Feynman's trig notations

  • Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date
  • #1
Icebreaker

Main Question or Discussion Point

A friend told me that Feynman used his own set of trig notations because he found "sin x" ambiguous. Apparantly he replaced it with a [tex]\sigma[/tex] stretched over the x like a square root. He did similar things for the other trig notations as well, but I can't find any of this info anywhere. Anyone know if this is true?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pyrrhus
Homework Helper
2,178
1
According to the book, "Surely You're joking, Mr. Feynman", it states

"While I was doing all this trigonometry, I didn't like the symbols for sine, cosine, tangent, and so on. To me, "sin f" looked like s times i times n
times f! So I invented another symbol, like a square root sign, that was a sigma with a long arm sticking out of it, and I put the f underneath. For the
tangent it was a tau with the top of the tau extended, and for the cosine I made a kind of gamma, but it looked a little bit like the square root sign.
Now the inverse sine was the same sigma, but left -to-right reflected so that it started with the horizontal line with the value underneath, and then
the sigma. That was the inverse sine, NOT sink f--that was crazy! They had that in books! To me, sin_i meant i/sine, the reciprocal. So my symbols
were better."
 
  • #3
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,985
540
Feynman is famous for the slash notation.That is really useful.

Daniel.
 
  • #4
Icebreaker
Sounds like pretty good ideas, actually!
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,833
955
Feynman was clearly a brilliant physicist but reading some of his non-math writing (especially "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", he was more than a little wacky. And quite ready to assume that anyone who disagreed with him, even on non-physics subjects, was a fool.
 
  • #6
478
2
Of course if anyone non-famous were to come up with a new notation, it wouldn't seem so brilliant.
 
  • #7
Pyrrhus
Homework Helper
2,178
1
HallsofIvy said:
Feynman was clearly a brilliant physicist but reading some of his non-math writing (especially "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", he was more than a little wacky. And quite ready to assume that anyone who disagreed with him, even on non-physics subjects, was a fool.


Yes, Halls, i agree, he was an interesting fellow. Did you like the [itex] e^x [/itex] series chapter? i found it very entertaining how Feynman played with logs to trick those poor math students :rofl:
 
  • #8
Icebreaker
z-component said:
Of course if anyone non-famous were to come up with a new notation, it wouldn't seem so brilliant.
Well even with Feynman's reputation I doubt the math community's going to change.

Seriously, though, what happens if I have the variable s, i, n, c, o, t or a and I need to use the trig functions? Ambiguity.
 
  • #9
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,985
540
That's nonsense.We've got "x","y" & "z" as the traditional notation for real variable.And for the arguments of circular trigonometrical functions we've got the greek letters...

Daniel.
 
  • #10
Zurtex
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,120
1
Erm that's why we have standard use of parenthesis so we can see what are functions and what are not as well as just using out intelligence and realising it's common use to write a function in any particular way it's most common to write it. I see where Feynman is coming from, however does it not seem painful to come up with a special symbol for every highly used function and have to remember them all?
 
  • #11
644
1
Zurtex said:
Erm that's why we have standard use of parenthesis so we can see what are functions and what are not as well as just using out intelligence and realising it's common use to write a function in any particular way it's most common to write it. I see where Feynman is coming from, however does it not seem painful to come up with a special symbol for every highly used function and have to remember them all?
Not only that, but a standardised set of notations which are readable, form **that** special integral part of communicating things to others. If i developed a set of notations that only i can understand, then i would have to attach a new thread on this board, ask ppl to look into those notations before i could even ask a simple problem such as
why is lim_{x>0} sinx/x = 1 ??

Ofcourse according to feynman thats nonsense and actually,
lim_{x>0} sinx/x = sin :wink:

-- AI
 
  • #12
Curious3141
Homework Helper
2,843
87
Dear me. If he objected to trig notations, what did he think of [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}, \int ydx, \log x[/itex], and really so many other notations that any normal person would consider fairly unambiguous ?
 
  • #13
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Richard Feynman said:
"While I was doing all this trigonometry, I didn't like the symbols for sine, cosine, tangent, and so on. To me, "sin f" looked like s times i times n
times f! So I invented another symbol, like a square root sign, that was a sigma with a long arm sticking out of it, and I put the f underneath. For the
tangent it was a tau with the top of the tau extended, and for the cosine I made a kind of gamma, but it looked a little bit like the square root sign.
Now the inverse sine was the same sigma, but left -to-right reflected so that it started with the horizontal line with the value underneath, and then
the sigma. That was the inverse sine, NOT sink f--that was crazy! They had that in books! To me, sin_i meant i/sine, the reciprocal. So my symbols
were better."[/I]
Just ridiculous, whatever his name was.
 
  • #14
Icebreaker
Curious3141 said:
Dear me. If he objected to trig notations, what did he think of [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}, \int ydx, \log x[/itex], and really so many other notations that any normal person would consider fairly unambiguous ?
We bow to him and surrender our possessions.
 
