Page 1 of 1

### 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:29 am UTC

Title: All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.

I feel like the fluid dynamics equations needs an outer product of the gradient operator or something.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:42 am UTC
I'm not sure all the equations would fit on a T-shirt, but they would definitely fit as a full-body tattoo.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:10 am UTC
Is the `truly deep physics equations` just because of the simple formulas that involve the planck constant or is there something else?

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:46 am UTC
H_hat is a Hamiltonian (perhaps even a general differential operator), not Planck's constant.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:20 pm UTC
(Missed out title text: All electromagnetic equations: The same as all fluid dynamics equations, but with the 8 and 23 replaced with the permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively.)

IRT last one as: <something> without You is (nothingness/empty/pointless?)

I'm fairly sure it is that, but it slightly out-geeks me.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:40 pm UTC
I think I'm going to wait for the explainXKCD article to come up, then I'm going to re-enroll in college to see if Fluids, Thermodynamics, and Fields classes get any easier.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:11 pm UTC
I didn't realize we knew enough about quantum gravity to actually have equations for it.
...or is that just ((representative of) | (a parody of)) a string theory equation?

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:19 pm UTC
richP wrote:I think I'm going to wait for the explainXKCD article to come up

I'm still not much the wiser!

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:52 pm UTC
SuperCow wrote:I didn't realize we knew enough about quantum gravity to actually have equations for it.
...or is that just ((representative of) | (a parody of)) a string theory equation?
We don't, at least not ones that belong to a generally accepted theory.

SU(n) and U(n) each indicate a vector space (and certain operations) where each vector has n numbers. Nesting them doesn't make sense because 1) n needs to be an integer 2) n would typically be a specific fixed, small number, as these are less functions than a way to describe what kind of mathematical object we're using.

Those numbers look like someone took the number space for Grand Unified Theory (electromagnetism + weak force + strong force) and made them more complicated, as if they were adding gravity to the mix.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:31 pm UTC
Also, that "quantum gravity" expression... actually, several of the things on this... are not even equations. It's not an equation without an equals sign.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:51 pm UTC
I'm pretty sure the joke about quantim gravity is that there are no equations at all, just some symmetry groups.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:29 pm UTC
beojan wrote:H_hat is a Hamiltonian (perhaps even a general differential operator), not Planck's constant.

Because as any fule kno, Alexander Hamilton was most famous for wearing hats.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:00 pm UTC
The chemistry equations author was pre-med until he/she wrote the equation.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:36 pm UTC
I'm highly suspicious that the "Deep Physics Equation" MUST be normalized to read "= 42", or it won't work.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:43 pm UTC
Number theory itself produces gravity waves, so there's a nesting that ought to be taken into account.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:34 am UTC

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:27 am UTC
Given the complexity of many formulae in modern physics, mathematics, etc. and the wide availability of Unicode I'm surprised we haven't gone beyond the standard greek/latin alphabet yet, instead choosing to use diacritics, typeface styles such as blackletter etc.
There are plenty of characters available in other alphabets, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and so on. Even emojis might start becoming a standard (why not use a sun for temperature or a car for velocity? just an idea)

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:09 am UTC
gcgcgcgc wrote:Given the complexity of many formulae in modern physics, mathematics, etc. and the wide availability of Unicode I'm surprised we haven't gone beyond the standard greek/latin alphabet yet, instead choosing to use diacritics, typeface styles such as blackletter etc.
There are plenty of characters available in other alphabets, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and so on. Even emojis might start becoming a standard (why not use a sun for temperature or a car for velocity? just an idea)

Mathematics has ventured into the Arabic alphabet in a few places - such as Alephs for cardinal infinities.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:29 am UTC
Aleph is Hebrew, not Arabic.

So is bet.

All the standard numerals are Arabic, though.

(Unless you ask an actual Arab, then they're Indian).

