https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUL a9Lc4pck What the fuck

you have to draw a triangle when normal notation works fine anyways

Does it work with squares?

>>8641878
That argument is not acceptable, the proposed notation is objectively faster and clearer for every equality shown in the video and any equality I can think of.
If you can't find a case where this notation is inferior to the default one, it need to be changed.

>>8641891

Why would anyone want to draw giant triangles? Maybe as a learning tool this looks useful, but that would get very tedious and messy to use all of the time.

>>8641896
As I said it's less tedious than writing expression with exponents and logs, a triangle is just 3 hand movements, barely more than a "+ sign.
If you considere the OP pic, the equality of the bottom take way more time to write with the default notation, and it's a mess.

>>8641862
>muh triangles
>muh geometric intuition

I can't imagine the clusterfuck you would have the moment you decided to do anything remotely useful in that notation. I mean, adding a little dot inbetween numbers to denote multiplication proved to be too hard when doing real work. So much we decided to just drop all multiplication signs and simply put terms next to each other. Now you want us to draw triangles? Topkek

>>8641915
That's exactly the point of this notation, reducing the number of characters ans space to write things.
All of this while making perfect visual sens.

>>8641907

So, so. It is a neat idea, and I personally do not like log notation.

I think I found the conversation that prompted the video,

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/30046/alternative-notation-for-exponents-logs-and-roots

One Achilles heel is when you use this notation multiple times for the same term. Then you have triangles and numbers floating everywhere. It is not very easy to read left to right in these more complicated use cases.

>>8641862
bluebrown guy is just another meme no better numberphile

>>8641922
>http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/30046/alternative-notation-for-exponents-logs-and-roots
Nice, I feel like once you've passed a few minutes messing with the notation you start catching on with the visual symmetry and you don't "think" in logs or root anymore. The author had the same sensantion with the last 2 identities apparently, I believe this notatiopn is the future.

useless