Content deleted Content added
Eric Rowland (talk | contribs) |
→Discussion: Reply |
||
Line 111:
I disagree that <math>s_n</math> is preferable to <math>s(n)</math>. The OEIS — the definitive site for sequences on the internet — consistently uses <math>s(n)</math>, not subscripts (see https://oeis.org/A000045 for example). Also, sequences are functions, so <math>s(n)</math> is more appropriate and doesn't introduce extra notation. I don't see any possible cause of confusion. I think we should revert the recent change. [[User:Eric Rowland|Eric Rowland]] ([[User talk:Eric Rowland|talk]]) 00:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:Hmm, we may need another opinion on this. I don't have a strong preference either way, but in my experience subscript notation <math>s_n</math> is more common. The page [[Sequence]] uses subscript notation. As for "sequences are functions", subscripts are functions too, set-theoretically. You could replace all subscript notation with functions but that wouldn't always be clarifying. For example, you could represent a quadratic polynomial <math>a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2</math> as <math>a(0) + a(1) x + a(2) x^2</math>, but I don't think that would be helpful. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||