• Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    mathematicians, who love their abbreviations

    Man, I hate that so much. I swear this was half the reason I struggled with maths and physics, that these guys need to write this:

    Rather than this:

    At some point, they even collectively decided that not having to write a multiplication dot is more important than being able to use more than a single letter for your variables. Just what the fuck?

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thing is, you usually define all your variables. At least we do in engineering (of physical variety, rather than software).

      Mostly because we can’t expect everyone reading the calculation to know, and that not everyone uses the same symbols.

      Not explaining each variable is bad practice, other than for very simple things. (I do expect everyone and their dog reading a process eng calc to know PV=nRT, at a minimum).

      Just like (in my opinion) not defining industry specific abbreviations is also bad practice.

      Mathematicians don’t do this? Shame on them.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean, it was rather physics that was worse in this regard.

        Mathematicians do define their variable quite rigorously. Everything is so abstract, at some point you do just need to write down “this thing is a number”. Problem with maths folks is rather that they get more creative with their other symbols. So, “this thing is a number” is actually written as “∃x, x ∈ ℝ”.

        But yeah, in the school/university physics I experienced, it was assumed that you knew that U is voltage, ρ (rho) is density, ω (omega) is angular velocity etc…
        At one point, I had to memorize six pages of formulas and it felt like every letter (Latin, Greek, uppercase, lowercase, some Fraktur for good measure) was a shorthand for something.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Still bad, i’m not a computer with a lookup table in memory.

        I do expect everyone and their dog reading a process eng calc to know PV=nRT, at a minimum

        What is “eng”?

        • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Lol fair point regarding Eng: “Engineering”.

          But Nah, I think assumed knowledge of PV=nRT is fair in context, since if you don’t know what it is, you’ll only be reading the conclusion, not getting into the weeds of a calculation document.

          I’m not going even going to be explaining if I have a column that’s says volumetric flow rate, with V=m/ρ. If I give mass flow rate and density (with units, of course), and use these extremely common symbols, and someone doesn’t understand, then they have no real business getting to this level of detail anyway.

          I do agree that in most cases not defining your variables is bad practice, but there is some nuance, depending on the intended audience and how common a formula is, and the format of whatever it is you’re writing.