I think it could be great if we could enable the Discourse Math plugin for this forum so we could have MathJax and ASCIIMath support and type things like

`% lfloor (n + 2*7) / 5 rfloor %`

to get

or

`$ \lceil\, \lg(n) \cdot C \,\rceil $`

to get .

I think it could be great if we could enable the Discourse Math plugin for this forum so we could have MathJax and ASCIIMath support and type things like

`% lfloor (n + 2*7) / 5 rfloor %`

to get

or

`$ \lceil\, \lg(n) \cdot C \,\rceil $`

to get .

11 Likes

Only if we have a new math category at the same time.

(Joking)

2 Likes

I guess the downside is potentially slower discourse page load speed (as mentioned in that thread).

Are there any other reasons why this isnâ€™t just turned on by default?

MathJax shouldnâ€™t slow down loading speed of pages that donâ€™t use mathematics notation, as it is only triggered after the page has loaded and replaces formulas at that point. At least, thatâ€™s how itâ€™s supposed to be implemented, afaik.

3 Likes

It would be nice to have the option, but I think in these cases the math notation loses more in readability than it gains. Especially the ceiling and floor symbols are more arcane in it, obscuring the fact that itâ€™s just a function youâ€™re applying to some result, nothing more complicated than that

It also loses a lot because it doesnâ€™t show in dark mode and the typeface is different and the font size is different and the space between glyphs is huge compared to the containing text

2 Likes

My screenshots wonâ€™t do dark mode of course, but the actual MathJax renders real characters that follow the theme.

One very slight risk is that someone might trigger it unexpectedly by typing a few $ or % signs. It is smart enough to filter out the cases where itâ€™s just like $5.95 or 95%.

5 Likes

I poked around following the links, I think it is non-trivial to add this, so only anoek can do it.

Iâ€™m not convinced itâ€™s even worth distracting someone for a non-trivial effort to achieve this TBH. How often do we talk about math, really? (So I didnâ€™t @ anoek )

2 Likes

I feel like this forum definitely talks about math significantly more per capita than the population

5 Likes

Hah thatâ€™s for sure I think we talk about any rational topic more per capita than the population Iâ€™m still not convinced weâ€™d want to interrupt any other thing that anoek is doing to achieve this, but you could always @ him yourself if you disagree

2 Likes

I mean, Iâ€™ve already gone on record here as saying that I think the `code formatting`

is already sufficient, so Iâ€™ll pass

2 Likes

Judging by what Iâ€™ve seen so far as a professional lurker, OGF is 49% linguistics, 49% math, 2% miscellaneous. Probably best to drop all Go content and immediately implement full LaTeX and IPA support.

10 Likes

Iâ€™d say 25% linguistics, 25% maths, 49% linguistic or mathematical pedantry and 1% miscellaneousâ€¦

6 Likes

I just have to say that I really dislike omitting the â€śoâ€ť in â€ślogâ€ť.

Here are my general preferences regarding typesetting logarithms:

- When the base is clear from context, or if it doesnâ€™t matter, I prefer writing just
`log`

. - When the natural logarithm is specifically intended, I prefer writing
`ln`

. - When some other base needs to be specified, I prefer writing
`log`

_{b}, where`b`

is the base.

3 Likes

Why use 2 characters when one will suffice?

6 Likes

I agree with this, except that I add `lg(n)`

to the list for log base two. This is a convention used in The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth, and I think it is far too useful to not use

1 Like

Of course a plugin for entering go diagrams would be a lot more useful!

But who knows, maybe heâ€™ll be updating the server at some point and and searching the forum for things the community is interested in. So I thought it would be fun to at least open the topic for discussion.

Plus now we have a natural place to debate things like lg vs log vs ln. Personally I like plain old **log** for base *e*.

4 Likes

Well, Iâ€™m all for reducing implicit decimal bias, though personally I like the look of `ln`

too much to give it up

1 Like

There have been at least a handful of times where I would have liked to be able to typeset mathematics.

I think the exact opposite.

I guess it depends on whether one works more with mathematics or with programming which reads more easily.

5 Likes

On the topic of forum plug-ins, I would like to take this moment to *plug* the Reaction plug-in

8 Likes

`lg`

is ambiguous notation that requires further clarification, since it has been used inconsistently across the boarder literature. `lg`

as the binary logarithm seems to be popular across computer science literature, but `lg`

as the base-10 logarithm is quite common in mathematics literature (particularly German and Russian literature, where this is the standard meaning). In fact, there are international standards (ISO 31-11 and ISO 80000-2) and a German national standard (DIN 1302) that define the abbreviation `lg`

to mean the base-10 logarithm. Of course, NIST also recommends following the ISO standards (see https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf).

Sources:

Itâ€™s especially satisfying when it is both linguistic and mathematical pedantry at the same.

I just have to do my part to help keep these ratios upâ€¦

3 Likes