Comparison with traditional mathematics: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
mNo edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
== Similarities ==
== Similarities ==


APL [[Iverson notation|developed from TMN]], and much of APL will be immediately recognised by a mathematician. Interestingly, it seems that look of the typeface and identifiers (names of variables etc.) used in APL makes a big difference in the perception of the reader. A fixed-width typewriter-style font with long identifiers gives the impression of computer source code, while an italic serif typeface and single-letter identifiers gives the impression of scientific formulae. Compare the impression you get when reading the following two expressions which is both valid APL (though it has superfluous parentheses) and traditional mathematics:
APL [[Iverson notation|developed from TMN]], and much of APL will be immediately recognised by a mathematician. Interestingly, it seems that the look of the typeface and identifiers (names of variables etc.) used in APL makes a big difference in the reader's perception. A fixed-width typewriter-style font with long identifiers gives the impression of computer source code, while an italic serif typeface and single-letter identifiers gives the impression of scientific formulae. Compare the impression you get when reading the following two expressions which is both valid APL (though it has superfluous parentheses) and traditional mathematics:
<div style="text-align:center">
<div style="text-align:center">
<source lang=apl inline>((x + y) × (x - y)) = (f ∘ g)(x, y)</source>
<source lang=apl inline>((x + y) × (x - y)) = (f ∘ g)(x, y)</source>

Navigation menu