Equals ???

Hiyas ,

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
evidence.

However, in NP is that Ever true ?

Why ?

Best

"psi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
an
experimental

well assumedly, for cases where this isnt true, the equation isnt valid
maybe?

Dear psi:

"psi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
an
experimental

Actually, it is experimental evidence that empowers the "=", and justifies
its use.


Google Advanced
requiring both "philosophy" and "equates"
47,000 hits

requiring both "philosophy" and "same as" excluding "equates"
771,000 hits

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
equivalency.

Was this homework?

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsj9lc.51506$Jy3.960@fed1read03...
of
experience
of


Hiyas ,

No - not homework.

Best

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsj9lc.51506$Jy3.960@fed1read03...
of
experience
of

Hiyas ,

Well the point being in physics, " nothing " Ever equals anything else
so that the = sign cannot be used in its pure mathemtical sense that a
mathematician uses the = sign..

There is Always uncertainty in any physical experiment and therefore All
relationships are known Only to the accuracy and precision that experimental
devices are capable of resolving.

That may seem a trite point, but I think that it is frequently forgotten
about but it becomes a very present hurdle in atomic and nuclear
considerations.

Best

Jeremy Watts <jeremy.watts70@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7p3lc.33$l%.18@newsfe1-win...
of

Even for equations that are thought to be ' true ' the = sign cannot be
used as a mathematician uses them.

Best

"psi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<[Only registered users see links. ]>...

<snip>


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
mathematician's joke)


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote in message
news:130fe1c3.0405030832.2fe82ab5@posting.google.c om...
news:<109bljufee5v389@corp.supernews.com>...
else
All
experimental
forgotten

Hiyas tad ,

I agree and like that joke

Best