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:14 am UTC
gcgcgcgc wrote:Given the complexity of many formulae in modern physics, mathematics, etc. and the wide availability of Unicode I'm surprised we haven't gone beyond the standard greek/latin alphabet yet, instead choosing to use diacritics, typeface styles such as blackletter etc.
There are plenty of characters available in other alphabets, Cyrillic, Japanese, Chinese, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and so on. Even emojis might start becoming a standard (why not use a sun for temperature or a car for velocity? just an idea)

Well, I had friends with absolutely no aptitude for drawing and professor handwriting isn't known to produce easily legible greek letters. Based on those two experiences, I would not venture to read any handwritten calculations with tiny cars and chinese logograms in them, but have fun trying.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:00 pm UTC
Pfhorrest wrote:Aleph is Hebrew, not Arabic.

So is bet.

All the standard numerals are Arabic, though.

(Unless you ask an actual Arab, then they're Indian).

Good point. The first two letters of the Arabic alphabet are also called "aleph" and "beth" (both with a variety of transliterations), but look very different.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:46 pm UTC
I am not sure that we are supposed to take this one seriously, at least not literally.

e to the (pi - infinity)? when pi is an index between something finite and infinity? this is probably a joke about using symbols with previous meaning inappropriately

HEAT -> H2EAT is probably a joke.... the equations balances, sort of... but H2EAT? Would give you gas...

Kinematics only for scalar potentials? Wasa matter, you don't like magnetism? And if we were really talking universal, we would have to do everything in at least 4 space...

And a lot of glyphs that I have never seen before...

Secrets of the Universe indeed... 42 belongs there somewhere.

And, so damn it... where are the pyramids in all of this?

ajohnso

(not that I would suggest that RM would not have a secret meaning to his list... but perhaps the secret meaning is the lack of meaning?)

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:08 am UTC
I suggest we translate the Hebrew letters into English before using them, based on their original Phoenician meanings. "Aleph" is "ox", "Bet" is "house", "Gimel" is "camel" (at least THAT one didn't change too much)...

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:15 am UTC
I think we should start using digammas for functions.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:19 am UTC
rmsgrey wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Aleph is Hebrew, not Arabic.

So is bet.

All the standard numerals are Arabic, though.

(Unless you ask an actual Arab, then they're Indian).

Good point. The first two letters of the Arabic alphabet are also called "aleph" and "beth" (both with a variety of transliterations), but look very different.

Using the Arabic aleph would confuse people, because it's just I sloping the other way.

I still hope Doctor Who runs out of letters at the ends of Greek and Roman alphabets and starts using the Arabic one, though, because watching the cast try to maintain straight faces while talking about how long the ha-shielded windows will protect them from the 100% wow-tonic environment while the engineers are repairing the yay-drive could make the show worth watching.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:43 am UTC
SpitValve wrote:I think we should start using digammas for functions.
Well, in a way, we already do - though that particular digamma is actually coincidental!

There is also one known use of Cyrillic: Ш is the Tate-Shafarevich group (and a few other things, apparently, but this particular use is definitely the Cyrillic letter).

I'm surprised that runes and Japanese kana don't see more use, though...

(Oh, and the one alphabet that I think would be awesome to see in math? Glagolitic.)

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:20 pm UTC
+ ( ^ ( - ) ) = / ( - ) + kthanxbye

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:21 pm UTC
I think it's missing the most fundamental equation "f(x) = g(x)".

Lothario O'Leary wrote:(Oh, and the one alphabet that I think would be awesome to see in math? Glagolitic.)

ⰒⰎⰉⰈ ⰐⰑ!

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:36 am UTC
most important equation? My vote is for:

U+2205 U+2260 U+2205

If you want that in a prose form... "everything can be divided into two categories - those things that can be divided into two categories, and those that can't".

watch for inappropriate binaries.

aljohnso

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:33 pm UTC
aljohnso wrote:most important equation? My vote is for:

U+2205 U+2260 U+2205

If you want that in a prose form... "everything can be divided into two categories - those things that can be divided into two categories, and those that can't".

watch for inappropriate binaries.

aljohnso

So,

∅ ≠ ∅

My prose interpretation of that is "an empty set is not equal to an empty set," which doesn't sound like an important equation, but rather, it sounds wrong.

### Re: 2034: "Equations"

Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:38 pm UTC
It depends on who you are defining things and which axioms you pick. Within ZFC that's wrong, but it's probably true in some formulations of set theory which don't assume an excluded middle (P doesn't necessarily equal ~~P).