What math terminology would you change if you could?

What math terminology would you change if you could?

For example, instead of referring to the "domain" and "range" of a function you refer to "valid inputs" and "valid outputs" of a function, yeah it's an extra word but the clarity is worth it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SyD4p8_y8Kw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>range
Use either image or codomain. Range is ambiguous

delete the word abelian from existence

>domain
>not abscissa

Loser.

I don't know I would change but I would be a lot more clear about the difference between a complex number and the argument of a complex number.

I'd rename the "natural", "rational", and "real" numbers to something that better reflects their mathematical properties (or even better, the kinds of operations that you'd want to do on them), instead of how whoever named them felt about them at the time. See, whoever named the ordinal numbers had the right idea.

Maybe something like:
"Natural" numbers -> whole/counting numbers
"Integers" -> signed whole numbers/directed counting numbers
"Rational" numbers -> proportional/apportioning numbers (I guess this would have been appropriate had the meaning of the word 'rational' not shifted over time)
"Real" numbers -> interval/moving numbers
"Complex" numbers -> planar/rotating numbers
(Bonus: "Surreal" numbers -> dendral/bifurcating numbers)

Depending on whether you prefer an adjectival or verbal terminology. Either would be better than what we have now, at any rate.


Also, if notation count as terminology, I'd make function application act on the right instead of the left, and replace the function composition symbol [math] g\circ f[/math] with something like f;g. So we'd express "apply f to x, then apply g to the result" by
(x)f;g
instead of the current
[math](g\circ f)(x) = g(f(x))[/math]

I'd switch cosh and sinh round they seem wrong

only slightly related: the names of quantum properties are fucking stupid.

AbeeeeelYeeAAAAHN. Agreed.

That's all stupid and you should feel bad.

cos and sin too.

i agree. the word "abelian" is ableist, mathematics should be more inclusive

Pretty much all of quantum taught outside of a strict mathematical formalism is misleading at best.

I'd rename all of algebra.
Those terms probably made sense in French in 1800 but groups, rings, fields, module, sheaf, scheme, variety, etc are all misnomers.
Oh and functional analysis is another huge misnomer.

WHAT THE FUCK IS AN IDEAL

and use what? CoHmMutAhtiVe?

its motivation is from the fact that in number they are "ideal numbers", in that they are the analogue of primes in the naturals to general number fields

agreed, these terms make it sound far more interesting than it really is.

as the other user mentioned, most of these ideas are retarded. Also the right function application doesnt make sense in a world that reads from left to right

quadratics have nothing to do with the number four

quadratic comes from the latin term for square, the implication of area (e.g. quadrature of the circle)

wow thanks
going to make my math teacher look stupid with this tomorrow

>right function application doesnt make sense in a world that reads from left to right

Are you fucking retarded? Right-applicative notation makes so much more sense.

First take x. Then you do something to it. Then you do something else --> x ; f ; g.

It aligns with the direction of types as well (think of function composition).

I would describe the range as thighs and the domain as ass then proceed to furiously masturbate over a function in the shape of the number 8.

I would change Function with Method, cuz thats the right way to say it

Change imaginary numbers to useless numbers

Remove calculus

Remove exponents because they dont work properly on fractions

Full of yourself to call yourself "the lord", brainlet.

"imaginary" numbers

Caring about naming conventions is retarded.
>muhh imaginary numbers
who cares, faggot

Actual things that matter is the overuse of parentheses in literally everything.
>tuples
>forms
>function arguments
>etc

>faggot
why the homophobia?

Is this a script or there is someone with so much time to waste?

why?

no but I'd give exponents an actual operator, this superscript shit has caused a fuckload of problems over the last couple centuries

Imaginary and complex numbers

Writing f;g instead of gof is pretty common in category theory

Nobody has mentioned open, closed, and clopen yet?

Also I forget what the origin of the word "holomorphic" is but it seems silly that we have yet another word for "differentiable" or "analytic" (which at least can be justified by the fact that the terms are different on the real line). Not sure what you would use for "meromorphic" then.

youtube.com/watch?v=SyD4p8_y8Kw

Just took my first topology course and I have to agree. For God's sake, at least name a set that's both open and closed "ajar" and not clopen.

This
They should be called fuzzy and eggshelled

Fuck off ahistorical faggots. These names are part of math history and therefore math culture. Nobody cares about your shitty terminology "fixes" that seek to remove the culture out of math. Rene "Dick" Descartes called them imaginary numbers and that's what they will be called for ever. KYS.

or you know just functional notation [math]x^k = \exp_x k[/math]

>What math terminology would you change if you could?
Everything that has to do with cos, sin, tan, etc.
I don't know what to change it to, but without a doubt it is an idiotic terminology, especially for people trying to understand mathematics.

A name should offer *some* information about the object, but I am nor aware of any relation between "sin" and "cos" and their properties.

who cares? The intuition of the names and their properties works perfectly with analysis which is the motivation of topology anyways. And I can tell you're a baby tier topologist because clopen sets never really come up or care about specifically other than to show something is a connected component

why not x & y?

>fourier
>not four terms

X and Y are cartesian coordinates we use to model 2d and 3d objects. It wouldn't be useful for imaginary number planes as imaginary numbers aren't natural numbers.

Instead of sin, cos, tan, etc.

How about:

[math]x(30) = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}[/math]

[math]y(30) = \frac{1}{2}[/math]

[math]\frac{y}{x}(30) = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}[/math]

Thats something you can do now, but X(s) and Y(s) or x(t) and y(t) are used for modelling dynamic systems and system controls. So it would be very confusing trying to solve transfer functions and the like that use trig functions with your notation.

*hugs*