Is there a version of math with better names for things? Imagine if we had "Naur loop" and "Hoare loop" instead of "for loop" and "while loop." Yet we have Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, Kullback–Leibler divergence, Euler's formula, ...
-
-
Thanks, but it still kind of ascribes intent here -- while in many cases (e.g Avogadro's number) the naming is done as a way to recognize their contribution, in many others it's literally just the gradual evolution of "that theorem that Cauchy wrote that we like"
-
as in, simply saying "we should stop naming things after people" isn't enough because this is a *symptom* of a paradox: you can't invent names for everything, so you need to come up with names for important things, but you don't know what's important until others talk about it
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
cognitive psychology. PhD