Modern arithmetic needs to be exact, because ambiguous notations do not permit formal proofs. Suppose that they have statements, denoted by some formal sequence of symbols, about some objects (for example, numbers, shapes, patterns). Until the statements can be shown to be valid, their meaning is not yet resolved. While reasoning, they might let the symbols refer to those denoted objects, perhaps in a model. The semantics of that object has a heuristic side as well as a deductive side. In either case, they might require to know the properties of that object, which they might then list in an intensional definition.
Those properties might then be expressed by some well-known and agreed-upon symbols from a table of mathematical symbols. This mathematical notation might include annotation such as
"All x", "No x", "There is an x" (or its equivalent, "Some x"), "A set", "A function"
"A mapping from the actual numbers to the complex numbers"
In different contexts, the same symbol or notation can be used to represent different ideas. Therefore, to fully understand a piece of mathematical writing, it is important to first check the definitions that an author gives for the notations that are being used. This may be problematic if the author assumes the reader is already familiar with the notation in use.
Those properties might then be expressed by some well-known and agreed-upon symbols from a table of mathematical symbols. This mathematical notation might include annotation such as
"All x", "No x", "There is an x" (or its equivalent, "Some x"), "A set", "A function"
"A mapping from the actual numbers to the complex numbers"
In different contexts, the same symbol or notation can be used to represent different ideas. Therefore, to fully understand a piece of mathematical writing, it is important to first check the definitions that an author gives for the notations that are being used. This may be problematic if the author assumes the reader is already familiar with the notation in use.
No comments:
Post a Comment