## Notation Question

**Moderators:** gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

### Notation Question

In this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s ... l_equation, the notation f(.) is used. Would someone be kind enough to tell me why?

SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

### Re: Notation Question

I have seen that [imath]f(\cdot)[/imath] notation used simply to indicate that f is a function which takes a single argument.

Similarly, [imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)[/imath] can denote a function which takes two arguments. I've also seen [imath](\cdot)[/imath] used as formal argument which can appear in other (simple) expressions: for example, "[imath]f(\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath]" would be equivalent to "[imath]f(t)\equiv g(t, h(t))[/imath] for all [imath]t[/imath]".

EDIT: I note I didn't answer the "why" question: I'd consider that it's simply to emphasise/remind us that f is a function (taking a single argument), rather than a constant value or anything else which a letter might denote.

Similarly, [imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)[/imath] can denote a function which takes two arguments. I've also seen [imath](\cdot)[/imath] used as formal argument which can appear in other (simple) expressions: for example, "[imath]f(\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath]" would be equivalent to "[imath]f(t)\equiv g(t, h(t))[/imath] for all [imath]t[/imath]".

EDIT: I note I didn't answer the "why" question: I'd consider that it's simply to emphasise/remind us that f is a function (taking a single argument), rather than a constant value or anything else which a letter might denote.

### Re: Notation Question

the dot represents a hole, its there to show that there is a variable without having to give it a name.

It allows to quickly talk about partially applied functions, like [imath]f(2,\cdot,17)[/imath] where [imath]f[/imath] is initially a function of 3 variables.

tkb, your [imath]g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath] irks me, it looks like a function with 2 variables to me.

What would you make out of "[imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot,\cdot))[/imath]" ?

It allows to quickly talk about partially applied functions, like [imath]f(2,\cdot,17)[/imath] where [imath]f[/imath] is initially a function of 3 variables.

tkb, your [imath]g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath] irks me, it looks like a function with 2 variables to me.

What would you make out of "[imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot,\cdot))[/imath]" ?

- skeptical scientist
- closed-minded spiritualist
**Posts:**6142**Joined:**Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC**Location:**San Francisco

### Re: Notation Question

I have no idea. The notation f(.) can certainly mean what people here have been saying, but it's use on that Wikipedia page seems bizarre. Looking at the history, it was originally introduced to replace f(x), which of course is a single value of a function rather than a function; however, it would be much more natural to say, simply, "f is continuous," etc.

I more commonly see the period notation for functions which have an unusual notation, such as norms. If you have a norm ||.||, you don't want to write it with out the dot ("||||"), as that would be hard to read and interpret, but you also don't want to put in a variable, as that would give you the norm of that variable, not the norm as a function.

I more commonly see the period notation for functions which have an unusual notation, such as norms. If you have a norm ||.||, you don't want to write it with out the dot ("||||"), as that would be hard to read and interpret, but you also don't want to put in a variable, as that would give you the norm of that variable, not the norm as a function.

I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

### Re: Notation Question

Doraki wrote:tkb, your [imath]g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath] irks me, it looks like a function with 2 variables to me.

What would you make out of "[imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot,\cdot))[/imath]" ?

I'd agree that [imath]g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath] on its own may look like a function of two variables, but the left-hand side of [imath]f(\cdot) \equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot))[/imath] is intended to provide the context that it is supposed to be a function of only one.

Faced with "[imath]f(\cdot,\cdot)\equiv g(\cdot, h(\cdot,\cdot))[/imath]", I'd cheerfully concede that the notation had hit its limits: my qualification of "simple" expressions was there for a reason! But notation of the sort I gave (where [imath]\cdot[/imath] refers to the same variable throughout) is seen, so I'd think it's as well to be aware of it. (As an example which I have readily to hand, it's freely used in Yong and Zhou's Stochastic Controls..., and when I was studying that subject, I found it convenient - if used with appropriate care.)

### Re: Notation Question

Okay, cool. Then I'm not missing anything deep here, it's just another way to express concepts I already know. Thank you, everyone.

p.s. does anyone know of books using this notation?

p.s. does anyone know of books using this notation?

SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

### Re: Notation Question

Pathway wrote:Okay, cool. Then I'm not missing anything deep here, it's just another way to express concepts I already know. Thank you, everyone.

p.s. does anyone know of books using this notation?

Dozens.

### Re: Notation Question

Thanks, but the answer I was looking for was "yes."

SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.

The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

### Re: Notation Question

Pathway wrote:Thanks, but the answer I was looking for was "yes."

Yes. Can I name them? No.

Sungura wrote:My mom made me watch a star wars. Two of them , actually. The Death Star one and the one where the dude ends up in the swamp with the weird guy who talks funny.

### Re: Notation Question

Pathway wrote:Thanks, but the answer I was looking for was "yes."

Just looking at the books and papers open on my desk right now...

Computational Methods for Inverse Problems, Curtis R. Vogel

Adaptive Control Design and Analysis, Gang Tao

"The Wiener-Askey Polynomial Chaos for Stochastic Differential Equations," D. Xiu, G. E. Karniadakis

And that's just the first three things that are sitting on my desk. So yeah, it's a fairly ubiquitous notational convention.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests