Suggestion: math formatting on the OGF

Probably. I’d much rather read a nice clear for loop than struggle to figure out which js and is do what in a sum or product notation

Do we really need a plugin? We rarely need more complicated formulas than this.

⌈log2(n) · C


Well, fractions, double exponents, square roots, summations, all look nicer when typeset properly.

But, I could always made screenshots and included those, which is essentially what MathJax will do as well…


Doesn’t sound great for people with screen readers. I don’t know how much of them are playing go online though.

Anyway it’s log for base 10, ln for base e, ld for base 2.

1 Like

Nice gadget for handful of forum dwellers, but not really urgent in my honest opinion.

1 Like

Really? I’ve only seen lg

Apparently it’s lb for “binary” in DIN, but I’ve learned ld for “dualis”.

{isplaystyle peratorname {lb} a}|0x0

Binärer Logarithmus, auch als Zweierlogarithmus bezeichnet, der Logarithmus zur Basis 2. Er wird in der Informatik bei Rechnungen im Binärsystem verwendet. Außerhalb der Norm wird mit gleicher Bedeutung auch ld ⁡ a {isplaystyle peratorname {ld} a}|0x0logarithmus dualis – verwendet.
~~Logarithmus – Wikipedia


According to the Wikipedia page that I mentioned above, ld is common in German mathematical literature to mean base-2 logarithm, and German literature also commonly uses lg to mean base-10 logarithm.

I guess German mathematical literature is not Austrian mathematical literature. I don’t think I’ve seen lg before.

1 Like

Actually, I think I’ve almost never seen lg used in the literature, besides in Knuth’s writing.

I think most writers tend to generally avoid such abbreviations, since it may be confusing. The most common conventions that I see are writing just log and clarifying somewhere what base is implied (if a specific base is necessary) or just writing something like log10.

An author could always define lg or log to have any base they want. Often, this is done by just adding a clarification statement somewhere like “All logarithms in this paper are base X”. However, without such a statement, I think that the notation lg is ambiguous, especially in the context of one-off forum posts.


Wow mathematics linguistic pedantry. A must!


In computer science, we just write log and you can infer the base from context. It is probably base 2.

1 Like

I had a class where the teacher used that convention, but he mentioned at the beginning that that was the convention, so I’m not sure it counts anymore than me using lg

They’re all the same anyway :smile:


In that context they’re enharmonic :smiley: