…for coming up with three completely unrelated symbolic notations for the relationship between a base, an exponent, and a product, depending on which part is missing:
Missing product: b[sup]x[/sup] = p
Missing base: x√p = b
Missing exponent: log[sub]b[/sub] p = x
I demand a single visually homogeneous notation for these three concepts, which are all the same thing anyway.
Get cracking.
I’m not sure what you want. It’s not like multiplication and division, or addition and subtraction look the same.
I guess you could try using subscripts for logarithms, and using the superscript in front of the product for roots (i.e., removing the root symbol). But those all have other uses.
function(arg1,arg2) not good enough?
Huh?
I rather doubt “ancient” mathematicians came up with those symbols unless you are one of those young SD posters who think that anything more than 50 years old is ancient.
I’m angry with ancient mathematicians because I like beans and the square root of 2.
The current notation for logarithms was invented in the early 17th century, and the radical sign dates back to at least the 14th century. That’s pretty damn old.
That’s what she said!
“pretty damn old” is not ancient. Words do mean something.
Could you elaborate on how base, exponent and product are essentially the same thing? Genuine question, no snark.
You already can use just any single one of these forms. Problem arises when you “isolate the unknown on one side of the equation” or want to reduce the number of equations.
Perhaps what you want is Prolog programming language, which solves for variables as needed, not just when isolated on left-side of equation.
No, no, no. I mean the three operators (exponent, log, radical) are different ways of expressing the same thing (the relationship between those three values). I am annoyed because they are so visually different, and therefore they appear completely unrelated.
I actually really like Prolog. More programmers need to understand logic programming better.