Mixing
Numerical equality symbol for variables with different units
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day! I wonder, is there any equality symbol for variables with different units of measurements?
For instance, it is given $Ce = 3$ $[V*s/rad]$ which is back-EMF constant of a motor and $Cm$ - torque constant of a motor in $[N*m/A]$. For DC motor this constants are numericaly equal.
How symbolically indicate that they are equal? Because I think it is incorrect to say $Cm = Ce$, as they are variables with different units of measurements.
notation unit-of-measure
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day! I wonder, is there any equality symbol for variables with different units of measurements?
For instance, it is given $Ce = 3$ $[V*s/rad]$ which is back-EMF constant of a motor and $Cm$ - torque constant of a motor in $[N*m/A]$. For DC motor this constants are numericaly equal.
How symbolically indicate that they are equal? Because I think it is incorrect to say $Cm = Ce$, as they are variables with different units of measurements.
notation unit-of-measure
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Good day! I wonder, is there any equality symbol for variables with different units of measurements?
For instance, it is given $Ce = 3$ $[V*s/rad]$ which is back-EMF constant of a motor and $Cm$ - torque constant of a motor in $[N*m/A]$. For DC motor this constants are numericaly equal.
How symbolically indicate that they are equal? Because I think it is incorrect to say $Cm = Ce$, as they are variables with different units of measurements.
notation unit-of-measure
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
Good day! I wonder, is there any equality symbol for variables with different units of measurements?
For instance, it is given $Ce = 3$ $[V*s/rad]$ which is back-EMF constant of a motor and $Cm$ - torque constant of a motor in $[N*m/A]$. For DC motor this constants are numericaly equal.
How symbolically indicate that they are equal? Because I think it is incorrect to say $Cm = Ce$, as they are variables with different units of measurements.
notation unit-of-measure
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
edited Jul 28 at 11:56
Ethan Bolker
35.7k54199
35.7k54199
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
asked Jul 28 at 11:42
Artur Abdullin
31
31
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23
add a comment |Â
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I don't think that exists a precise symbol for what you are looking for and sincerely I don't even see a need! You could come up with your notation if you want like stating that the magnitude of that two physical measurement are the same but it will be still imprecise if you want to be pedantic about it.
If you want to be creative you can use something like this $$C_mcong C_e;;;C_mdoteq C_e;;;C_msimeq C_e$$
You could even go to crazier places with something like that $$C_mbowtie C_e;;;C_mtriangleright C_e$$
sky is the limit: choose one that you like and define it as "[...] where this symbol is being use to indicate that this constants are numericaly equal [...]"
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I don't think that exists a precise symbol for what you are looking for and sincerely I don't even see a need! You could come up with your notation if you want like stating that the magnitude of that two physical measurement are the same but it will be still imprecise if you want to be pedantic about it.
If you want to be creative you can use something like this $$C_mcong C_e;;;C_mdoteq C_e;;;C_msimeq C_e$$
You could even go to crazier places with something like that $$C_mbowtie C_e;;;C_mtriangleright C_e$$
sky is the limit: choose one that you like and define it as "[...] where this symbol is being use to indicate that this constants are numericaly equal [...]"
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I don't think that exists a precise symbol for what you are looking for and sincerely I don't even see a need! You could come up with your notation if you want like stating that the magnitude of that two physical measurement are the same but it will be still imprecise if you want to be pedantic about it.
If you want to be creative you can use something like this $$C_mcong C_e;;;C_mdoteq C_e;;;C_msimeq C_e$$
You could even go to crazier places with something like that $$C_mbowtie C_e;;;C_mtriangleright C_e$$
sky is the limit: choose one that you like and define it as "[...] where this symbol is being use to indicate that this constants are numericaly equal [...]"
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I don't think that exists a precise symbol for what you are looking for and sincerely I don't even see a need! You could come up with your notation if you want like stating that the magnitude of that two physical measurement are the same but it will be still imprecise if you want to be pedantic about it.
If you want to be creative you can use something like this $$C_mcong C_e;;;C_mdoteq C_e;;;C_msimeq C_e$$
You could even go to crazier places with something like that $$C_mbowtie C_e;;;C_mtriangleright C_e$$
sky is the limit: choose one that you like and define it as "[...] where this symbol is being use to indicate that this constants are numericaly equal [...]"
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
I don't think that exists a precise symbol for what you are looking for and sincerely I don't even see a need! You could come up with your notation if you want like stating that the magnitude of that two physical measurement are the same but it will be still imprecise if you want to be pedantic about it.
If you want to be creative you can use something like this $$C_mcong C_e;;;C_mdoteq C_e;;;C_msimeq C_e$$
You could even go to crazier places with something like that $$C_mbowtie C_e;;;C_mtriangleright C_e$$
sky is the limit: choose one that you like and define it as "[...] where this symbol is being use to indicate that this constants are numericaly equal [...]"
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
answered Jul 28 at 11:58
Davide Morgante
1,724220
1,724220
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2865192%2fnumerical-equality-symbol-for-variables-with-different-units%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I have never seen that, but I also don't see a need.
– Henrik
Jul 28 at 11:50
Given any two quantities with incompatible dimensions, there are units that they could be measured in that would have the same result. One merely has to define the units in such a way they come out to be the same. E.g., measuring distance in "triple nano-feet" instead of in meters. So it is pointless to consider two quantities with incompatible dimensions as being "numerically equal". It is just a chance coincidence that only holds for a particular set of units. When measured in other units, it is not true. There is only value in such comparisons when the dimensions can be measured the same.
– Paul Sinclair
Jul 29 at 2:23