Understood. I’ll delete the post.

Used it today! https://bsky.app/profile/thalesdisciple.bsky.social/post/3l6b25kcmbp2i

Oh yeah it’s great. I have no problem writing “f” for a function, but “cos” is just silly, and if you don’t distinguish between x as a variable, x as a number, and x as a function, cos(x) is ambiguous. Making the functions consistently named f(x) and cos(x) added a lot of clarity to the text.

To be fair, it was a book on functional analysis, so it was a good thing to be careful about functional notation.

Let me tell you about my favorite piece of pedantic notation ever, in a book that used x for the identity function on the reals and ξ for a particular value, so cos(x) always meant the cosine function and you had to write cos(ξ) to mean cosine of a number.

I realize I’m just saying what @kameryn.bsky.social@xl772.bsky.social already said. Sorry about that; I’m tired this Thursday afternoon. But I wanted to affirm that this is a helpful way to structure the process!

I describe these two steps in my head as “marking” and “scoring.” The second goes smoothly and quickly if the first is done well. (And it’s easier to mark well if I’m not worried about the score at that time!)

Ideally, it would not take up much more space than an ordinary box. But I realize that seems unlikely to work.

I love this fact! You can only get those antiderivatives that equal zero somewhere. I’ve tried making exercises to get students to realize this (one reason to distinguish between integrals and antiderivatives!), but somehow they’re never impressed. 😂

As a visitor at two different higher ed institutions, I often attended faculty meetings. Even so, when I joined the faculty senate at my current institution as an assistant professor, it was a huge learning curve how to make things work.