Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

I removed the footnote at adjunct (as just noted elsewhere, I don’t think footnotes are usually a good choice). I put a brief mention of the musical notation in the main text, put the example of currying in an “Examples” section, and the references in a “References” section. I removed the discussion about pronunciation entirely; I think there is no need to tell the reader how to pronounce mathematical notation, at least when it is fairly obvious (how else would you pronounce $f^\sharp$ than “f-sharp”?).

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

Similar edit at exponential object.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
• (edited Jul 21st 2017)

how else would you pronounce $f^\sharp$ than “f-sharp”

it could easily be read “f-hash”.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

But when $f^\sharp$ is coupled with $f^\flat$, there can be no doubt.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorPeter Heinig
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
• (edited Jul 21st 2017)

But when $f^\sharp$ is coupled with $f^\flat$, there can be no doubt.

To me is seems rather the other way round: especially when $f^\flat$ shows up (and someone is neither knowledgeable or industrious enough to click the “source” link and look at the latex, nor musically educated), then there can be doubt, and it will usually be read “f bee” (by such readers, I mean).

Personally, I think mentioning “sharp”, “flat” and even “stave notation”, and yes, in a footnote, better, but this is my feeling/opinion only and I will not try to give reasons for this.

I greatly appreciate that the nLab has some sort of editorial line and tries to maintain a reasonably uniform style. We should not get into an argument about $\sharp$ and $\flat$.

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
• (edited Jul 21st 2017)

While $\sharp$ and $\#$ are sufficiently different to make it clear something is up, it’s not obvious at all that $f_!$ is pronounced “f lower shriek” (and ditto for upper shriek), so that is perhaps warranted.

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

As a compromise: if Urs and Peter really feel there is a danger here, then something like “sometimes the notation $f^\sharp$ and $f^\flat$ (as in music) is used” should be more than sufficient. We should trust that readers have a basic general education, after all.

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

I agree that the pronunciation of $f_!$ is worth mentioning where it appears, and I’d be okay with Todd’s suggestion in #7.

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017

I made the musical notes (ha ha) in adjunct and exponential object. I’m not sure where $f_!$ appears (probably lots of places; where should we make a note of it?).

• CommentRowNumber10.
• CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017
• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJul 21st 2017