[texhax] derivatives and integrals: math operators

[Phil Parker]

On 08/07/2009 at 10:26 AM, Toby Cubitt <tsc25 at cantab.net> wrote:
>Phil Parker wrote:
>> Since we create the stuff, we get to make the rules, conventions, guidelines,
>> etc. Perhaps they want to change it so they can feel some sort of ownership of
>> it when they use it. (Who knows? I'm not a psychologist! But I suspect it's
>> more to keep us from reading physics too readily: we haven't paid our dues,
>> and physics is a lot easier to understand with advanced math than with
>> elementary math [a.k.a. "the hard way" or Phys 101 way].) 

>Goodness! What a tirade against physicists, all over a tiny difference of
>notational convention. Did you suffer some sort of converse to the apocryphal
>story about Alfred Nobel and the lack of a mathematics prize? :)

To me, it's not a tirade, just an observation with appropriate note of my not
being professionally qualified in psychology.

The whole is the result of almost 40 years of working with, and reading papers
by, physicists -- my "gut reaction" to it all.

If your experience is different, I can't speak to that.

-- 
    Phil Parker
--------------------------------------------
URL http://www.math.wichita.edu/~pparker/
Random quote:
  I must be a mushroom: people keep me in the dark and feed me shit.