Frequently Made Errors in Equation Handling - Comments

  • Context: Insights 
  • Thread starter Thread starter haruspex
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Errors
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
15 replies · 3K views
Messages
42,946
Reaction score
10,550
haruspex submitted a new PF Insights post

Frequently Made Errors in Equation Handling

errorhandling-80x80.png


Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
Physics news on Phys.org
Regarding 5 and 6, dimensions and units, early physics education may have to take a lot of blame, at least from what I remember from my high-school textbooks. Several problems were formulated using text such as "Let the wheel mass be ##m## kg and its radius ##R## m" (but in Swedish), in this case making ##m## and ##R## dimensionless quantities. Later, students have problems with dimensional analysis as well as units ... No wonder.
 
Orodruin said:
Regarding 5 and 6, dimensions and units, early physics education may have to take a lot of blame, at least from what I remember from my high-school textbooks. Several problems were formulated using text such as "Let the wheel mass be ##m## kg and its radius ##R## m" (but in Swedish), in this case making ##m## and ##R## dimensionless quantities. Later, students have problems with dimensional analysis as well as units ... No wonder.
Yes, I had the same thought. I'll add a comment on that, thanks.
 
Simple but very useful tips for avoiding silly errors. Nice one!
 
I give partial credit only until the numbers go in, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. If someone writes a+sqrt(b/2) when they mean a+sqrt(b)/2, there is a good chance I can figure this out. If they write 9.54317265 when they mean 4.5112121, I'll never figure it out.

And also be annoyed by the likely extraneous precision.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rude man
"One does sometimes come across questions like “A block has mass m kg…”. In this case, the variable m is a dimensionless number. This isn’t actually wrong, but it is poor style and not to be emulated."

I entirely agree. One problem we're up against, in the UK at least, is that in mathematics students are taught to represent quantities as pure numbers. So "A block has mass m kg" is just the sort of wording they meet in mathematics classes, textbooks and exams. Students have to use one convention in Maths and another in Physics; I'm surprised they cope as well as they do.

I'm so keen on the convention of representing a physical quantity as the product of a number and a unit, that I urge students to put in the number with its unit as soon as they replace an algebraic symbol by a given value, just as haruspex recommends in 6 (above)…

"Conversely, when working numerically, units should, in principle, always be included:
Average speed = 120 km / 3 h = 40 km/h"

In more complicated cases, simplifying the units to get a unit for the final answer is an excellent exercise in itself, as well as often providing useful check on preceding algebra.
 
Orodruin said:
Regarding 5 and 6, dimensions and units, early physics education may have to take a lot of blame, at least from what I remember from my high-school textbooks. Several problems were formulated using text such as "Let the wheel mass be ##m## kg and its radius ##R## m" (but in Swedish), in this case making ##m## and ##R## dimensionless quantities. Later, students have problems with dimensional analysis as well as units ... No wonder.
If m and R are left as m and R rather than giving them numbers, I don't see how that makes m and R dimensionless. Did you mean m adn R to be numbers?
 
This post is of great importance to anyone not already cognizant of its importance.
Dimensions get even more important when uncommon functions are concerned.
For example: in Laplace transforms we correctly have δ(t) ↔ 1, but then if we're dealing in voltages we say a 1 volt-sec. delta function = 1δ(t). But this is wrong. A 1 V-sec. input voltage should be written as kδ(t), k = 1 V-sec.
Similar observation applies in mechanical dynamics, etc. of course.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I give partial credit only until the numbers go in, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. If someone writes a+sqrt(b/2) when they mean a+sqrt(b)/2, there is a good chance I can figure this out. If they write 9.54317265 when they mean 4.5112121, I'll never figure it out.

And also be annoyed by the likely extraneous precision.
Yes! That's why I disregard homework questions like "where is my mistake?" unless numbers are avoided 'till the end.
 
rude man said:
If m and R are left as m and R rather than giving them numbers, I don't see how that makes m and R dimensionless. Did you mean m adn R to be numbers?

Since they explicitly say ##m## kg, ##m## has to be a dimensionless. If ##m## has dimension mass, e.g., ##m = 1## kg, then the mass would have dimension mass squared, which is nonsense as replacing ##m## in the statement with 1 kg would imply "has the mass 1 kg kg".
 
Great post, haruspex! A large number of homework problems could be solved without help if everyone would follow those points.

Vanadium 50 said:
I have a textbook that uses h for two different things. h is a quantum number (h, j, and k) and also Plack's constant.
Writing letters in a different font totally makes them different.
 
mfb said:
Great post, haruspex! A large number of homework problems could be solved without help if everyone would follow those points.Writing letters in a different font totally makes them different.


Completely true, but problematic in the digital world where rendering of text might mangle the formatting (such as losing the distinction between D and Δ.) Obviously, science and math written traditions originate in the eras of handwriting. Rendering in the digital age is a problem we created, but have not yet adequately solved.