Epsilon: Multiply symbol is hard to read

[kauderni35]

I find the "multiply" symbol hard to read.

Bonjour,
je trouve le symbole "multiplier" pas vraiment visible. Est-ce que cela pourrait être changé ?
Sebastien

[Ecco]

I assume you're talking about the ⋅ symbol used in the natural writing mode. Here's a comparison:

Linear writing mode

In the text field, we have a separate multiply symbol that's a lot more visible. But once the text has been parsed and printed, it becomes a small dot, which is what most people are looking for. We've even been asked to remove the "dot" altogether (for example here, we would simply print "3x" instead of "3⋅x"), but that raises other issues (how would you know if "ba" means "b*a" or the variable named "ba"?).

Natural writing mode

The goal of this mode is to layout the expression as it's being typed. That's why, even during input, we're using the small dot.

[matheod]

3×2+1 look strange 3 · 2 + 1, especially for young student I think.

Maybe the × should appear when there is a multiplication between 2 numbers.

About ba meaning "ba" or "b*a", we can't have variable with multiple letter in calculus if I am not wrong. The only location where it can happen is in python but here we don't have the · symbol. Or maybe you are thinking about ln(x+1) which could means l·n·(x+1) or ln(x+1) ?

[kauderni35]

Yes I think 3×2+1 would look better this way.

Oui, il me semble que 3x2+1 écrit comme cela serait plus lisible pour des élèves qui ont souvent peu de recul face au résultats donnés par la calculatrice...

[adriweb]

About ba meaning "ba" or "b*a", we can't have variable with multiple letter in calculus if I am not wrong.

But why restrain ourselves to calculus? In science(s) in general, you do want clear variable names (several letters at least), so if it ends up being supported here, we'll need to distinguish the case properly.

Yes I think 3×2+1 would look better this way.

I'm pretty sure there will be more confusion (and/or complaints due to confusion) about × being too visually close to x. I'm not sure that any calculator actally uses ×. They either use · or *.
And let's not even get started on things like x^x×x :D (compared to x^x · x)
Maybe instead of 3 · 2 + 1 it could be 3 · 2 + 1 (note the thinner space) to make it more even clearer.

[matheod]

It's not that bad if we limit the × to numbers multiplication :

An other possibility could be to add color to operator or to variabiable.

[TrakJohnson]

What about using an asterisk-like character, like the TI calculators ?

[matheod]

What about using an asterisk-like character, like the TI calculators ?

Why not but less fan. An other posibility would be to have a curved x.

[Ecco]

We've implemented this 😄 We've settled on a mix of × and •, depending on the context.

[Ryder17z]

We've implemented this 😄 We've settled on a mix of × and •, depending on the context.

sounds weird. would it be possible to add the option to replace both with an asterisk ?

[Ecco]

sounds weird

I suggest you give it a shot and file a new issue if you don't like a specific behavior 😄

[Ryder17z]

I suggest you give it a shot and file a new issue if you don't like a specific behavior 😄

I'm still undecided as I want to see the thing irl first. (I like the online emulator a lot, but it's just not the same)