Does /sci/ have any notation quirks? I personally denote primes

>>8981792

[code]
bool OPisFaggot(struct turbofag OP){
return true;
}
[/code]

>>8981792
and EE is what exactly?

>>8981792
i use xi and zeta as variables as often as I can

>>8981798
>not even const struct reference

ha, spotted the freshman!

watch out for those tricky type error anon ;) ;) ;)

>>8981804
the people who actually engineer computers and make compsci manchildren's jobs possible?

>>8981810

To the compiler standpoint, this function doesn't even need the argument. When compiled, this function will be just a jump to a line where the value TRUE will be saved on a register.

The joke consists on OP being a struct of type turbofag, and the function which tests if OP is a faggot returning true everytime.

>>8981792
i do the same with my x's OP
primary school teacher taught me that

>>8981818
OP isn't modified at all, so passing it as a constant doesnt make any sense.

>>8981792
>cross my z's
Everyone competent does this.

Thoughtful bump. I also cross my z's. Regarding regular writing, I've always had trouble establishing a norm for my "j's" and "g's". When I write equations, there was a time I used a different "a" than in regular writing, but I've since stopped that.

I cross my zs and 7s.
I use prime notation unless using vectors.
I double space everything.
I only write in pen including tests.
When I write, I write in words only or quantifiers only.
I only use "assume" for "for all" quantifiers. I only use // to end proofs unless I take classes from the head of the department in which case I write "so there"

>>8981886
Assume quantifier? I am unfamiliar

>>8981792
Everyone writes their x's like that since year 6.
Everyone writes their z's like that after first seeing complex numbers.

>Primes with a dot over the variable
Do you mean derivatives? Pretty common for time derivatives to use the dot, probably better not to use it for derivatives over a different variable.

>>8981887
In a proof you generally assume,let,choose,etc... for "for all quantifiers.

So if the statement of the theorem says for all epsilon greater than 0, I say assume epsilon greater than 0 in the proof.