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, ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ณ๐ฒ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐ด๐ฟ๐ฎ๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ ๐ต๐ฒ๐น๐ฝ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ฆ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ฏ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐.
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...
