What is the formal way to express the meaning of a variable?what is the meaning of the notation $ C^q_c(0,1)$What is the meaning of $mathbb R^+$?What is the meaning of the symbol $pitchfork$?What is the meaning of “$<infty$”?What is the meaning of the notation $]a,b[$?What is the meaning of the notation $]1, 1[$?What is the meaning of $mathbbN_0$?What is the meaning of the math symbol $because$?What is the meaning of the $vdash$ symbol?⊕: What is the meaning of the $oplus$-symbol?
Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?
What's that red-plus icon near a text?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
What would happen to a modern skyscraper if it rains micro blackholes?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
Maximum likelihood parameters deviate from posterior distributions
Rock identification in KY
A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?
Java Casting: Java 11 throws LambdaConversionException while 1.8 does not
How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?
expand `ifthenelse` immediately
Are astronomers waiting to see something in an image from a gravitational lens that they've already seen in an adjacent image?
Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?
How to move a thin line with the black arrow in Illustrator?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
How to source a part of a file
Today is the Center
Approximately how much travel time was saved by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Why can't I see bouncing of switch on oscilloscope screen?
What are the disadvantages of having a left skewed distribution?
What is the formal way to express the meaning of a variable?
what is the meaning of the notation $ C^q_c(0,1)$What is the meaning of $mathbb R^+$?What is the meaning of the symbol $pitchfork$?What is the meaning of “$<infty$”?What is the meaning of the notation $]a,b[$?What is the meaning of the notation $]1, 1[$?What is the meaning of $mathbbN_0$?What is the meaning of the math symbol $because$?What is the meaning of the $vdash$ symbol?⊕: What is the meaning of the $oplus$-symbol?
$begingroup$
I would like to know what is the formal way (if any) of defining the meaning of variables. When I start writing a proof, or if I simply want to establish a formal definition, I usually follow the notation below, but I recently understood that this is most likely not correct:
$F_g equivtext''Magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons"$
$g equiv text''Average acceleration at Earth's surface, in meters per squared seconds, caused by gravity''$
$m equivtext''Mass of the body, measured in kilograms''$
$F_g = g times mspace,spacespace g=9.8$
How should I express this information in a formal way?
notation
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to know what is the formal way (if any) of defining the meaning of variables. When I start writing a proof, or if I simply want to establish a formal definition, I usually follow the notation below, but I recently understood that this is most likely not correct:
$F_g equivtext''Magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons"$
$g equiv text''Average acceleration at Earth's surface, in meters per squared seconds, caused by gravity''$
$m equivtext''Mass of the body, measured in kilograms''$
$F_g = g times mspace,spacespace g=9.8$
How should I express this information in a formal way?
notation
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it withtext. See $m equiv textForce$ vs $m equiv Force$ (yuk). Also, quoting in LaTeX should be written ``Force'' (two backticks on the left, two single apostrophes on the right) to properly appear as “Force” in the rendered document.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would like to know what is the formal way (if any) of defining the meaning of variables. When I start writing a proof, or if I simply want to establish a formal definition, I usually follow the notation below, but I recently understood that this is most likely not correct:
$F_g equivtext''Magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons"$
$g equiv text''Average acceleration at Earth's surface, in meters per squared seconds, caused by gravity''$
$m equivtext''Mass of the body, measured in kilograms''$
$F_g = g times mspace,spacespace g=9.8$
How should I express this information in a formal way?
notation
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
$endgroup$
I would like to know what is the formal way (if any) of defining the meaning of variables. When I start writing a proof, or if I simply want to establish a formal definition, I usually follow the notation below, but I recently understood that this is most likely not correct:
$F_g equivtext''Magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons"$
$g equiv text''Average acceleration at Earth's surface, in meters per squared seconds, caused by gravity''$
$m equivtext''Mass of the body, measured in kilograms''$
$F_g = g times mspace,spacespace g=9.8$
How should I express this information in a formal way?
notation
notation
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
edited yesterday
cinico
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
asked yesterday
cinicocinico
1234
1234
1
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it withtext. See $m equiv textForce$ vs $m equiv Force$ (yuk). Also, quoting in LaTeX should be written ``Force'' (two backticks on the left, two single apostrophes on the right) to properly appear as “Force” in the rendered document.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it withtext. See $m equiv textForce$ vs $m equiv Force$ (yuk). Also, quoting in LaTeX should be written ``Force'' (two backticks on the left, two single apostrophes on the right) to properly appear as “Force” in the rendered document.
