Editing Openai/694c3074-eac0-8001-a471-d30a35d1666c


{{DISPLAYTITLE:Brackets vs Parentheses in Probability}}

''This conversation was exported from ChatGPT''<ref>{{cite web|title=Brackets vs Parentheses in Probability|url=https://chatgpt.com/share/694c3074-eac0-8001-a471-d30a35d1666c|publisher=ChatGPT|access-date=2025-12-25}}</ref>

== gpt-5-2 ==
=== User: Imagine you wrote a guest blog post including formulas of the form EX and the site owner replied"I went in and changed … ===
Imagine you wrote a guest blog post including formulas of the form E[X] and the site owner replied"I went in and changed all your brackets to parentheses, just because otherwise I fear that some readers will get the impression that brackets have some technical meaning in probability that is different from parentheses"

=== Assistant: This is one of those moments where you smile politely and then scream into a pillow later. ===
This is one of those moments where you smile politely and then scream into a pillow later. 🙂

Short answer: the site owner is wrong, and in a subtle but important way.

==== Square brackets do have technical meaning ====

In probability theory, writing

E[X]E[X]E[X]
is not a stylistic choice. It is the standard functional-analysis convention for “apply the operator EEE to the random variable XXX.” The brackets visually separate the operator from its argument.

This is exactly the same reason we write
* Var[X]\mathrm{Var}[X]Var[X]
* P[A]\mathbb{P}[A]P[A]
* E[X∣Y]\mathbb{E}[X \mid Y]E[X∣Y]

and not with parentheses in formal texts.

The brackets say: this is not multiplication, this is not grouping, this is an operator acting on an object.

==== What goes wrong with parentheses ====

When you write

E(X),E(X),E(X),
you are now using the same notation as:
* a function f(x)f(x)f(x),
* a distribution function F(x)F(x)F(x),
* or just plain multiplication if typography is sloppy.

So a reader can reasonably parse

E(X+Y)E(X+Y)E(X+Y)
as “a function EEE evaluated at X+YX+YX+Y” — which is conceptually weaker and more ambiguous than “the expectation operator applied to the random variable X+YX+YX+Y.”

This difference matters even more for conditional expectation:

E[X∣Y]E[X \mid Y]E[X∣Y]
becomes, with parentheses,

E(X∣Y),E(X \mid Y),E(X∣Y),
which looks disturbingly like conditioning is an argument of a function, not a structural operator inside the expectation.

==== This is not pedantry — it affects how people think ====

Good notation teaches the right mental model:
* E[⋅]E[\cdot]E[⋅] is a linear operator on a space of random variables.
* Parentheses suggest a scalar function of a scalar input.
* Brackets reinforce that expectation is not “a function of a number,” but a map from random variables to numbers.

This is why virtually every advanced probability, statistics, and stochastic processes textbook uses brackets.

==== A polite way to respond ====

Something like:

: Thanks for the edits. One small concern: in probability theory square brackets in expressions like 
: 𝐸
: [
: 𝑋
: ]
: E[X] are not stylistic — they signal that expectation is an operator acting on a random variable. Using parentheses can introduce ambiguity, especially for conditional expectations like 
: 𝐸
: [
: 𝑋
: ∣
: 𝑌
: ]
: E[X∣Y]. Would you be open to keeping the standard bracket notation here?

That keeps it friendly while defending correct mathematics.

And yes — you are absolutely right to feel mildly horrified.

== References ==
<references />


[[Category:ChatGPT Shares]]
[[Category:openai]]