  • #15
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,395
3
It appears, then, as if Feynmann thought "symbolically", perhaps influenced by Dirac's Bra and Ket idea. I mean, he wishes to have the inverse of sin to be the symbol reflected in a horizontal line. Intuitive but only to those who think, or who have been taught to think, in a certain way.

Personally I loathe such things as Bra and Ket as they make stuff unnecessarily complicated. In fact for a long time I failed to understand any quantum mechanical literature I happened across until someone pointed out that the Bra could be simply thought of as an element of the dual space, which perhaps reflects my education. It may seem obvious to people who like to assign too much meaning to a symbol, but not to me. Seems like physicists like reinventing the wheel though.
 
  • #16
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Another thing is that "Bra"&"Ket" are stupid and childish names. :grumpy:
 
  • #17
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,395
3
Yep, they are, and stupid names for a special case of a more general phenomenon that happens to have a particularly nice interpretation for a reflexive hilbert space.
 
  • #18
644
1
Just a special note :

I just hope that none of Mr. Feynman fans here get irritated due to this conversation. Its just that, I (and few other members of the forum) dont think that Mr. Feynman's criticism of standard notations is justified. This conversation in no way undermines Mr Feynman's credentials as one of the greatest physicist to have born on earth. I am Feynman fan myself and whatever physics i know came from Feynman (and Resnick & Halliday). I have read "Surely you are joking Mr. Feynman" and i adore the way he dedicates himself to whatever work he takes up (be it picking locks or making sketches). I just thought let me post this up before someone starts a flamefest.

-- AI
 
  • #19
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,395
3
Well, in English English bra is female underwear and kex or kegs are male underwear, so when I say I think they are silly names I genuilenly mean they are silly because if the (unintentional?) p[artial homophonic double entendre, and they aren't Feynman's invention anyway.

In any case far too much mathematics is hidden under unnecessarily complicated notation, and adding yet more unnecessary notation to the already unnecessary stuff that exists should be frowned upon. As we all know, the hardest thing in mathematics is getting good notation.

This shouldn't detract from the argument that in this cases there is good cause to be annoyed at [itex] \sin^{-1}[/itex] being used for inverse sin if we are to use the convention that [itex]sin^2(x)[/itex] is not going to be sin(sin(x)).
 
Last edited:
  • #20
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,833
955
Perhaps we should explain to anyone reading this who is not familiar with Dirac's notation that "bra" and "ket" are actually from the word "bracket": < | > being broken into the "bra" < | and "ket" | >. I will leave you to ponder why he left out the "c".
 
  • #21
krab
Science Advisor
896
2
HallsofIvy said:
Feynman was clearly a brilliant physicist but reading some of his non-math writing (especially "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman", he was more than a little wacky. And quite ready to assume that anyone who disagreed with him, even on non-physics subjects, was a fool.

I've met Feynman and can say that is an unfair characterization. He loved to talk with people about any subject. He never assumed a person to be a fool. But if you were "talking through your hat" or, IOW, expressing an opinion that you had not thought through, he would find you out in short order.
 
  • #22
krab
Science Advisor
896
2
arildno said:
Another thing is that "Bra"&"Ket" are stupid and childish names. :grumpy:
A strange thing to say. In physics, math is utilitarian. Names, like symbols are either helpful or not. I found Bra and Ket quite helpful in kick-starting my learning of QM.
 
  • #23
krab
Science Advisor
896
2
matt grime said:
This shouldn't detract from the argument that in this cases there is good cause to be annoyed at [itex] \sin^{-1}[/itex] being used for inverse sin if we are to use the convention that [itex]sin^2(x)[/itex] is not going to be sin(sin(x)).
I agree with Feynman's objections, but LaTeX gets around this problem by using different fonts for such functions. However, most newbies to LaTeX don't use this feature. Hence, sin x is correctly
[tex]\sin (x)[/tex]
while most people on this forum incorrectly use
[tex]sin (x)[/tex]
In the latter expression, LaTeX treats sin as s times i times n. Click each symbol to see how it's done; it's simply an extra backslash.
 
  • #24
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
krab said:
A strange thing to say. In physics, math is utilitarian. Names, like symbols are either helpful or not. I found Bra and Ket quite helpful in kick-starting my learning of QM.
Well, why not, for example, use R&L as in "right"&"left"? (there are many choices..).
This is at least as visual and utilitarian, and avoids splitting up a perfectly nice English word into two faintly amusing ones.
 
  • #25
krab
Science Advisor
896
2
arildno said:
This is at least as visual and utilitarian, and avoids splitting up a perfectly nice English word into two faintly amusing ones.
Well, OK, I admit physicists tend toward faintly amusing names. Hence "Charm" and "Strange" etc. for quarks.
 

Related Threads on Feynman's trig notations

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
690
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
626
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
522
Top