current:

this PR:

I can't say I like the alignment here. I think it'd be better without the \quads

How about something like this?

@jorenham Thank you for the suggestion! I have made the changes, and hope this works!

Close/reopen to retry failed CI setup

I see @jorenham's suggestion above also mixes subscripting and bracket-indexing. Sorry to step on his toes.

@mattip Okay, I have applied the original changes in #29696. This time I remember to add [skip actions][skip azp][skip cirrus] in the commit to save CI resources. Hope this works!

I see @jorenham's suggestion above also mixes subscripting and bracket-indexing. Sorry to step on his toes.

I figured that since it's a mathematical formulation, then the $=$ sign means "equals" and not "(re)assignment", so it'd require an index. E.g. if you write $a = a + 1$ that would imply that $a - a = 1$ and therefore $0 = 1$.
I agree that without an index it's probably clearer to most readers, but then this mathematical formulation might not be the best fit, and we should probably use pseudocode instead.

Pseudocode is probably a better fit indeed. The formulations here do not accurately reflect the true C code, which uses op.identity. In ufunc.reduce and ufunc.accumulate there is a more accurate description of the functionality. The thing to make clear here is the way the same loops are used internally, only the step for the output is different.