread use...
General network variable: v_A, i_C
DC component of a waveform: V_CC, I_B
Peak amplitude of a sinusoid: V_a, I_c
Incremental component of a waveform: v_a, i_c

Yes, those differences can be important, e.g. when discussing how small signal behaviour varies as bias points are changed.

[Tation]

For me it is stochastic processes, ergodicity and related topics. Maybe it is that I have never needed them during my career.

[Zero999]

I'm not in favour of long variable names or even the complete elimination of non-Latin glyphs, but a happy medium. There's no reason to use lower case v and upper case V and similar looking glyphs ϵ and E in the same formula. Far from making it easier to write down, it introduces more room for error and confusion.

I'm sorry, but I think you are alone with this viewpoint.

Clearly not. Also note there are probably many others who feel the same but haven't posted, either through shame or just not noticing this thread,
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/admit-your-brain-lock/msg5428682/#msg5428682

There really is a reason to use different versions of letters in formulas. For example, \$v\$ can represent velocity while \$V\$ can represent volume, and both can appear in the same formula. If you tried to use the same letter \$v\$ for both, it would be hopelessly confusing. Similarly, we would typically have \$\epsilon\$ for an error, or for a small change, while \$E\$ would represent energy. Using symbols in a clear and consistent way like this aids communication and reduces ambiguity.

I know why. That doesn't change the fact that I find it confusing and non-intuitive.

[IanB]

I know why. That doesn't change the fact that I find it confusing and non-intuitive.

I can read what you are saying, but I cannot comprehend what you are saying. That is probably my mental block.

Maybe there is some general difference in how different minds process information? Some minds may work verbally, and some minds may work visually. With verbal reasoning, there is "vee" and there is "vee", and they are hard to distinguish. With a visual mind, there is \$v\$ and there is \$V\$, and these are two different pictures, with different sizes and shapes. They are as unalike as a cat and a dog.

[Zero999]

I know why. That doesn't change the fact that I find it confusing and non-intuitive.

I can read what you are saying, but I cannot comprehend what you are saying. That is probably my mental block.

Maybe there is some general difference in how different minds process information? Some minds may work verbally, and some minds may work visually. With verbal reasoning, there is "vee" and there is "vee", and they are hard to distinguish. With a visual mind, there is \$v\$ and there is \$V\$, and these are two different pictures, with different sizes and shapes. They are as unalike as a cat and a dog.

Exactly people think differently.

When I see something which looks vaguely like a letter, I just see the letter. Subtle differences between glyphs such as ω and w are discarded. I can clearly see the difference between T and τ, but I remember them as the same letter. This is even worse when I'm writing it down, since my hand doesn't do as my brain tells it. I often miswrite words I know how to spell. The weird non-English letters are even worse.

[nctnico]

Sounds like a form of dyslexia to me. 

[IanB]

Exactly people think differently.

When I see something which looks vaguely like a letter, I just see the letter. Subtle differences between glyphs such as ω and w are discarded. I can clearly see the difference between T and τ, but I remember them as the same letter. This is even worse when I'm writing it down, since my hand doesn't do as my brain tells it. I often miswrite words I know how to spell. The weird non-English letters are even worse.

But I do think learning and practice can help. Minds are not fixed, they can change.

For instance learning and using the different names for different things, such as \$T\$ "tee" and \$\tau\$ "tau". If you think "tau", it could help to avoid writing a "tee". Similarly for \$\omega\$ "omega" and \$w\$ "double-u". Different names, therefore different things. (Though I admit, in this case, \$\omega\$ and \$w\$ do look very similar. That is unfortunate.)

[Siwastaja]

I'm sorry, but I think you are alone with this viewpoint.

Saying that, when others such as myself raised the same point, underlines the "secret math cult" arrogancy. You are totally proving our point.

Besides, this thread is titled "admit your brain lock". What the fuck are you doing, we are discussing honestly about issues we are having understanding stuff and you come here to ridicule us for that.

There really is a reason to use different versions of letters in formulas. For example, \$v\$ can represent velocity while \$V\$ can represent volume, and both can appear in the same formula.

Nice idea, but this shows how little you have actually worked with. The idea of fixed assignments of <100 symbols is completely dead. v and V can represent a lot of other things besides velocity and volume, and notoriously E can and WILL represent both energy and voltage, both of which often appear within the same formulae (also, W can represent energy (often change in energy, why won't you ever say dE for consistency?), U and V voltage - so much for "volume"). This is a total mess. Improvement starts from accepting this fact and not expecting fixed symbols to work.

The only real way to deal with this mess is to choose best suitable symbols for the job, and always explain the symbols used. Come one, if you have a  formula with 10 variables, it's ten lines of text to explain them all. There is no excuse not to do this. But no, you guys here come to defend this mess and outright refuse to admit its existence. You think math and its notation is elegant and consistent, in reality this couldn't be further from the truth.

This discussion has made me more certain than ever that what we are indeed seeing is 100% deliberate obfuscation.

I'm not suggesting of implementing modern-day programming practices into math directly, but it is quite revealing to think how most of mathematical work would never pass any code review process.

