
Show HN: Tough mathematical symbols to lovely code (v0.1) - mkagenius
https://github.com/mkagenius/mathsymbol2code/blob/master/README.md
======
strider12
Awesome, do more! It's not automated is it, like just type up a formula and it
spits out code?

~~~
mkagenius
Cool, will keep on adding to this. Although its not automated, even a handful
of them will be a great help to people, I think.

------
sklogic
Symbols are nice. Code is awful: too verbose and obscure. So what's the point
here?

~~~
mkagenius
I thought some people understand code much easier than the mathematical
symbols - the nested for loop kind of a gives more intuition for whats
happening than two sigmas.

Ofcourse people used to mathematical symbols will not have any problems with
them.

~~~
sklogic
There were countless attempts of replacing this notation with something more
structured, with OpenMath [1] being probably the most advanced (and yet
failed) take on this, as well as multiple CAS (Axiom, Macsyma, Mathematica and
alike).

But imperative loops? No, it's not going to be anything useful and won't make
the notation more machine-readable.

[1] [http://www.openmath.org/](http://www.openmath.org/)

~~~
mkagenius
Interesting stuff.

Actually this would just be a list which I would keep on adding to, I do not
intend it to be machine readable at all. The purpose of this is to make non-
math programmers less afraid while reading papers with some math symbols
sprinkled in it.

If a programmer who is not that good at maths can keep up with the paper he is
reading by forming a somewhat easier understanding of the paper by having a
better understanding of the formulas then it achieves the purpose.

Think of it as a cheatsheet for programmers to understand those symbols,
nothing more. I do not expect it to be complete with all maths formulae
either, maybe 20 most frequently occurring.

~~~
sklogic
I see, I must have misinterpreted your intentions. In such a case verbosity
and specialisation of an implementation may be helpful indeed.

