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?

Can a German sentence have two subjects?

If Manufacturer spice model and Datasheet give different values which should I use?

What would the Romans have called "sorcery"?

How to add power-LED to my small amplifier?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Why is this code 6.5x slower with optimizations enabled?

What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?

I see my dog run

Why is an old chain unsafe?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

whey we use polarized capacitor?

Can I make popcorn with any corn?

Example of a relative pronoun

Motorized valve interfering with button?

Possibly bubble sort algorithm

Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Are there any consumables that function as addictive (psychedelic) drugs?

GPS Rollover on Android Smartphones

A Journey Through Space and Time

Prevent a directory in /tmp from being deleted

TGV timetables / schedules?

Patience, young "Padovan"

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?



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?













3












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 8:03











  • $begingroup$
    @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
    Apr 4 at 9:23






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 12:00











  • $begingroup$
    @leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 12:57










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 17:33















3












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 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
    Apr 4 at 8:03











  • $begingroup$
    @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
    Apr 4 at 9:23






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 12:00











  • $begingroup$
    @leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 12:57










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 17:33













3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 4 at 17:32







cinico

















asked Apr 4 at 7:45









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
    Apr 4 at 8:03











  • $begingroup$
    @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
    Apr 4 at 9:23






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 12:00











  • $begingroup$
    @leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 12:57










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 17:33












  • 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
    Apr 4 at 8:03











  • $begingroup$
    @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
    Apr 4 at 9:23






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 12:00











  • $begingroup$
    @leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 12:57










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
    $endgroup$
    – cinico
    Apr 4 at 17:33







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
Apr 4 at 8:03





$begingroup$
"this is most likely not correct": can you elaborate ? By the way, there is nothing formal here, just natural language.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 4 at 8:03













$begingroup$
@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
Apr 4 at 9:23




$begingroup$
@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
Apr 4 at 9:23




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 . 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
Apr 4 at 12:00





$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 12:00













$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
Apr 4 at 12:57




$begingroup$
@leftaroundabout Thanks for teaching me! :)
$endgroup$
– cinico
Apr 4 at 12:57












$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
Apr 4 at 17:33




$begingroup$
Thanks @ToddWilcox. It was a copy/paste thing. Fixed.
$endgroup$
– cinico
Apr 4 at 17:33










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

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 $gapprox9.8$.







share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Apr 4 at 8:01






  • 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
    Apr 4 at 8:43











  • $begingroup$
    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
    Apr 4 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    @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
    Apr 4 at 12:07










  • $begingroup$
    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
    Apr 4 at 15:15



















8












$begingroup$

Open any book in the notation section:



enter image description here



enter image description here



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    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?






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      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
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      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









      9












      $begingroup$

      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 $gapprox9.8$.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
        $endgroup$
        – 5xum
        Apr 4 at 8:01






      • 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
        Apr 4 at 8:43











      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 9:26










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        Apr 4 at 12:07










      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 15:15
















      9












      $begingroup$

      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 $gapprox9.8$.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$












      • $begingroup$
        Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
        $endgroup$
        – 5xum
        Apr 4 at 8:01






      • 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
        Apr 4 at 8:43











      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 9:26










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        Apr 4 at 12:07










      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 15:15














      9












      9








      9





      $begingroup$

      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 $gapprox9.8$.







      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      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 $gapprox9.8$.








      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago









      Community♦

      1




      1










      answered Apr 4 at 7:55









      JosuéJosué

      3,51242672




      3,51242672











      • $begingroup$
        Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
        $endgroup$
        – 5xum
        Apr 4 at 8:01






      • 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
        Apr 4 at 8:43











      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 9:26










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        Apr 4 at 12:07










      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 15:15

















      • $begingroup$
        Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
        $endgroup$
        – 5xum
        Apr 4 at 8:01






      • 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
        Apr 4 at 8:43











      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 9:26










      • $begingroup$
        @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
        Apr 4 at 12:07










      • $begingroup$
        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
        Apr 4 at 15:15
















      $begingroup$
      Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
      $endgroup$
      – 5xum
      Apr 4 at 8:01




      $begingroup$
      Can confirm. Scientific articles always (well, should always) explain the meanings of their variables in plain language.
      $endgroup$
      – 5xum
      Apr 4 at 8:01




      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
      Apr 4 at 8:43





      $begingroup$
      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
      Apr 4 at 8:43













      $begingroup$
      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
      Apr 4 at 9:26




      $begingroup$
      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
      Apr 4 at 9:26












      $begingroup$
      @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
      Apr 4 at 12:07




      $begingroup$
      @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
      Apr 4 at 12:07












      $begingroup$
      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
      Apr 4 at 15:15





      $begingroup$
      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
      Apr 4 at 15:15












      8












      $begingroup$

      Open any book in the notation section:



      enter image description here



      enter image description here



      enter image description here






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        8












        $begingroup$

        Open any book in the notation section:



        enter image description here



        enter image description here



        enter image description here






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          Open any book in the notation section:



          enter image description here



          enter image description here



          enter image description here






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Open any book in the notation section:



          enter image description here



          enter image description here



          enter image description here







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Apr 4 at 9:33









          Yves DaoustYves Daoust

          132k676230




          132k676230





















              0












              $begingroup$

              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?






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                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?






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  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?






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  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?







