IMPACT Live!

 View Only

IMPACTful Blog (Math Intensive): Mathematical Notation

By Robert Cappetta posted 02-20-2025 15:14:11

  

From our earliest days in school, mathematics notation presents a problem. Do we really need so many ways to express multiplication? 

2x3 is the first notation children see.  Later versions include 2•3, 2∗3, 2(3), and (2)(3). As kids move into algebra, so many of them struggle, so maybe the notation is part of the problem.  Bob Davis, one of the early pioneers in mathematics education, preferred the notation with missing numbers represented by empty boxes and triangles. It makes more sense to put 7 into an empty box, rather than into an in .

An internet meme with a huge number of views is the arithmetic question  8÷2(2+2). As mathematics teachers, we would apply the order of operations to get a result of 16, however, many people believe the answer is 1.  Are these people misinformed or might there be a bigger issue? I reached out to a friend who works in computing, and he said that multiplication written without a symbol is performed before other operations. Mathematicians recognize 8÷2(2+2) as 8x(1/2)x(2+2) whereas certain programming languages see it as 8/(2x(2+2))

This debate raises many questions about other notation used in mathematics courses.  Furthermore, if our community agrees that a certain notation is problematic, why does it never change? 

As students move into math intensive courses, more challenges with notation arise.  The most troubling may be sin2(x). This notation represents (sin x)2. How much time is saved by using the troubling notation?  A related concern is sin-1x. Can we blame a student who thinks this notation represents 1/sin x = csc x?

By the way, PhotoMath is also confused by this.  Similarly, isn’t sin x a problem?  Recall that functions are typically written with the argument in parentheses.  We write f(x) not fx, so shouldn't sin x be written as sin(x)? However, the function notation causes confusion too.  Using the limit definition of the derivative, students must evaluate f(x+h).
Each semester there are students who mistakenly evaluate this as fx + fh. 

Mathematics is a language, so learning context is important to know what the notation means, but there must be a more efficient way to communicate these ideas. 

There are many other issues with notation.  For example, should the empty set be written as ∅ when writing { } is much clearer? How should composition of functions be written? f(g(x)) seems clearest, yet other notations can lead to confusion. When we say limx→2f(x) = ∞ we also say that limx→2f(x) does not exist. This must confuse students.

Has any notation changed?  I had hoped that the proliferation of technology might lead to change, but instead, emerging technologies are “smart” enough to know that sin2x = (sin x)2. In my almost 40 years of teaching mathematics, the only change that I can think of is that I rarely see the quantifiers and ∃. I assume these were originally developed because a writer could put a paper upside down on a typewriter to get the symbol.  Looking back, wouldn’t it have been easier to write, “for all” or “there exists.?” 

Mathematics is challenging.  Let’s be sure that the notation we use does not make it more so. 

4 comments
36 views

Comments

30 days ago

Well this is embarrassing. 

I just wrote that 8÷(2(2+2)) is the correct interpretation of 8÷2(2+2).

But the order of operations says it is (8÷2)(2+2). Sure looks different with parens.

30 days ago

I agree that the notation we have is here to stay so I think we have to point out it's shortcomings, as noted by LW. And note that the notation is precisely the strength of algebra and all symbolic mathematics.

I would hope that all computer languages respect the order of operations else they have a serious and dangerous flaw. That is my experience with six or more languages, but there may well be one or more that are incorrect. Very bad and worth knowing about.

Nevertheless, writing something like 8÷2(2+2) is very dangerous. Even a tired math educator might get it wrong, much less an engineer in the field. And whoever wrote it may have had something else in mind. One should use parens to remove any ambiguity: 8÷(2(2+2)) , presumably.

The trig notation cited is awful. sin^-1(x) ? Awful. But it exists and for good reason, nothing can be done about it, imho, except warn students. Even let them have a reference card (some would say cheat sheet) that clarifies the notations cited. 

Related, loosely, a book I love is "A History of Mathematical Notations" by Florian Cajori though I haven't opened it in years.

02-20-2025 22:08:26

Mathematics is a language.  By default that means it is inefficient and full of contextual meanings. This is nothing new.

  • I am beat from beating this beet to the beat of the song.
  • Rose rose up from her chair to hand the rose to Jim.
  • Kim kept her eyes nailed to the movie screen as the villain nailed the hero’s toe nail with a hammer and nail.
  • At two, I too was able to crawl through the tunnel.

This is normal and a part of any language.

Mathematical notation suffers from the same mishandling and bad choices and isolation and history and over usage as any language. Anyone learning a new language feels this.

Users suffer from miscommunication until they gain experience.

f(x + h) = fx + fh, if f, x, and h are representing numbers.  That's the distributive property. They are not equal if f is representing a function and x and h are representing numbers. Then it is function notation.

There is no point in trying to fix the language.  It is too old and wide spread.

Instead, we should be teaching the language by using it to communicate.  Students learn mathematics by engaging in writing and conversations and discussions using mathematics.  That gives everyone an opportunity to be confused and an opportunity to clarify with better presentation.

Mathematics is a language.  The challenge is learning the language with all of its idiosyncrasies.  There is no circumventing the language.  There is experience using the language.

Using the language of mathematics properly and precisely is called rigor.

We need to resist making life easier for students by cleaning up all of their encounters with mathematics. We need to teach students to use the language to describe their thoughts to others.

Having said all of that, of course I use "arcsine". Of course I insist on parentheses in function notation, sin x is ridiculous notation. Of course I want -oo rather than DNE for a limit.  If you are speaking to me using the language of mathematics, then you will speak clearly.

Using the language is how people learn the language.  We need to provide students plenty of opportunities to use mathematics to communicate and plenty of feedback about our understanding.

02-20-2025 18:22:35

Thanks for this post, which is coincidentally very timely. I was just having the conversation with my trig. students about the inconsistencies of sin^2(x) vs sin(x)^2 vs sin(x^2) and sin^-1(x) vs sin(x)^-1 (I didn't even mention sin(x^-1))...all of which is even trickier without a superscript option here. :) I told them that I'm more likely to at least say "arcsin" because I think it sounds like some sort of super villain rather than saying inverse sin or sin inverse. 

As I reflected on all of this while reading your post, I was thinking about logs too. A few weeks ago, I joked to my students that sin is a very silly shortening of a math term since only one letter is being dropped. I speculated (and never checked) that maybe "they" decided to drop the e to avoid the confusion of sin(e) vs sine. But log is a good shortening since writing logarithm(x) would be a lot to write. And speaking of logs, we have log(x^2)=2logx≠(logx)^2 and log^2(x) is (as far as I know) not a thing. But shouldn't it be if we put the exponent before the argument for the trig functions? 

Thanks again!

Permalink