in reply to Re^2: OSCON Perl Unicode Slides
in thread OSCON Perl Unicode Slides

How dumb does it look to type '/' when we mean to use the obelus (÷) symbol?

What a fatuous argument. Have you *ever* seen a mathematician (outside of an infants (grade) school) write 7 ÷ 3 instead of 7/3?

Of course you haven't.


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: OSCON Perl Unicode Slides
by Corion (Patriarch) on Jul 25, 2011 at 20:06 UTC

    In Germany, division is written as

    22 : 7 = 3,1428...

    Of course, when not restricted to a single line, the fractional notation is more useful:

    22
    = 3,1428...
     7
      In Germany, division is written as 22 : 7

      Are you sure?

      In England, ratios are often also denoted using ':'. Eg. 4:3, 16:9 (screen ratios); 3:1, 2:1 on (betting odds etc.) But these are all whole number ratios. You would never see 1 : 3.141592653. That would always be 1/3.141592653.

      I don't know much about German mathematics (apart from they've historically led the world at it), but in the few months I worked there, I never saw division written or typed as x:y, always x/y, unless it was a whole number ratio. Is my memory flawed? Or were my co-workers and correspondence simply accommodating the quaint Englishman?


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        In my German school education, I was taught : as the division operator. It's also used to indicate ratios (unsurprisingly).

        I mostly use the form of fractions, as it's far more convenient to me and in most cases I have a two-dimensional display+input area ("paper") to write on.

        In England, ratios are often also denoted using ':' ... But these are all whole number ratios. You would never see 1 : 3.141592653.

        A bit OT, but further to the point, implicit to most of these discussions, that if it can be done some way, someone does it that way...
        At least in the States, film review magazines commonly refer to screen ratios as '1.33:1' (i.e., 4:3 television or pre-Academy-standard film), '1.37:1' (standard 'Academy' ratio), '1.85:1' (standard (?) theatrical ratio), '2.35:1' (theatrical wide-screen), '1.66:1', '1.78:1', etc., etc.