Talk:List of operations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

On sweating the small stuff[edit]

  • By "complement" I think the author really means "negation"; either way, the more common notation is ¬ rather than the prime symbol.
I don't know what you mean by "negation" - usally I think of negation as making something disappear or "to make negligable". It doesn't matter whats more common, everything should be on this page. You should add ¬ yourself. Fresheneesz 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Negation is a logical operation, and some writers (Quine, et al.) will further insist on a distinction between "negation" and "denial" that is parallel to the one that they make between the "conditional" (->) and the inplication (=>). Complement is a set-theoretic operation. Jon Awbrey 03:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In binary logic, + is used to indicate logical disjunction? Not usually. + would more likely mean exclusive or (which is the same as addition mod 2)
No, I've seen exclusive or as written with an \oplus. In my class on Logical Design, we *never* used the conjunction and disjunction operators, only plus and times. Fresheneesz 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In general the selection seems kind of quirky and haphazard. What's the exact rationale for the article? Could be useful but needs better organization, better coverage, and more accurate reflection of the notation and terminology that are actually used. --Trovatore 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I started this page specifically because I was looking for the compose operator, which I couldn't freaking find anywhere. Otherwise, it simply seems like a logical list to have. So an interested individual can find an operator that they don't know the name for. Fresheneesz 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: The prime is used for set complement, and also for negation. Jon Awbrey 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I said, the more common notation. I have no doubt you can attest both these usages somewhere. They're not usual. --Trovatore 07:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: It is common in CSE contexts to see "+" used for inclusive or, and this goes way back to Schroeder I think, which leads some of them to use a circled "+", like the direct sum symbol, for exclusive or, but I think we should discourage this, as it plays havoc with communication. Jon Awbrey 07:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: Just passing on the info. Common is relative to how widely one reads. If TV producers pandered only to the middle of the distribution, there'd be nothing on but "reality shows", oops, bad example. Jon Awbrey 07:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you have to write JA: before your comments? Thats confusing. I would advocate discouraging the use of certain operators, but we still must have them on the page. Fresheneesz 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • JA: I'm a pragmatist about semiotics, or sign usage in general. I observe the usages that people use and report what I observe them using. I observe the historical changes in usage and report on those phenomena for what they're worth to whom they're worth. It is only when I observe people becoming a danger to themselves and others, intellectually speaking, that I make recommendations based on experience with what is likely to happen, and I've seen lots of Road Runner cartoons, so I'm familiar with the behavior of many different species of semiotic critters and the empirically probable sequels to all due signs of Things to Come. I can of course best succeed in reforming my own practices, and so I will continue to do that. I use "(" in ")" in pairs and for much the same reason use "JA" and Jon Awbrey 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Duplication[edit]

I think this page is to some extent duplicative of Table of mathematical symbols. --Trovatore 23:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • JA: There is obviously a lot of overlap, and also with the material in Wikipedia Formula Help and Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols. Still, a good many of the symbols in the HTML version don't work on many browsers, and I remember how much time I wasted trying to tie a bowtie as before someone told me there was already a . Also, there could eventually be some purpose to the article in elucidating the semantics, not just the iconography of the various symbols for operators. Jon Awbrey 04:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)