Mathematica Meaning of a mathematical symbol?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a viewer's curiosity about a specific notation seen in a teen movie featuring a blackboard filled with equations. The notation in question is \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^3_n, which the viewer finds perplexing and suspects may be either a legitimate mathematical symbol or nonsensical. They consider the possibility that it could relate to known mathematical symbols like the Legendre, Jacobi, or Kronecker symbol but are uncertain due to the unusual subscript and context. Ultimately, the viewer concludes that the equations likely lack meaning and expresses a desire to revisit the DVD to clarify the identities presented, potentially sharing them for further discussion.
uart
Science Advisor
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
21
Ok first a warning, this may be completely bogus as it was a symbol (or actually a notation) that I didn't recognize in a blackboard full of equations from a stupid "teen" movie. It may have been completely meaningless.

I was visiting a friend today and her daughter was playing a DVD of some dumb kids/teen movie. One thing caught my eye when they showed the "geeks" working at a blackboard full of infinite sum type identities. Curiosity got the better of me and I got here to pause it to so I could take a look and see if they were real identities or just gibberish (as equations in the background on blackboards in movies sometimes are).

Well I wasn't able to tell if they were gibberish or not because there was one bit of notation in all the equations that I'm not familiar with. As part of an infinite sum over "n" it had terms like,

\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^3_n.

Does anyone recognize that or is it just nonsense?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^3 could be a Legendre/Jacobi/Kronecker symbol, raised to the third power... but there's no reason for it to be cubed if there's just a 1 in the upper part, so combined with the subscript which I can't figure out, it's probably nothing.

Of course if not for the subscript it could also be (1/2)^3 = 1/8, but there's be no reason to do that in a loop.
 
Thanks for the reply. Ok then it looks like the equations were just nonsense. They definitely looked like nonsense but I couldn't be sure since I didn't recognize that part of the notation. If I get a chance to see this DVD again I'll write down one of the "identies" in full and post it here for a laugh.
 
Yeah, I'd like to see them. If they end up being real equations that I just didn't recognize we can have a laugh about that too. :rolleyes:
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top