Exp(x)

>+ C

> [math]f_x[/math]

>dx/dy^2

>taking Automatic Control Systems
>professor writes arg(x) for arctan(x)
>uses something that looks like this for greek letter Zeta:
(
}

>log(x) used interchangeably with ln(x)

>let x be real

>the proof is left as an exercise

>y=

>y = kx + m

[math] c = \lambda f [/math]

i feel a deep anger within me when professors do this shit

>[math] F = m a[/math]

I had that happen on a midterm last quarter
Nearly lost my marbles then and there

Did they forget the d^2 before x or is the whole thing to the power of 2
Who does this?

>E = (hc)/(λ)

>300k starting

>tan tg
>sinh sh
>cosh ch
>csc cosec
>cot ctn cotan ctg

>[math]Succ(n)[/math]

>sinh(x)

>int(A)
>cl(B)

>let ... be infinitesimal

>cos(x)

>2 genders

>8.999...

>if( condition ) {
> code
>}

What the hell? Did the professor even notify you beforehand or even some type of warning?

>Cos(kπ) where k = 1, 2, 3, 4...

>+

> (x+2)/x = 2

FUCKING DUMBASS KIDS THAT DONT KNOW ALGEBRA

i don't get it

He's insulting people that think the expression he wrote is true.

Lots of kids cancel the x's disregarding the rules of fractions

Do you go to York?

> x = 2; 4; 6; ...
>not x ∈ {2; 4; 6; ...}

>f''''(x)

>f(((x)))

underrated post

...

>O(n log n)

>anything but log x for the natural logarithm

>Log(x)
is this even used IRL

in school we learned that it is common agreemen that log(x) is the log of base 10, and ln(x) is the log base e. ld is log of base 2.and log with a subscript is log of any base.

here we are all having a wholesome fun Veeky Forums time and you have to forget which board you're on.

>reals

>gcd(x,y)

>lg x

if anyone does this they should be ejected form whatever non-arts course they are doing

>ggT(x,y)

...

Wtf bruh its ln(e) not log(e)
stupid animeposter

>ld is a log of base 2
Never heard this one.

> tan^(-1) being used interchangebly with arctan

This one always bugs me.

this one triggers me

sin^-1(x) = arcsin(x) = 1/sin(x)

>taking multivariate calculus
>professor says "Some people use [math]tan^{-1}(x)[/math] instead of [math]arctan(x)[/math]. I'm afraid those people are wrong."
Loved that guy.

what a ledge

I learned it as
Log is log_10
ld is log_2
ln or Ln is log_e

log is foreign. It could be anything

> [math] \arcsin x + \arccos x = \frac{\pi}{2} [/math]

LOL

It actually is though

>small angle approximation

>when you're unsure if the answer is 0 or 8

in physics log(x) is base e unless another base is provided
considering that we aren't doing crazy mental arithmetic in our heads (which would make use of different base logs) and that every log can be written as a base e log, there's really no reason to ever use any other base. at least in physics.

>log instead of ln
>not saving time by writing one less letter while avoiding any ambiguities at the same time
brainlets they never learn

it's true for x=2

>there's really no reason to ever use any other base.

Tell that to a PH value.

Kek

>ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2-c2dt2

>Or to any field where you uses enormous number and have to plot them in a log scale to see something

>Physics :study of the sound
Fourier's study of a signal
Decrease of the eletrical signal through a filter...

The thing is 1/tan has a name, cotan. So tan^{-1} for the inverse function of tan seems pretty reasonable.

the real answer is 3

what's wrong with that notation

x is 3 for (x/+2)/x=2

but for (x+2)/x
if you expand its 1+(2/x)

Why is it not legit to cancel x here?

(x+2)/x=2=1+2/x=>x=2

I hope this is bait

I don't think this thread is about wrong notation.

>[math]\xi[/math]

Why do you think that?

>x/0

yeah seriously FUCK this

>[math]F=\frac{d\overrightarrow{p}}{dt}[/math]

>[math]\ni[/math]
>[math]\supset[/math]

>equal and opposite reaction

Good notation. Accurately conveys how exponentiation is just a function.
If you actually encounter this, problem's on you for reading a pop sci book instead of something rigorous. Unless the book is about non-standard analysis.

>2(10/5)

This confuses the american child.

$0.9999...=1$

[math] 1=2 [/math]

Weird, I don't care for detA; it just seems lazy to me.

My calculator has ln, and everyone I know says ln. I don't know why I would change it because some autist says something different.

No user, the point is that they're saying it's true for all values of x. As in, the two x's completely cancel each other out, leaving you with just two.

Dislike this but I need to use it when handwriting complicated expressions, it just doesn't look clear otherwise :/

>a+b
>not sum(a,b)
>a*b
>not prod(a,b)
>a^b
>not exp(a,b)
Shit notation desu.