etotheipi said:
Isn't there an important difference between an identity and a law? I would say that ##(a + b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2## is an identity; so for any ##(a,b)## that I choose in the plane the relationship holds.
But ##c^2 = a^2 + b^2##, though a formula, would not be an identity. It would only hold for a restricted set of values ##(a,b,c)## that form a double cone in 3D space.
It is in the end a linguistic discussion. Neither of the terms is defined, even equality is debatable. Law is it in physics, and I call ##a^2+2ab+b^2=(a+b)^2## binomial formula.
##c^2=a^2+b^2## as you use it should correctly be written as ##\{(a,b,c)\in \mathbb{R}^3\,|\,c^2=a^2+b^2\}##, which is an algebraic variety and ##p(a,b,c)=c^2-a^2-b^2\in \mathbb{R}[a,b,c]## the defining polynomial. The variety is the zero set of an ideal generated by ##p##. The term equation or similar doesn't even occur in this description, except for the definition of a zero set, where it is necessary to define "vanishes at".
I said "identity" is useless, which of course is an opinion. The only situation I can think of where it may be useful is: two fourth equals one half, but two fourth and one half isn't identical. But the word equation in this context is already an exception. We write ##\frac{a}{b}=\frac{c}{d}## if ##ad=bc##, but if we look at it, then ##\frac{a}{b}## and ##\frac{c}{d}## are only equivalent: they represent the same number. As soon as "represent the same number" becomes only a little less obvious, in the situation of remainders, we don't use equality anymore and write congruent: ##a\equiv b \mod c\;## iff ##c\,|\,(a-b)##. This is also an equivalence relation, ##a## and ##b## are equivalent, but we don't say "equal" anymore. Only equivalent quotients of real numbers are called equal, although it is an equivalence relation, too. Some authors write e.g. ##f(x)\equiv 0## and say the function is identical zero. This is what
@Adesh quoted in post #4. I admit that this makes sense: The ##0## function in a vector space of functions is the function "which is identical zero". "Which equals zero" could be misleading in this context as the connotation is, that it doesn't always equal zero, which would be wrong. However, I wouldn't call ##f\equiv 0## an identity and only use "identical to".
I stay with my opinion: identity is useless in mathematics. It is either a formula, an equation, a theorem, or equivalent. But of course, this is a debate for linguists. What's not defined doesn't count in mathematics, and we don't have a one-fits-all definition for these terms.