Has the time come for a physics notation standard? | Hacker News Reader

Has the time come for a physics notation standard?

backreaction.blogspot.com

20 pointsanother9 comments

I doubt it, to be honest. In my experience, universities are locally consistent: the E&M class isn't going to contradict quantum, at least by much. And once you're out of undergrad, it's pretty easy to figure out what's going on, given the context.

If we try to standardize, we'll end up with some awful compromise position that no one likes. For example, I still dislike the push for MKS units where CGS would work much better, such as E&M, plasma physics, and much of astrophysics.

As an undergraduate I sit in classes being taught to use meaningful variables in code. Then I walk into one of the many math and physics lectures and wonder what meaningless single letter variables are we see scribbled on the whiteboard today.

This wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have a class with a different lecturer using different notation afterwards.

Should each lecturer introduce their notation the first time its used in class?

Why can't they just use use proper meaningful variable names?

If you have a seminar-like class with a different lecturer every week, then, yes, it's a problem if they can't get consistent notation. I'd hope that's rare in undergraduate courses, though.

And meaningful variable names would be absolutely horrible for anyone trying to calculate with them or visually comprehend them. Energy = lorentzFactor * restMass * speedOfLight^2? You'd be writing all day to get anything done, and it would be hard to see the forest for the trees.

See also the brevity of notation in J, q, and APL, and the "tacit" style of J and "point-free" style of Haskell.

Having seen "i" used for 3 different things on the same blackboard at the same time and 4 in a single lecture, A reasonable shorthand seems like a great idea. Limit things to 4 or 5 letters and spL, lorzF, Enrg, rtMa are all clear in context and hardly wasteful.

The other option is to use 3 symbol code for common notation which might take a little effort to standardize and memorize, but could probably cover all of science, math, and engineering.

trying to construct a symbol code for a global context ensures it is suboptimal in every local context. not worth the trade off.

It's also pretty difficult to google for things like 'η'. And how do you actually type a formula with an integral sign without knowing how to type ∫

Physics and math needs an alternate notation without all these 'greek' symbols which aren't on keyboards.

Proper (?) writing style says the first time you introduce an acronym, such as the dreaded Three Letter Acronym (TLA), you write out the acronym the first time you use it and put the abbreviation in parentheses.

It makes sense to do this for notation in all fields where the reader might become confused. I'm not sure a standard is needed, maybe only a movement of reviewers rejecting papers containing the vagaries.

A table of symbols is extremely helpful. I hate reading a paper where the author defines things when they first appear. If you missed that bit, you have to spend minutes searching for it, and forget what you were thinking about. It's worse in a text book where you have to search many chapters to find where it was introduced. Complete waste of time.

I don't think there can be "palletes" to choose from, because interdisciplinary work will find there's no pallete that fits.

I am glad someone else feels the same way. I always make sure to have a huge table of symbol just after the index page. If I am writing a 100+ page thesis I want to make sure I can "call" one of the symbols to express my idea. The trick is to give nice easy to remember names to your variables and leave as many common variable letters like a,b,c,d,x,y,z to be used as local variables if needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com