> There are lots of maths cheat sheets like that.
I have never found one that gets me through the average undergraduate CS paper.
If you know one, I would greatly appreciate a tip. Unfortunately, I saw what you offered, and that's not it.
.
> A universal cheat sheet is impossible
I explicitly stated that this was a non-goal.
.
> one of which is "the basics", e.g. https://www.pinterest.nz/pin/734016439237543897/.
That one is far too basic. It doesn't even have things like average, or absolute value. It includes things nobody needs explained, like subtract, and things that aren't math, like logical operators.
This is why I said "yes, people have tried, but nobody has succeeded."
The explicit context was the average software paper. We're talking about programmers.
.
> > mathematicians' refusal to provide easy reference material
> This is an absurd claim.
Lots of people in here seem to agree with me. YMMV.
Feel free to provide me easy reference material.
.
> On the contrary, many mathematicians provide their students with
> We sometimes spend entire semester-long courses
The explicit context is "to people who aren't mathematicians or mathematics students."
Remember, we're talking about programmers who are appealing to the mathematics community for help.
If your response to "you guys won't give programmers a short easy two page PDF at the level we need" is to remind me that you give your own students semester long courses, then you've absolutely failed to understand what's being said.
.
> there are many books with exactly the kind of cheat-sheet you want inside the cover
Every time I ask for one, I get something with symbols meant for children learning arithmetic, like the one you gave. It explains plus and percent.
Again, 饾棫饾椀饾棽 饾棸饾椉饾椈饾榿饾棽饾槄饾榿 饾椂饾榾 饾椊饾椏饾椉饾棾饾棽饾榾饾榾饾椂饾椉饾椈饾棶饾椆 饾椊饾椏饾椉饾棿饾椏饾棶饾椇饾椇饾棽饾椏饾榾 饾榿饾椏饾槅饾椂饾椈饾棿 饾榿饾椉 饾棿饾棽饾榿 饾椀饾棽饾椆饾椊 饾椏饾棽饾棶饾棻饾椂饾椈饾棿 饾棖饾棪 饾椊饾棶饾椊饾棽饾椏饾榾 饾槃饾椏饾椂饾榿饾榿饾棽饾椈 饾棷饾槅 饾椇饾棶饾榿饾椀饾棽饾椇饾棶饾榿饾椂饾棸饾椂饾棶饾椈饾榾.
If you think we need plus explained to us, and that the next step is an insular semester long lecture course that isn't offered to us, then how can you possibly be surprised that we think you failed us?
.
> as well as the ones on the internet mentioned above
You only mentioned one. The other one is something I gave, from our community, trying to explain to you the kind of thing I want.
It covers topics like monads, pattern matching, infix, operator precedence, typeclasses, infinite lists, codata, higher order functors, special folds, tuples, numerics, modules, tracing, list comprehensions, and dealing with the compiler itself.
You patted me on the head and taught me that * means times.
I continue to feel that the mathematics community refuses to understand the needs of the programming community, or provide appropriate reference material.
It's either "this is arithmetic" or "let's do linear equations in russian"
There's no practical middle ground and you seem resistant to even understanding that such a thing exists
Programmers aren't ignorant like the other mathematicians in here have repeatedly said. You can't do our things any more than we can do yours. We've seen your code.
It's just that when you ask us for appropriately costed reference, we comply, and you do not even grok.
You really put up a thing that explained `less-than`, as if that was what you were being asked for.
It turns out that most programmers know what the equals sign means.
There is nothing of practical value in the actual domain space being talked about, here.
Nothing here is beyond a highschool pre-calculus class. That is not the level that professional programmers need.
I don't mean to seem rude, but it feels a little bit like being talked down to, having it suggested that this is the level of help my occupation is asking for.
The statisticians can do it: http://web.mit.edu/~csvoss/Public/usabo/stats_handout.pdf
This isn't far off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_mathematical_symbo...