Muon321 Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 Let's say that we had some equation in physics that was v(m+c)/v, which isn't real I am just using it, would you be able to simplify it to m+c? You shouldn't be able to because v for velocity has a possibility of being 0, correct? You can't simplify if you would be cancelling out a variable that could be zero, is this true?
elfmotat Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) This is just algebra: [math]\frac{kx}{x}=k~~ \text{if}~x\neq 0[/math] It's undefined if x=0. Edited March 10, 2013 by elfmotat
timo Posted March 10, 2013 Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Let's say that we had some equation in physics that was v(m+c)/v, which isn't real I am just using it, would you be able to simplify it to m+c? You shouldn't be able to because v for velocity has a possibility of being 0, correct? You can't simplify if you would be cancelling out a variable that could be zero, is this true?There is no clear rule about it, in your example. The original expression obviously does not apply for v=0. In all other cases, the 2nd expression is equal to the first one. So in all cases where the 1st expression applies (*), the 2nd expression is identical, and therefore a valid simplification. On the purely mathematical level, the only difference is that the 2nd expression doesn't explicitly show that the equation isn't supposed to hold true for v=0. If you switch from this out-of-context view of your example to real physics, then things get even more interesting: Assuming that the physical quantity the term represents does not run into some magical undefinedness at v=0 but is somewhat continuous there (**), then the 2nd expression already includes the limit that gives a proper description of what happens at v=0. In this case, the 2nd term may be more appropriate than the 1st. Bottom line: Contrary to widespread public opinion, physics is not math. (*) Strictly speaking: where it formally applies. Physics equations usually come with a lot more restrictions about the applicability, that are usually not mentioned explicitly but assumed to be understood by the reader (who usually is assumed to be a proper physicist or engineer). (**) Note that a physical observable with a discontinuity at v=0 but well-defined behaviour arbitrary close to v=0 would be a strange beast: If an infinitely small deviation from v=0 leads to a completely different behaviour of the variable, then considering you cannot measure anything to an arbitrary degree of accuracy your model to describe nature may be useless, anyway - depending on the context. Edited March 10, 2013 by timo
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now