On Notation (-1849)

"These Imaginary Quantities (as they are commonly called) arising from the Supposed Root of a Negative Square (when they happen,) are reputed to imply that the Case proposed is Impossible. And so indeed it is, as to the first and strict notion of what is proposed. For it is not possible that any Number (Negative or Affirmative) Multiplied into it- self can produce (for instance) -4. Since that Like Signs (whether + or -) will produce +; and there- fore not -4. But it is also Impossible that any Quantity (though not a Supposed Square) can be Negative. Since that it is not possible that any Magnitude can be Less than Nothing or any Number Fewer than None. Yet is not that Supposition(of Negative Quantities,) either Unuseful or Absurd; when rightly understood. And though, as to the bare Algebraick Notation, it import a Quantity less than nothing. Yet, when it comes to a Physical Application, it denotes as Real a Quantity as if the Sign were +; but to be interpreted in a contrary sense." (John Wallis, in "Treatise of Algebra", 1685)

"But in our opinion truths of this kind should be drawn from notions rather than from notations." (Carl F Gauss, "Disquisitiones Arithmeticae" ["Arithmetical Investigations", 1801)

"Pure mathematics is not concerned with magnitude. It is merely the doctrine of notation of relatively ordered thought operations which have become mechanical." (Friederich von Hardenberg [Novalis], "Philosophical Writings", 1802)

"By use of the symbol v-1 and of the forms proved to obtain in the combination of real quantities, a mode of notation is obtained, by which we may express sines and cosines, relatively to their arc." (Robert Woodhouse,"On the necessary Truth of certain Conclusions obtained by Means of imaginary Quantities", 1801)

"The theory of which we have just given an overview may be considered from a point of view apt to set aside the obscure in what it presents, and which seems to be the primary aim, namely: to establish new notions on imaginary quantities. Indeed, putting to one side the question of whether these notions are true or false, we may restrict ourselves to viewing this theory as a means of research, to adopt the lines in direction only as signs of the real or imaginary quantities, and to see, in the usage to which we have put them, only the simple employment of a particular notation. For that, it suffices to start by demonstrating, through the first theorems of trigonometry, the rules of multiplication and addition given above; the applications will follow, and all that will remain is to examine the question of didactics. And if the employment of this notation were to be advantageous? And if it were to open up shorter and easier paths to demonstrate certain truths? That is what fact alone can decide." (Jean-Robert Argand, "Essai sur une manière de représenter les quantités imaginaires, dans les constructions géométriques", Annales Tome IV, 1813)

"Mathematical analysis is as extensive as nature itself; it defines all perceptible relations, measures times, spaces, forces, temperatures; this difficult science is formed slowly, but it preserves every principle which it has once acquired; it grows and strengthens itself incessantly in the midst of the many variations and errors of the human mind. It's chief attribute is clearness; it has no marks to express confused notations. It brings together phenomena the most diverse, and discovers the hidden analogies which unite them." (J B Joseph Fourier, "The Analytical Theory of Heat", 1822)

"That this subject [imaginary numbers] has hitherto been surrounded by mysterious obscurity, is to be attributed largely to an ill adapted notation. If we call +1, -1, and v-1 had been called direct, inverse and lateral units, instead of positive, negative, and imaginary (or impossible) units, such an obscurity would have been out of the question." (Carl F Gauss, "Theoria residuorum biquadraticum. Commentatio secunda", Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 23 (4), 1831)

"Anyone who understands algebraic notation, reads at a glance in an equation results reached arithmetically only with great labour and pains." (Antoine-Augustin Cournot, "Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses", 1838)

"The question undoubtedly is, or soon will be, not whether or no we shall employ notation in chemistry, but whether we shall use a bad and incongruous, or a consistent and regular notation." (William Whewell, 1838)

"Again, it [the Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine. Supposing for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent." (Augusta Lovelace, 1842)

"The invention of what we may call primary or fundamental notation has been but little indebted to analogy, evidently owing to the small extent of ideas in which comparison can be made useful. But at the same time analogy should be attended to, even if for no other reason than that, by making the invention of notation an art, the exertion of individual caprice ceases to be allowable. Nothing is more easy than the invention of notation, and nothing of worse example and consequence than the confusion of mathematical expressions by unknown symbols. If new notation be advisable, permanently or temporarily, it should carry with it some mark of distinction from that which is already in use, unless it be a demonstrable extension of the latter." (Augustus De Morgan, "Calculus of Functions" Encyclopaedia of Pure Mathematics, 1847)