>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 progra

>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.