• @RandomWalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    397 months ago

    I could be completely wrong, but I doubt any of my (US) professors would reference an ISO definition, and may not even know it exists. Mathematicians in my experience are far less concerned about the terminology or symbols used to describe something as long as they’re clearly defined. In fact, they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof.

    • @doctordevice@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      My experience (bachelor’s in math and physics, but I went into physics) is that if you want to be clear about including zero or not you add a subscript or superscript to specify. For non-negative integers you add a subscript zero (ℕ_0). For strictly positive natural numbers you can either do ℕ_1 or ℕ^+.

    • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I hate those guys. I had that one prof at uni and he reinvented every possible symbol and everything was so different. It was a pita to learn from external material.

    • @Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof

      I feel so thoroughly called out RN. 😂

    • @gens@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.