Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: Reply |
→Discussion: pro-subscript reply |
||
Line 113:
: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)
: This was my suggestion, so I should weigh in on this. I have suggested this change for the following reasons:
:* Like [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]], the subscript notation is more common in my experience.
:* People who don't have much mathematical background (and even some people who do) typically think of sequences as a separate type of entity, not as functions whose ___domain is the natural numbers.
:* The sources of this article use the subscript notation.
:* As [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] noted, other Wikipedia articles use the subscript notation.
: As for your comments:
:* The OEIS displays mathematical content, including sequenes, in ASCII, while Wikipedia uses [[WP:LaTeX|uses LaTeX]]. I don't think we can regard it as a definitive guide for notation.
:* From my personal experience, people without [[wikt:postsecondary|postsecondary]] mathematical background don't know that sequences are functions or that they can be written using function notation. Per [[WP:MTAU]], such readers are part of our target audience to the greatest possible extent.
: [[User:Eric Rowland|Eric Rowland]], does this address your objections? [[User:Streded|Streded]] ([[User talk:Streded|talk]]) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||