Follow

Idle thought: with the exception of \( \sum \) and \( \prod \), transforming an associative binary operation into an agglomerative "summation notation" is just making the symbol big and adding sub/superscripts. E.g., \( \bigotimes_{i=0}^n v_i \). It's strange to me that this applies to non-commutative operators ( \( \wedge \) ), but also that there are many binary operations where this rule can't be applied due to limitations of the syntax (bracket operators, function composition, modulo).

· · Web · 0 · 1 · 2

Like, doing this just feels weird: \( \bigcirc_{i=1}^nf_i := f_1 \circ f_2 \circ \dots \circ f_n \)

@j2kun Your mention of \( \wedge \) confused me because when I use that symbol it's most often for lattice meet or Boolean conjunction and those are definitely commutative. I've used \( \bigwedge \) in those contexts and not found anything strange about it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mathstodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!