![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6e50a7aa57f5569d881f204f124d96ef.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 19:16:23 +0100
Hans Γ
berg
On 19 Dec 2018, at 19:01, Alan Braslau
wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 18:46:30 +0100 Hans Γ berg
wrote: Though probably non-standard in typesetting, one might make a slight typographic difference between π₯Β²β and π₯βΒ² by letting the sub- or superscripts that come later partially, but not fully, to the position of the one that comes before. For example, π₯βΒ² might mean the square of π₯β, and π₯Β²β the component 0 of π₯Β², not necessarily the same. Traditionally, such things are left for the reader to interpret.
Isn't that poor nomenclature, being ambiguous?
Indeed, but also the norm due to practical limitations.
I would explicitly write (π₯β)Β² or (π₯Β²)β in such cases, and I have also seen π₯Β²|β used for example, or other non-ambiguous shorthands.
Perhaps it might become cumbersome to carry such notation along all through, reserving it for definitions.
In physics, we love such constructions, such as the so-called Einstein notation as one example. Alan