$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it with
text $endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it with
text $endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I live by the mantra that math should be written as though it is natural language, punctuation included. So, in your shoes, I would write:
Let $F_g$ be the magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons; let $g$ be the average acceleration at Earth's surface, caused by gravity, measured in meters per squared seconds; and let $m$ be the mass of this body, measured in kilograms. Then $F_g=gm$, where $gapprox9.8$.
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Open any book in the notation section:
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One can always nit pick about "formality", or indeed "verifiability", if you want to revive the failed philosophical project, called logical positivism, from the first half of the twentieth century. For example:
"average acceleration at [the] Earth's surface, caused by gravity"
This statement, in mathematical, physical and engineering terms, is quite a claim if you really think about it.
The acceleration measured at the earths surface varies with height above sea level, potentially has other measurable components other than the main (unspecified) vertical one, especially so if you live next to a mountain, and has a component due to the rotation of the earth which varies with latitude.
The question is:
What set of measurements is the acceleration you refer to the (mathematical) average of?
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174352%2fwhat-is-the-formal-way-to-express-the-meaning-of-a-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I live by the mantra that math should be written as though it is natural language, punctuation included. So, in your shoes, I would write:
Let $F_g$ be the magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons; let $g$ be the average acceleration at Earth's surface, caused by gravity, measured in meters per squared seconds; and let $m$ be the mass of this body, measured in kilograms. Then $F_g=gm$, where $gapprox9.8$.
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I live by the mantra that math should be written as though it is natural language, punctuation included. So, in your shoes, I would write:
Let $F_g$ be the magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons; let $g$ be the average acceleration at Earth's surface, caused by gravity, measured in meters per squared seconds; and let $m$ be the mass of this body, measured in kilograms. Then $F_g=gm$, where $gapprox9.8$.
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I live by the mantra that math should be written as though it is natural language, punctuation included. So, in your shoes, I would write:
Let $F_g$ be the magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons; let $g$ be the average acceleration at Earth's surface, caused by gravity, measured in meters per squared seconds; and let $m$ be the mass of this body, measured in kilograms. Then $F_g=gm$, where $gapprox9.8$.
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
$endgroup$
I live by the mantra that math should be written as though it is natural language, punctuation included. So, in your shoes, I would write:
Let $F_g$ be the magnitude of the gravitational force applied to a body, measured in Newtons; let $g$ be the average acceleration at Earth's surface, caused by gravity, measured in meters per squared seconds; and let $m$ be the mass of this body, measured in kilograms. Then $F_g=gm$, where $gapprox9.8$.
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
edited 16 hours ago
Community♦
1
1
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
answered yesterday
JosuéJosué
3,49042672
3,49042672
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
$begingroup$
Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Agree with the natural-language mantra. However, I'd prefer leaving out the units in the description, after all the equation holds independent of the units: "Left $F$ be the [,..] force, let $g$ be the acceleration [...] then $F=gm$ where $gapprox 9.8 mathrmm/texts^2$..."
$endgroup$
– Toffomat
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks. While I am aware of this way of expressing the meaning, somehow I miss a more clean (almost bullet type) way of stating the definitions. I accept that it's best to use exclusivelly natural language for the definition, and nothing forbids me to format the text to more clean way :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
@cinico: There's nothing wrong with putting Cleric's answer into point form, one point for each definition. I don't think it's fair to claim that mathematics can ever be written as though it is natural language. It isn't natural and never will be. However, it is best expressed in semi-natural language, mixing natural language and mathematical symbols in a way that is most suitable for reader consumption.