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 4 at 14:31

























                  answered Apr 4 at 14:16









                  James ArathoonJames Arathoon

                  1,588423




                  1,588423



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

                      Image
                      Barça LassaBAXI ManresaCafés Candelas BreogánDelteco GBCDivina Seguros JoventutHerbalife Gran CanariaIberostar TenerifeKirolbet BaskoniaMonbus ObradoiroMontakit FuenlabradaMoraBanc AndorraMovistar EstudiantesReal MadridSan Pablo BurgosTecnyconta ZaragozaUCAM MurciaUnicajaValencia Basket Club Baloncesto Breogán baloncestoLugoGalicia1966JuanJosé Ramón Varela Portasmáxima categoría1970competicións europeasLiga ACBPavillón MunicipalPazo dos DeportesJesús Lázareliga EBAClub Estudiantes1965Lugobaloncestosegunda divisiónJosé RamónJuan Varela-Portas y Pardo1966Celestino Fernández de la Vega196869primeira divisiónZaragozaprimeira divisiónReal MadridJoventutEstudiantes19701971máxima categoría estatal11 de outubro1970Palacio dos DeportesLugoTenerifeMadridReal MadridAlfredo PérezBreogán19711972TenerifeMadridvascocatalánAlfredo PérezespañolMadridLugoManresa La Casera19741975As...
                      Read more

                      Vilaño, A Laracha Índice Patrimonio | Lugares e parroquias | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación43°14′52″N 8°36′03″O / 43.24775, -8.60070

                      Image
                      Parroquias da LarachaParroquias de Galicia baixo a advocación de Santiago o Maior coruñésLarachacomarca de BergantiñosIGE20131999castro de Montesclarospoboado castrexoidade de ferroromanización de Galiciamiliariopazo de Montesclarosséculo XIXAmboadeA AreosaA BarreiraBos AiresA BoticaAs Brañas da ViñaAs BrañasBusteloOs CanedosFerreirosAs FervenzasA Fonte da CanleO FormigueiroFornelosA FragaFragundeGravidoA LamelaMarfuloOs MeánsMontes ClarosA PanelaO PazoQuintánsRibelaSamiroO SeixoA TelleiraVilañoVilanovaA ViñaVista AlegreCabovilaño (San Román)Caión (Santa María do Socorro)Coiro (San Xián)Erboedo (Santa María)Golmar (San Bieito)Lemaio (Santa Mariña)Lendo (San Xián)Lestón (San Martiño)Montemaior (Santa María Madanela)Soandres (San Pedro)Soutullo (Santa María)Torás (Santa María)Vilaño (Santiago) Vilaño, A Laracha Na Galipedia, a Wi...
                      Read more

                      Cegueira Índice Epidemioloxía | Deficiencia visual | Tipos de cegueira | Principais causas de cegueira | Tratamento | Técnicas de adaptación e axudas | Vida dos cegos | Primeiros auxilios | Crenzas respecto das persoas cegas | Crenzas das persoas cegas | O neno deficiente visual | Aspectos psicolóxicos da cegueira | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegación54.054.154.436928256blindnessDicionario da Real Academia GalegaPortal das Palabras"International Standards: Visual Standards — Aspects and Ranges of Vision Loss with Emphasis on Population Surveys.""Visual impairment and blindness""Presentan un plan para previr a cegueira"o orixinalACCDV Associació Catalana de Cecs i Disminuïts Visuals - PMFTrachoma"Effect of gene therapy on visual function in Leber's congenital amaurosis"1844137110.1056/NEJMoa0802268Cans guía - os mellores amigos dos cegosArquivadoEscola de cans guía para cegos en Mortágua, PortugalArquivado"Tecnología para ciegos y deficientes visuales. Recopilación de recursos gratuitos en la Red""Colorino""‘COL.diesis’, escuchar los sonidos del color""COL.diesis: Transforming Colour into Melody and Implementing the Result in a Colour Sensor Device"o orixinal"Sistema de desarrollo de sinestesia color-sonido para invidentes utilizando un protocolo de audio""Enseñanza táctil - geometría y color. Juegos didácticos para niños ciegos y videntes""Sistema Constanz"L'ocupació laboral dels cecs a l'Estat espanyol està pràcticament equiparada a la de les persones amb visió, entrevista amb Pedro ZuritaONCE (Organización Nacional de Cegos de España)Prevención da cegueiraDescrición de deficiencias visuais (Disc@pnet)Braillín, un boneco atractivo para calquera neno, con ou sen discapacidade, que permite familiarizarse co sistema de escritura e lectura brailleAxudas Técnicas36838ID00897494007150-90057129528256DOID:1432HP:0000618D001766C10.597.751.941.162C97109C0155020

                      Image
                      OftalmoloxíaDiscapacidade sentidovistaNorteaméricaEuropaollopaíses en vías de desenvolvementopaíses desenvolvidos2014Organización Mundial da SaúdeGaliciaretinopatía diabéticaglaucomaresto visualagudeza visualcampo visualterapia xénicaretinavirus do arrefriado comúncanadestradoséculo XIXLouis Brailleteclado brailleescáneresrecoñecemento óptico de caractereslectores de pantallacorsinestesiafrauta doceamareloclarineteazultamboresvermellopianoverdeSistema Constanzsemáforocans guíaBrailletactosoftwaretactoeuroAvuiséculo XXUnión SoviéticaFranciaItaliaInglaterraNataciónatletismociclismojudoesquífútbol salamontañismoxadrezgoalballsociedademúsicosindixentesprofetassabiosoídotactomúsicarisatactooídolinguaxePiaget (function()var node=document.getElementById("mw-dismissablenotice-anonplace");if(node)node.outerHTML="u003Cdiv class="mw-dismissable-notice"u0...
                      Read more