I love how the text seems to be right from the time where the symbol was already abstract, but it was still used as an et ligature instead of a standalone symbol

Also, https://xkcd.com/323/

Note that it speaks of the "official version" in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

But we'll see

Noo! There will never be another like him :(

Well, that happens sometimes

I'm not using logic in this case, you are just being insincere. Let me know when you bother to try to understand anything I or the authors of your holy textbooks wrote.

Apparently you can't read either textbooks or wikipedia and understand it.

Also, wait, you're just a tutor and not actually a teacher? Being wrong about some incredibly basic thing in your field is one thing, but lying about that is just disrespectful, especially since you drop that in basically every sentence.

We've been at this point, I'm not going to explain this again. But you weren't able to read a single sentence of a wikipedia article without me handfeeding it to you, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'm sorry for your students.

Yeah, doesn't mean that you know what an author is talking about when you encounter it doing actual math

The notation is not intrinsically clear, as any human writing. Ambiguous, one may say.

If you don't want to see why you're wrong that's your thing, but I tried. I can just say, try to re-read the math textbook you took pictures of, and try to understand it.

Exactly! It's in math textbooks, in both ways! Ambiguous notation, one might say.

You can define your notation that way if youlike to, doesn't change the fact that commonly f^{-1}(x) is and has been used that way forever.

If I read this somewhere, without knowing the conventions the author uses, it's ambiguous