# Abuse of Math Notation

y'know? sometimes we send a piece of math in spaceship in hopes that aliens might appreciate our intelligence. The aliens would probably go “WTF ambigram?”.

first of all, note the ambiguous use of the brackets. The curly bracket is used as the delimiter for formal parameter of a function and also as delimiter for formal parameter of a expression. The round bracket is also used as delimiter for formal parameter of a function.

then, notice that this definition tries to do several things:

- definition of Laplace transform
- show notational equivalence
- mixed nonsensical use of equal sign and define sign. ① the equal sign is used for definition of notational equivalence. ② The left side of the definition is a equation. It seems to define a equation by a integral. ③ lastly, the integral notation is all eff'd up with that “dt” thing. There's no variable named d here.
- illogical and extraneous use of variables. Here, there's a confusing change of variable from “t” to “s”, even though we are defining a function of one variable, there's no need to mention its formal parameter.

in general, mathematicians use math notations like a diagram of pictographs, the same way children draw pictures to express meaning. The output thereof, is not grammatically coherent. We understand them by years of convention and context and guess-work.

better:

ℒ[f[x]][s] := ∫[ ⅇ^(-s*t) * f[x],{x,0,∞}]