Editing Talk:2606: Weird Unicode Math Symbols
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
:What does the symbol ⍼ mean? | :What does the symbol ⍼ mean? | ||
− | + | ;The symbol ⍼, known as a "diaeresis" or "umlaut", is used in some languages to indicate that the two vowels it is placed over are to be pronounced separately, rather than as a single vowel sound. | |
:No, it isn't either of those. | :No, it isn't either of those. | ||
− | + | ;It means "integral" in APL. | |
:Well, that's a better guess, but also wrong. | :Well, that's a better guess, but also wrong. | ||
− | + | ;It's actually a symbol used in chemistry to indicate that two atoms are bonded together covalently. | |
:No, that's a colon, :. Try again? | :No, that's a colon, :. Try again? | ||
− | + | ;It's actually a symbol used in physics to indicate that two particles are interacting. | |
:That seems very plausible! What is your source? | :That seems very plausible! What is your source? | ||
− | + | ;The symbol ⍼ is actually used in mathematics to indicate that a function is continuous. | |
:In math, might it indicate an indefinitely-valued relation over a finite domain. | :In math, might it indicate an indefinitely-valued relation over a finite domain. | ||
− | + | ;I.e. for the domain {1,2,3,4} the relation "is even" would be symbolized: | |
− | + | ;⍼ 2 4 2 4 2 ... | |
− | + | ||
+ | ;The symbol ⍼ is not typically used to indicate an indefinitely-valued relation over a finite domain. | ||
:More like, the relation "nearest other evens" for the domain {1, 2, 3, 4} would map to, in order, {{0,2}, {0, 4}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}}. But that's not an indefinitely-valued relation or a finite domain, as each integer maps to exactly two other integers. | :More like, the relation "nearest other evens" for the domain {1, 2, 3, 4} would map to, in order, {{0,2}, {0, 4}, {2, 4}, {2, 6}}. But that's not an indefinitely-valued relation or a finite domain, as each integer maps to exactly two other integers. | ||
− | + | ||
+ | ;The symbol ⍼ is not typically used to indicate an indefinitely-valued relation over a finite domain. | ||
:Well it doesn't indicate that a function is continuous, either. So what does it actually mean? | :Well it doesn't indicate that a function is continuous, either. So what does it actually mean? | ||
− | + | ;The symbol ⍼ is actually used in set theory to indicate that a function is one-to-one. | |
:No. I liked your physics idea, meaning two particles interacting. | :No. I liked your physics idea, meaning two particles interacting. | ||
− | + | ;But that's not it either. | |
− | + | ;The symbol ⍼ is actually used in logic to indicate that a formula is valid. | |
:How? Give an example? | :How? Give an example? | ||
− | + | ;The symbol ⍼ can be used to indicate that a formula is valid if the following holds: | |
− | + | ||
+ | ;⍼(p ∨ q) ↔ (⍼p ∨ ⍼q) | ||
− | + | ;In other words, the formula is valid if the statement "p or q" is true if and only if the statement "p is valid or q is valid" is true. | |
:What are p and q there? | :What are p and q there? | ||
− | + | ;P and Q can be any formulas. So, for example, if P is the formula "x+1=2" and Q is the formula "x=1", then the formula "P or Q" is true if and only if either "x+1=2" is valid or "x=1" is valid. | |
:What does it mean for a formula to be valid? | :What does it mean for a formula to be valid? | ||
− | + | ;A formula is valid if it is true in all possible circumstances. So, for example, the formula "x+1=2" is valid if and only if, no matter what value x takes, the statement "x+1=2" is always true. | |
:Is the formula "x+1=2" valid? | :Is the formula "x+1=2" valid? | ||
− | + | ;No, the formula "x+1=2" is not valid, because there are some values of x for which the statement "x+1=2" is not true. For example, if x=0, then "x+1=2" is not true. | |
:So is ⍼x>x-1 true? | :So is ⍼x>x-1 true? | ||
− | + | ;No, the formula "x+1=2" is not valid, because there are some values of x for which the statement "x+1=2" is not true. For example, if x=0, then "x+1=2" is not true. | |
:Is the formula "x>x-1" valid? | :Is the formula "x>x-1" valid? | ||
− | + | ;Yes, the formula "x>x-1" is valid, because no matter what value x takes, the statement "x>x-1" is always true. | |
:What if x is infinity? | :What if x is infinity? | ||
− | + | ;The formula "x>x-1" is still valid if x is infinity, because no matter what value x takes, the statement "x>x-1" is always true. | |
:Is infinity minus one less than infinity? | :Is infinity minus one less than infinity? | ||
− | + | ;No, infinity minus one is not less than infinity, because infinity minus one is still infinity. | |
:So how can the formula "x>x-1" be valid? | :So how can the formula "x>x-1" be valid? | ||
− | + | ;The formula "x>x-1" is valid because it is true in all possible circumstances. So, for example, if x=0, then "x>x-1" is true because 0 is greater than 0-1. If x=1, then "x>x-1" is true because 1 is greater than 1-1. If x=infinity, then "x>x-1" is still true because infinity is greater than infinity minus one. | |
:Is infinity greater than infinity minus one? | :Is infinity greater than infinity minus one? | ||
− | + | ;No, infinity is not greater than infinity minus one, because infinity minus one is still infinity. | |
:You just contradicted yourself. | :You just contradicted yourself. | ||
− | + | ;No, I didn't contradict myself. The formula "x>x-1" is valid because it is true in all possible circumstances. So, for example, if x=0, then "x>x-1" is true because 0 is greater than 0-1. If x=1, then "x>x-1" is true because 1 is greater than 1-1. If x=infinity, then "x>x-1" is still true because infinity is greater than infinity minus one. | |
:That last sentence is a direct contradiction of your previous statement. | :That last sentence is a direct contradiction of your previous statement. | ||
− | + | ;No, it's not a contradiction. The formula "x>x-1" is valid because it is true in all possible circumstances. So, for example, if x=0, then "x>x-1" is true because 0 is greater than 0-1. If x=1, then "x>x-1" is true because 1 is greater than 1-1. If x=infinity, then "x>x-1" is still true because infinity is greater than infinity minus one. | |
Oh, well. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.26|172.70.211.26]] 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) | Oh, well. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.26|172.70.211.26]] 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC) |