This is the kind of brat I can get behind. 😏
I believe the correct terminology is denominator mathematician.
They both bottoms.
I think rather
d/dxis the operator. You apply it to an expression to bind free occurrences ofxin that expression. For example,dx²/dxis best understood asd/dx (x²). The notation would be clear if you implement calculus in a program.I just think of the definition of a derivative.
dis just an infinitesimally small delta. Sody/dxis literally justlim (∆ -> 0) ∆y/∆x. which is the same aslim (x_1 -> x_0) [f(x_0) - f(x_1)] / [x_0 - x_1].Note:
∆ -> 0isn’t standard notation. But writing∆x -> 0requires another step of thinking:y = f(x)therefore∆y = ∆f(x) = f(x + ∆x) - f(x)so you only need∆xapproaching zero. But I prefer thinkingd = lim (∆ -> 0) ∆.
As a physicist I can’t understand why would anyone complain about a +jb or $\int dx f(x)$. Probably because we don’t fuck
Why would a mathematician use j for imaginary numbers and why would engineer be mad at them?
I think it might be the wrong way around: Engineers like to use j for imaginary numbers because i is needed for current.
Mathematicians are taught to be elastic with notation, because they tend to be taught many different interpretations of the same theory.
On the other hand engineers use more strict and consistent notation, their classes have a more practical approach.
Using the same notation makes it faster to read and apply math, a more agile approach helps with learning new theories and approaches and with being creative.
I love how that wannabe 4chan nerd just got outnerded in the comment section
Physicist behavior
Can somebody ELI5 this for my troglodyte writer brain?
An integral is usually written like ∫ f(x) dx or alternatively as df(x)/dx. Please note that this is just a way to apply the operation ‘Integration’, like + applies the operation ‘Addition’. There is no real multiplication or division.
But sometimes you can take a shortcut and treat dx as a multiplied constant. This is technically not correct, but under the right circumstances lands you at the same solution as the proper way. This then looks like this ∫ f(y) dy/dx dx = ∫ f(y) dy
Another thing you can do is to move multiplicative constants from inside the Integral to in front of the Integral: ∫ 2f(x) dx = 2 ∫ f(x) dx. (That is always correct btw)
What anon did was combine those two things and basically write ∫ f(x) dx = dx ∫ f(x). Which is nonsensical, but given the above rules not easily disproven.
This is more or less the same tactic used by internet trolls just in a mathy way. Purposefully misinterpreting arguments and information, that cost the other party considerably more energy to discover and rebut. Hence the hate fuck.
Integrals are an expression that basically has an opening symbol, and an operation that is written at the end of it that is used also as a closing symbol, looks kinda like:
{some function of x} dx.The person basically said “the dx part can be written at the start also, and that would make my so mad :3”:
dx {some function of x}.This gets their so mad because understandably this makes the notation non-standard and harder to read, also you’d have to use parentheses if the expression doesn’t just end at the function.
Note: dollar used instead of integral symbol
I also use dollars instead of integral symbols, I don’t do math though.
But physicists actually do that? They often write it like this: ∫ dx f(x) or this: ∫∫∫ dxdydz f(x,y,z)
My initial thought was that it’s surprising that the engineer is using i whereas the mathematician is using j. But I know some engineers who are hardcore in favour of i. No mathematicians who prefer j though. So if such an engineer were dating a mathematician of all people who used j, I could see that being ♠ .

Is anyone doing anything tonight?
Me, a language/arts person: “Huh?”
Learned a new word, Hate ****
Hate ****
I too take hate shits on the toilet.