[nctnico]

If you have the same issue as Zero999 (not registering the difference between symbols), then I'm afraid the problem is at your end (even though it isn't your fault). It is similar for a color blind not being able to work in a paint shop. And I'm not trying to make fun here. Somebody I know works at a hardware store but due to color blindness, this person can't work at the paint department. However the person can't tell the world to discard every color a color blind person can't distinguish.

[IanB]

Saying that, when others such as myself raised the same point, underlines the "secret math cult" arrogancy. You are totally proving our point.

Yes, I know. I really meant "in a minority" but didn't manage to write that.

Nice idea, but this shows how little you have actually worked with. The idea of fixed assignments of <100 symbols is completely dead. v and V can represent a lot of other things besides velocity and volume, and notoriously E can and WILL represent both energy and voltage, both of which often appear within the same formulae (also, W can represent energy, U and V voltage - so much for "volume"). This is a total mess.

Yes, of course, but I didn't say anything about fixed assignments. I said the symbols can represent certain things, as an example, not that they always do. Of course I know on an electrical forum that V can represent voltage, and that E can too. If you want to use E for voltage and also for energy in the same formula, well that would be a mess. What would you do in that situation?

The only real way to deal with this mess is to choose best suitable symbols for the job, and always explain the symbols used. Come one, if you have a  formula with 10 variables, it's ten lines of text to explain them all. There is no excuse not to do this.

Yes, and in every professional text I have ever read, this is what is done. Do you see places where it is not the case?

This discussion has made me more certain than ever that what we are indeed seeing is 100% deliberate obfuscation.

It would only be obfuscation if people were choosing unconventional symbols for things, and also not explaining what they are being used for.

[Zero999]

Exactly people think differently.

When I see something which looks vaguely like a letter, I just see the letter. Subtle differences between glyphs such as ω and w are discarded. I can clearly see the difference between T and τ, but I remember them as the same letter. This is even worse when I'm writing it down, since my hand doesn't do as my brain tells it. I often miswrite words I know how to spell. The weird non-English letters are even worse.

But I do think learning and practice can help. Minds are not fixed, they can change.

For instance learning and using the different names for different things, such as \$T\$ "tee" and \$\tau\$ "tau". If you think "tau", it could help to avoid writing a "tee". Similarly for \$\omega\$ "omega" and \$w\$ "double-u". Different names, therefore different things. (Though I admit, in this case, \$\omega\$ and \$w\$ do look very similar. That is unfortunate.)

I agree about learning like that and can cope to some degree, especially with print, but stood no chance with handwriting. I still don't see the point in make it more difficult than necessary.

[tggzzz]

If you have the same issue as Zero999 (not registering the difference between symbols), then I'm afraid the problem is at your end (even though it isn't your fault). It is similar for a color blind not being able to work in a paint shop. And I'm not trying to make fun here. Somebody I know works at a hardware store but due to color blindness, this person can't work at the paint department. However the person can't tell the world to discard every color a color blind person can't see.

Precisely.

It is a great shame for someone to have their ambitions dashed when they find their chosen career depends on normal colour vision. I've heard of aspiring pilots discovering that rather late in the day. I feel for them - but if they railed against the "colour elite" I would thing they were twats.

[tggzzz]

I still don't see the point in make it more difficult than necessary.

Isn't that true for everything?

The discussion now pivots to the definition of "more difficult" and "necessary"

[Siwastaja]

If you have the same issue as Zero999 (not registering the difference between symbols), then I'm afraid the problem is at your end (even though it isn't your fault). It is similar for a color blind not being able to work in a paint shop. And I'm not trying to make fun here. Somebody I know works at a hardware store but due to color blindness, this person can't work at the paint department. However the person can't tell the world to discard every color a color blind person can't distinguish.

Yet, somehow, magically, I have zero problem with symbols otherwise, and definitely am not dyslexic. I read and write pretty fast and make very few spelling mistakes.

And yet, if course material represents a formula with four different styles of r in it, my brain locks and I have to use much more time to parse it, than the complexity of the formula itself would require. Or if the definitions of symbols are missing, as is quite common, I say "fuck it" and try to invest my precious time in a more fruitful way.

[Siwastaja]

It would only be obfuscation if people were choosing unconventional symbols for things, and also not explaining what they are being used for.

But exactly this happens on a regular basis. When I point it out, people deny it by explaining that E is "completely usual" notation for voltage and I'm just stupid and wrong for not realizing that it's not energy this time.

At least volume and voltage rarely appear on the same formula - but sometimes they do.

[IanB]

I agree about learning like that and can cope to some degree, especially with print, but stood no chance with handwriting. I still don't see the point in make it more difficult than necessary.

Well, we have the unfortunate situation that the Roman alphabet does quickly run out of letters if you want them to be intuitive (thus we may use V for voltage, L for length, A for area, C for capacitance, N for number of turns, and so on). And we have the convention in algebra that adjacent symbols are multiplied. So if we tried to use \$ang\$ for angular velocity, it could be confused with \$a \times n \times g\$. We could try to use v or V, but that is already taken for voltage. Maybe A, but that's often area. Hence history settled on Greek letter omega (\$\omega\$). It wasn't done to confuse, it was done to avoid confusion.

[nctnico]

There are some different conventions indeed. In the world of physics E can be used for Voltage and Energy. In the world of electricity E and P can be used for power. Typically the units used in a formula give a hint about what is what. I don't recall formulas where people use random symbols if there is a domain specific convention.