Editing 2687: Division Notation

Jump to: navigation, search

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 27: Line 27:
 
The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Defining things as functions is very normal for mathematics, but likely not very efficient at all to commonly do for the simple operation of division.  Occasionally a highly formalized definition such as this could be a setup for an elaborate and extensive proof, hence Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in most programming languages) operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.
 
The final form of notation declares a function. The writer defines a new function, F, that takes in the parameters A and B, before listing out the function's definition (trailing off in increasingly smaller text). Defining things as functions is very normal for mathematics, but likely not very efficient at all to commonly do for the simple operation of division.  Occasionally a highly formalized definition such as this could be a setup for an elaborate and extensive proof, hence Randall warns the reader they should escape while they still can. Integer division can be defined in terms of multiplicative inequalities and the remainder, or modulo ('%' in most programming languages) operator. This situation is likely to occur in many sorts of algebra, where one might have to define what "division" means for two elements of a mathematical object such as a group, ring, or magma. One example would be an object G, such that, for two elements A and B of G, "A divided by B" is defined as an element C such that CB=A, or alternatively as an element C such that BC=A. These definitions will differ if multiplication in G is not commutative. Furthermore, if such a C is not unique, the function F(A,B) will need to include a method to select a unique value for "A divided by B" for each A and B. Thus, the F(A,B) in the comic might not even refer to a uniquely defined operation, but simply to the property of a function F(A,B) that is a valid division operation on G, given some definition of division. You were warned.
  
The title text is a [[:Category:Science tip|Science Tip]]. It discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a {{w|percent sign}} (%). A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign because it is the wrong symbol in that context, ever though they never use it for the original meaning any more. The use of ÷ instead of % is something that may appear on signs for discount offers.
+
The title text is a [[:Category:Science tip|Science Tip]]. It discusses how the division sign (÷) has fallen out of favor in most professional contexts (the ISO-80000 guidelines even specify the symbol "should not be used") yet has resisted all efforts to repurpose it as a new function. Specifically, it pokes fun at how similar the division sign is to a {{w|percent sign}} (%). A scientist might be really mad at the use of the division sign as an alternative to a percent sign because it is the wrong symbol in that context, ever though they never use it for the original meaning any more. The use of ÷ instead of % is something that often appears on signs for discount offers.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)