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
$begingroup$
In the quoted section, did you mean to write "and let $m$ be the mass of the body in question, in kilograms"? Not only are kilograms units of mass, not force, but if $m$ represents mass and not force, then the formula stated makes more sense. Oh I just noticed you were quoting the question. Might make sense to fix it anyway to prevent confusion.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Open any book in the notation section:
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Open any book in the notation section:
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Open any book in the notation section:
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
$endgroup$
Open any book in the notation section:
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
132k676230
132k676230
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One can always nit pick about "formality", or indeed "verifiability", if you want to revive the failed philosophical project, called logical positivism, from the first half of the twentieth century. For example:
"average acceleration at [the] Earth's surface, caused by gravity"
This statement, in mathematical, physical and engineering terms, is quite a claim if you really think about it.
The acceleration measured at the earths surface varies with height above sea level, potentially has other measurable components other than the main (unspecified) vertical one, especially so if you live next to a mountain, and has a component due to the rotation of the earth which varies with latitude.
The question is:
What set of measurements is the acceleration you refer to the (mathematical) average of?
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One can always nit pick about "formality", or indeed "verifiability", if you want to revive the failed philosophical project, called logical positivism, from the first half of the twentieth century. For example:
"average acceleration at [the] Earth's surface, caused by gravity"
This statement, in mathematical, physical and engineering terms, is quite a claim if you really think about it.
The acceleration measured at the earths surface varies with height above sea level, potentially has other measurable components other than the main (unspecified) vertical one, especially so if you live next to a mountain, and has a component due to the rotation of the earth which varies with latitude.
The question is:
What set of measurements is the acceleration you refer to the (mathematical) average of?
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One can always nit pick about "formality", or indeed "verifiability", if you want to revive the failed philosophical project, called logical positivism, from the first half of the twentieth century. For example:
"average acceleration at [the] Earth's surface, caused by gravity"
This statement, in mathematical, physical and engineering terms, is quite a claim if you really think about it.
The acceleration measured at the earths surface varies with height above sea level, potentially has other measurable components other than the main (unspecified) vertical one, especially so if you live next to a mountain, and has a component due to the rotation of the earth which varies with latitude.
The question is:
What set of measurements is the acceleration you refer to the (mathematical) average of?
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
$endgroup$
One can always nit pick about "formality", or indeed "verifiability", if you want to revive the failed philosophical project, called logical positivism, from the first half of the twentieth century. For example:
"average acceleration at [the] Earth's surface, caused by gravity"
This statement, in mathematical, physical and engineering terms, is quite a claim if you really think about it.
The acceleration measured at the earths surface varies with height above sea level, potentially has other measurable components other than the main (unspecified) vertical one, especially so if you live next to a mountain, and has a component due to the rotation of the earth which varies with latitude.
The question is:
What set of measurements is the acceleration you refer to the (mathematical) average of?
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
answered yesterday
James ArathoonJames Arathoon
1,588423
1,588423
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174352%2fwhat-is-the-formal-way-to-express-the-meaning-of-a-variable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
$begingroup$
@YvesDaoust I assumed until recently that the symbol $equiv$ meant "is defined as", when actually the notation ":=" is more correct. Furthermore, as you said, the fact that I'm mixing mathematical notation with natural language doesn't seem very consistent to me. I think I accept the answer that says that, for this type of intent, the best way is to use exclusivelly natural language, not mathematical notation.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Whenever you do write chunks of text in a LaTeX formular (which you shouldn't do in this case, but sometimes it can be appropriate), make sure you surround it with
text. See $m equiv textForce$ vs $m equiv Force$ (yuk). Also, quoting in LaTeX should be written ``Force'' (two backticks on the left, two single apostrophes on the right) to properly appear as “Force” in the rendered document.$endgroup$
– leftaroundabout
yesterday
$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday
$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
yesterday