if you’re a youtuber teaching math to random people on the internet you should explain the notation that you’re using because math notation is literally impossible to google. like how in the fuck am I supposed to intuitively guess what μ_one^2 means. are there even standardized math definitions for what superscript and subscript mean?

the video I’m talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrgbi1xPESc

I’m starting to think that maybe math notation should be replaced with code (even something like Haskell would be okay with me) because then you can look up what everything means, everything has one unambiguous meaning, you can run the code to see the results, you can experiment with it in a REPL, etc. instead of being stuck with a bunch of gobbledegook with no idea how to interpret it

@kasdeya
No, there isn't a universal standard notation. Most publications reference a notation that's popular within its field or explain it in terms of definitions.
Personal preferences regarding notation are normal, e.g. there are dozens of ways to reference vector elements and you're free to make up your own.

Regarding google though, _everything_ feels impossible to google nowadays, fuck LLMs.

@kasdeya
The issue is that math notation only works in a context and is meant to show patterns first. Even functional-first languages like Haskell or Lisp are much more verbose than mathematical notation and make derivations and proofs more tedious, even for educational purpose.

Programming languages are great when you only care about the resulting formula or algorithm.

@kasdeya

Hm. I reckon, he does a pretty good job at patiently explaining the notation.

The subscript numbers are indices, the superscript numbers are exponents.

This is indeed standard notation. If you wanted it to mean something else, you would have to tell it, and it would probably be extremely confusing to readers.

However: In some areas of mathematics (like abstract algebra or advanced set theory), they might mean something else.

@kasdeya The answer to your question(?) is yes but also no.

Western mathematics standards do have such definitions but various places like Japan disagree and use their own (some switch before university, some don't).

(Notice also that it's paygated and that means direct access to the official standard is not happening. I dislike this.)

So at most one gets incidental exposure from third-party introductory/instructional writings that are incidentally compatible.