Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: andre@shappski.demon.co.uk (Andre Shapps)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!peernews.demon.co.uk!shappski.demon.co.uk!andre
Subject: Re: @ character
References: <256947309wnr@shappski.demon.co.uk> <1995Feb12.105904.320@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw>> <3hleh0$t8p@agate.berkeley.edu> <1995Feb14.122047.328@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw> <1995Feb21.121908.11041@onionsnatcorp.ox.ac.uk> <D4ExFC.3B7@freenet.carleton.ca>
Organization: The Soundfile
Reply-To: andre@shappski.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines:  33
X-Posting-Host: shappski.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:57:57 +0000
Message-ID: <561407912wnr@shappski.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article: <D4ExFC.3B7@freenet.carleton.ca>  aa318@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Coughlin) writes:
> 
> In a previous posting, Andre Shapps (andre@shappski.demon.co.uk) writes:
> > 
> > "(" and ")" are sometimes known as "bra" and "ket" respectively.
> >
> That should be "<" for "bra" and ">" for "ket".  The symbols are used to
> denote a pair of operators in quantum mechanics.  I think the notation was
> introduced by Richard Feynman.
> --
> Flesh:  John Coughlin                       ___     __o
> Net:    jcoughlin@acm.org                 ___     _`\<,
>         aa318@freenet.carleton.ca          ___   (_)/(_)
> Status: Mi hidrodeslizador esta' lleno de anguillas.
> 
> 
Point taken, but I was refering to programming, where they are sometimes refered to as bra and 
ket to distinguish them from "[" and "]", which are, of course, brackets, the real word for "(" 
and ")" being parentheses as was noted in the first posting.

I guess slipping into programming teritory is a bit off limits since most of these symbols have 
additional meanings in various progammiong languages. Maths and logic seem to be ok though so 
in that spirit I mention that I have seen "+" to mean a logical or and "&" to mean a logical 
and.

Incidentally, the use of "#" to mean "number" is not really used in British English, where we 
still use "No." (sometimes with a superscript o) most of the time. It's starting to creep in 
now I supose, but not everyone understands it and I think it's still regarded as an 
Americanisation.
-- 
Andre Shapps

