4 ms·

I don't think that's possible for most of them. Quite a few formulas aren't equivalent to any one program, and most variables don't have a fixed meaning. Can't

I don't think that's possible for most of them. Quite a few formulas aren't equivalent to any one program, and most variables don't have a fixed meaning. Can't really think of one that could be improved by writing it as pseudo code.

weinzierl 11y ago
> I don't think that's possible for most of them. Quite a few formulas aren't equivalent to any one program, Even every proof can be expressed as a program, see Curry–Howard correspondence [1]. > and most variables don't have a fixed meaning. I think this is kind of the point of the original comment. For a physicist PV=nRT is concise and clear but for everyone else? The letters P, V, n, R, T can have many meanings but in the context of this formula their meaning is fixed. Why not write: pressure * volume = AVOGADRO * BOLTZMAN * temperature > Can't really think of one that could be improved by writing it as pseudo code. See example above, but I think it strongly depends on what one is familiar with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
- vlasev 11y ago
  There are a lot of conventions in physics and math and they come to the rescue. In the CONTEXT of gases, it's easy to realize that V must be volume, T must be temperature, etc. The formula PV = nRT is for physicists, not for "anyone else".
- contravariant 11y ago
  >Even every proof can be expressed as a program, see Curry–Howard correspondence Well, that is true, but that's still pretty far removed from any common programming language. And readability doesn't usually improve. >For a physicist PV=nRT is concise and clear but for everyone else? You've somewhat got a point there, physics would be a lot easier if all formulas and variables were actually defined when needed. But symbolic notation is still a necessity, simply because symbolic manipulation is really powerful, and it's a pain to have to write 'BOLTZMAN_CONSTANT' every single time, instead of just k_B. Also, your notation might work for simple equations like the ideal gas equation, but an equation that's only slightly more complicated, the van der Waals equation, would become quite hideous: (pressure + number_of_particles^2 * attraction / volume^2) * (volume / number_of_particles + excluded_volume) == BOLTZMANN_CONSTANT * number_of_particles * temperature I really wouldn't want to have to write that out several times just to do some calculations with it.

weinzierl 11y ago

> I don't think that's possible for most of them. Quite a few formulas aren't equivalent to any one program, Even every proof can be expressed as a program, see Curry–Howard correspondence [1]. > and most variables don't have a fixed meaning. I think this is kind of the point of the original comment. For a physicist PV=nRT is concise and clear but for everyone else? The letters P, V, n, R, T can have many meanings but in the context of this formula their meaning is fixed. Why not write: pressure * volume = AVOGADRO * BOLTZMAN * temperature > Can't really think of one that could be improved by writing it as pseudo code. See example above, but I think it strongly depends on what one is familiar with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...

vlasev 11y ago
There are a lot of conventions in physics and math and they come to the rescue. In the CONTEXT of gases, it's easy to realize that V must be volume, T must be temperature, etc. The formula PV = nRT is for physicists, not for "anyone else".
contravariant 11y ago
>Even every proof can be expressed as a program, see Curry–Howard correspondence Well, that is true, but that's still pretty far removed from any common programming language. And readability doesn't usually improve. >For a physicist PV=nRT is concise and clear but for everyone else? You've somewhat got a point there, physics would be a lot easier if all formulas and variables were actually defined when needed. But symbolic notation is still a necessity, simply because symbolic manipulation is really powerful, and it's a pain to have to write 'BOLTZMAN_CONSTANT' every single time, instead of just k_B. Also, your notation might work for simple equations like the ideal gas equation, but an equation that's only slightly more complicated, the van der Waals equation, would become quite hideous: (pressure + number_of_particles^2 * attraction / volume^2) * (volume / number_of_particles + excluded_volume) == BOLTZMANN_CONSTANT * number_of_particles * temperature I really wouldn't want to have to write that out several times just to do some calculations with it.