>>12502532Reminds me of vihart.
The guy looks a bit creepy but indeed that modular form video is good.
>>12502556That's barely particular to "physicians"
And it's also a spectrum. If you read blogs in the type theory community, they get equally triggered that no paper coming out of a math department is rigorous.
(E.g. when they take the quotient ring R/{0} (that's naturally isomorphic to R) and keep working as if R/{0}=R, which doesn't make sense in standard foundations, since you end up with inconsistent statements (in the light of Regularity) like {x}=x.)
>>12502631I agree with you that () should be there, but "x/k*T" will not be well typed, at least in SI units. So it's natural that this sort of thing happens.
In the context at hand, something like Exp(E/kT) can only mean Exp(E/(kT)) because k has units of energy over temperature. Just like if you say F is force, F=m/a can't be mistaken to be meaningful, since the units of F are that of m·a from the get go.
Again, this isn't particular to math.
