>>12274343Oh yes, and is indeed "therefore".
>>12274348>Leave it for the logicians and the meta-mathematicians.I don't consider myself an example of either, but I do lots of both, and not once have I ever needed to use \because or \therefore, or even felt the urge to.
Unlike quantifiers and connectives, which have metamathematically meaningful interpretations qua Lindenbaum-Tarski, and are nothing but shorthand for people too lazy to spell out English words in full.
That said, those symbols aren't overloaded (unlike or , say), so there's no chance of ambiguity, making them fairly benign as far as abbreviations go.
Incidentally, my response to
>>12274157 illustrates what I consider a justified use of the ugly abbreviation "iff": being "independent iff uncorrelated" (or equivalently, "independent xor correlated") is a single property of jointly distributed random variables, and writing it as
>If the joint distribution of (X,Y) is normal, then they are independent if and only if they are uncorrelatedonly seems to obscure the equivalence between the (in)dependence and (lack of) correlation.
