Talk:Iverson bracket: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:32, 1 December 2015

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Is it not supposed to be 'where i is strictly GREATER than 0 or strictly LESS than 10' in stead?

I assume you are referring to the statement in the text "where i is strictly less than 0 or strictly greater than 10, the summand is 0, contributing nothing to the sum". The Iverson bracket in this case is [0<=i<=10], which has value 1 for i greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 10, and 0 otherwise, where "otherwise" means what the quoted statement in the preceding sentence says. Roger Hui (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth's lecture

I don't know if it's appropriate to cite or link to this, but Donald Knuth has a videotaped lecture on ``Two Notes on Notation" (see October 17, 2003 here: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/musings.html ... and for the video itself http://scpd.stanford.edu/knuth/index.jsp ) 98.235.81.240 (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance?

I like Iverson brackets and Donald Knuth's book, but can't quite notice its acceptance in mathematics for now. I think a section on acceptance is needed for now.

Boundary condition on summation is obviously a handicap and a waste of time, and that's where Iverson bracket can shine if we drop that useless and weird notation, so I think we should also add that. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include algebraic and logical properties

The main properties that make the Iverson bracket so useful appear to be missing, namely:

Algebraic properties (associative, commutative, distributive), as well as

[not a] = 1 - [a]

and

[a and b] = [a][b]

by which we can translate logical connectives to arithmetic formulae.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Boundary condition on summation is obviously a handicap and a waste of time, and that's where Iverson bracket can shine if we drop that useless and weird notation, so I think we should also add that. --[[Special:Contributions/14.198.220.253|14.198.220.253]] ([[User talk:14.198.220.253|talk]]) 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
-== Include logical properties ==
+== Include algebraic and logical properties ==
 The main properties that make the Iverson bracket so useful appear to be missing, namely:
+* Algebraic properties (associative, commutative, distributive), as well as
-[not a] = 1 - [a]
-[a and b] = [a][b]
+* [not a] = 1 - [a]
+and
+* [a and b] = [a][b]
 by which we can translate logical connectives to arithmetic formulae.