":sigmacap: notation in math feels like unnecessary gatekeeping :marseynails:, proofs must be written in pseudocode for-loops :marseyagree:"

https://x.com/FranklinLynam/status/1436725720810758148

:#marseyhesright:

![](/images/16578164433688195.webp)

156
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:sigmacap: and :picap: are defined and always do the same. If I see those I know what they do.

If I see a for-loop I have to look at it and read it to understand it. Because not every for-loop can be replaced by a math symbol.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

For loop can always be replaced. If there is gonna be a known amount of iterations. If you don't know use another form of iteration

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why would you want to replace a for loop with something else if it's going to be a known amount of iterations? That doesn't make any sense.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean by the sigma notation. Then it is different thing about readability

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can do it. Looks like shit and barely readable. It be sum function that doesn't sum anything. But just does other shit inside it.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yeah, well maybe if you actually knew how to code you wouldn't be such a fricking moron. But since you're clearly an idiot, I'll spell it out for you: your code is garbage and barely readable because it doesn't do anything. So maybe you should learn how to code before you try and write any more.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you referring to loop unrolling? Because that would mean I have to even more code to notice if there's a small change from the "short" version.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.