Asterisks are not Sexy
|
04-20-2016, 04:05 PM
Post: #11
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy
Quote:It is not at odds at all, point 5.1 refers to units, not to numbers. So, it's not about being consistent with the multiplication sign, (number X number), but if it's number and literally anything else, use whatever is handy? I vote for the asterisk as a consistent multiplication sign. No implication, no cdot, no cross, no confusion. Just because it came a little late in the game, isn't good reason to ditch it and blame. There's a lot of technicality to music notation, too; but in similar fashion, whatever makes music notationally easier to read, makes it easier to perform. If you see the asterisk as bad form, why not just accept it as a rehearsal mark, and honor diversity? It's not the only math symbol that raises question, the inverted triangle (nabla) is, perhaps, a less notable example. Don't ask me for the final say, though. I have trouble reading Einstein's blackboard, and I barely made it through physics class, due to the prof's penmanship issues ... -Dale- -Dale- |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
Asterisks are not Sexy - sguth - 04-19-2016, 04:03 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - eried - 04-19-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - Gilles - 04-19-2016, 05:59 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - Tim Wessman - 04-19-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - informach - 04-20-2016, 12:31 AM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - TASP - 04-20-2016, 01:25 AM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - retoa - 04-20-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - DrD - 04-20-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - retoa - 04-20-2016, 12:07 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - DrD - 04-20-2016 04:05 PM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - retoa - 04-21-2016, 09:02 AM
RE: Asterisks are not Sexy - Fortin - 04-20-2016, 11:49 AM
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)