It is frequently written in Natural Philosophy ( NP )that one side of an
equation " equals " the other side. This is perfectly fine for
mathematicians who do not have to deal with the " nuisance " of experimental
"psi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
Actually, it is experimental evidence that empowers the "=", and justifies
requiring both "philosophy" and "equates"
requiring both "philosophy" and "same as" excluding "equates"
It looks like equivalency plays a significant role in philosophy.
Philosophy is an attempt to model an underlying reality from personal
experience. It becomes necessary to "draw a line" from personal experience
into chaos where the underlying reality supposedly lies. This is a form of
"psi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...
Every field of specialization (mathematics and physics included)
develops its own unique vocabulary, often borrowing words from other
closely related specializations and 'tweaking' the application of
those words a little.
Speaking as a career analytical chemist I can say that "equals" in
chemistry almost never has the same meaning it would in mathematics.
To say that the concentration of A in B "equals" 3 units carries the
implied caveat that any difference between the number and the actual
concentration is less than the limits of precision of the techniques
used to determine the value.
All meaning is context-dependent.
"The engineer knows that pi is 3.14; the physicist knows that pi is
3.14159; the mathematician doesn't know what pi is." - (an old