Timeline for How should imaginary numbers be typeset?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 7, 2021 at 16:48 | comment | added | egreg | @Jacob Since it hasn't introduced ambiguities for a few centuries, I don't see why it should now. | |
| Dec 7, 2021 at 16:39 | comment | added | Jacob | I (math student) really don't understand why the upright version of "i" is not the standard. Any other notation might introduce a certain ambiguity and one always has to explicitly state that the "i" one uses refers to the imaginary unit and is hence not treated as a variable. Same applies to the constant "e". | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 19:33 | comment | added | Timtro | I don't think mathematicians should conform to the ISO standard. That would be silly, just as it's silly to suggest scientists and engineers should conform to notation you call 'traditional'. Hell, even within mathematics, there is a diversity of notation. And if you read any papers that are more than 100 years old, you would discover that even mathematical conventions have evolved. | |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 14:14 | history | edited | egreg | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Image from modern days |
| Mar 17, 2017 at 13:44 | history | edited | egreg | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added images from Kowalewski paper |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 14:36 | vote | accept | A.Ellett | ||
| Dec 11, 2012 at 8:04 | comment | added | egreg | @YiannisLazarides Neither do I, but it's a personal opinion and is as respectable as A.Ellett's. :) | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 8:00 | comment | added | yannisl | Personally I do not see any visual clash. | |
| Dec 11, 2012 at 7:49 | history | answered | egreg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |