Notation Writing Software

[Hebe Newnam]

I realize that there is no mathematical difference between the two notation forms, but was wondering why some people choose the first method over the second. Is there some place in higher maths that it becomes beneficial to write the differential first?

Edit: It also just occurred to me that the second notation ties in better with the syntax of an operator. That is, if one thinks of $\int_0^1 \mathrm d x$ as being an operator, taking a function to its integral, it's more natural to have the whole operator together in one lump. Think of how one changes$$\frac \partial f\partial x\to \frac\partial\partial x f$$

Also a justification for the use in more classical contexts, as a Riemann integral, is that the integration of continuous functions is a linear map, such that we can define$$Tf:=\int_a^b f(x) dx$$But then in some sense it seems more cleaner to write$$Tf=\int_a^b dx\, f(x)$$so in some sense $\int_a^b dx\,\cdot\, $ represents the linear map $T$.

Apart from the idea that $\int_a^b$ should be next to the $\mathrmdx$ to make clear we mean $\int_x=a^x=b$, or the fact that $\int_a^b\mathrmdx$ is a linear operator that deserves a symbol, there are some ways such placement protects us from our own mistakes:

One advantage of writing $\mathrmdx$ first is you won't forget it, which we mustn't do if we have to juggle multiple variables, e.g. due to a substitution. Sometimes, you have to include quite a few terms or factors in the integrand.

I have a csv file containing a 20 digit Customer Id (e.g. 50000174058809263569) in one column and other customer related information in the remaining colums. After processing the data and doing the necessary calculations, I write the output into a CSV file. But when I write the output, the Customer Id gets converted into scientific notation (e.g. 5.0000174058809264E19). This is incorrect because the customer Id is just an identification number and having it in scienfitic notation makes no sense.

I think when the number of digits exceeds a certain fixed threshold, KNIME automatically converts all numbers to scientific notation. Is there a way to prevent his? I want the output file to have the customer Id as a regular number without the scientific notation. Can anyone please help me?

I'm surprised your Id is not rounded automatically. In a quick experiment, my Knime rounded your example Id to 50000174058809260000. And even if it seems to work, there's always the danger that it will not always work. So maybe use Strings from the start?

This option doesn't seem to be working either :(. Come on KNIME, having built such a great product, how can you let this major issue slip through. There should be a simple way to let the user choose if scientific notation is to be used or not.

But again, your IDs might be rounded right at their creation. The underlying reason is that Knime uses the java primitives, which have physical size restrictions. The double type (which you are probably using, as the others are too small) just cuts off the least significant digits without telling you about it. There would be ways for the Knime developers to get around that behaviour, and to allow arbitrarily sized numbers, but it wouldn't be worth it in 95% of the cases. And in another 4% of the cases, using Strings instead might help. (As in your case. I mean you probably aren't doing computations with your IDs, right? Why would you use numbers, then?)

I agree that the ability to choose formating would be a nice feature. There are a lot of positions where that might be a good addition, but an extension of the Numbers To Strings node seems to be the most important one. It's probably on the radar somewhere, but with a low priority or something..

Nice to meet you. Would it be possible to learn a bit more about why you need Big Number support? This is not something that we have run in to much (ever?) before. If it really is just a matter of keeping track of a (very large) ID, I think it is reasonable to read the data in a String cell to start, no?

@Aaron : I see your point, it is reasonable but not so practical (the types come from Database, lots of nodes to modify etc... and at some point in the workflow you may need to have it as Double for some reasons.

The root problem is that the number is so large it cannot be represented by an integer (or long) and is therefore read as a floating point number. During this conversion parts of the original number are lost, due to limited precision in floating point numbers (the least significant digits are cut). It doesn't matter what the CSV writer does, in any case it would write a wrong value. The proper solution is to read the ID as a string and not a number in the first place.

I am using Knime version 3.5, and for long doubles scientific notation is being output by the Number to String node, as well as the string values from the Column Rename node (when choosing string as the value type for the renamed column). Prior to the conversion the output renderers for previous nodes do not show the value using scientific notation. Is there a default node which will not insert the scientific notation, or is the only option a java node? Thanks!

I mean that if you are in a tournament and you need to concentrate on the game, it makes it hard because you need to also focus on writing down your opponents moves and your own moves as well. The tournament directors don't really look at your notations, they record your results. Now in the major tournaments I can understand but in minor ones, I think we should be able to play without writing down our moves.

It is simple and easy, and not in the least distracting. But, notation requires practice to become second nature. Try writing down casual games, and notating your thoughts before moving the pieces during home preparation. Soon, notation becomes easier.

One very tangible benefit I have found with youth. When they notate, they play slower and usually better. In my state, youth events are rated through a regional system, rather than USCF, and notation is optional. The top players usually notate. That is no coincidence.

At a recent tournament, I had a player who scored two 1000 point upsets in the same tournament. How does that happen? It's easy to explain. He was a good player, playing in his second tournament. At his first tournament, he got so flustered by having to worry about clocks and notation that he played very badly, and ended up with a rating of approximately 300. By the second tournament, he had practice with notation and played at a more realistic level, around 1200 performance rating.

Ah, I didn't know that. I don't get into time trouble usually but I have often seen opponents with only a minute or two left tick off moves on their scoresheet w/o taking the time to write the move. I have assumed that I was being generous in not taking any point on this but now I see that my opponents just knew the rules better than did I.

That's in there? Could you offer a more detailed description of what else is there? I don't have a use for your rating and ladder system. Most of my active players are rated through

But, I'm always willing to look at teaching tools for common lessons, such as learning notation.

All of this reminds me of my first-ever USCF game. I remember blitzing off a bunch of moves early on just because I was terrified that I was going to run out of time at any moment (and the time control was 40/90!).

I thank you players for your opinions. Now tell me this? Why is notation writing so important for your game apart from being able to go back and look at your game and correct it. What other purpose does it give? How many of you just wish that you could play as if you are playing for fun in a tournament but still play competitvely?

I had the same problem with notating my moves. But it's something you get used to quickly enough. Especially after reading chess-literature, the squares didn't need looking up or counting like they used to. Which saved my attention for playing the game, instead of being busy writing down moves.

To me, on lower level tournaments notating isn't that important. Besides this I don't see why someone should -have to- write down everything. But since it becomes more natural the up-sides come cheap.
Not only practical use like looking over a game again, which is mostly not a bad idea, but especially the idea of keeping all seriously played games appeals to me.

When I wrote my master's thesis, a professor who read it said that I should not use the phrase "A function of class $k$." but instead "A function of class $C^k$". I am not an expert about mathematical history of notations, but I read that in Geometric Measure Theory, H. Federer actually uses the first one, and it seems logical for me: I think that $C^k$ is the abbreviation for "of class $k$". Therefore, employing "class $C^k$" seems like a repetition. Or maybe the other notation is just not used any more and should simply be prohibited?

Federer was not exactly known, even to his contemporaries, for employing standard notation. Here is a quote from Steenrod's 1948 Math Review of some mimeographed notes of Federer for a course on differential geometry.

The most striking feature of the book to the casual reader is the notation. The author adopts the view that certain familiar notations are misleading, and obscure the meanings of definitions and theorems. He replaces them by more elaborate notations based on the roots in set theory of the concepts represented (e.g., the polynomial x becomes the sequence of its coefficients [0,1]). A few such changes would not be worthy of comment; but he has carried out the prodigious task of applying the same stern standards to every phase of the work. The result can be described by saying that a resemblance to any notation, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Musical notation is any system used to visually represent music. Systems of notation generally represent the elements of a piece of music that are considered important for its performance in the context of a given musical tradition. The process of interpreting musical notation is often referred to as reading music.

c80f0f1006