Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Physics, there is the index of refraction $n$. Sometimes, it will be just a scalar, sometimes it will be a function of the wave number $k$. I often see $n = n(k)$ to denote that $n$ is actually a function of $k$. Since in Physics the function arguments are often omitted, this kind of works.

But I would think (maybe more from a programming perspective) that $n$ is a function then and $n(k)$ a scalar, the value of $n$ at $k$.

Would it be only correct to write $n \colon k \mapsto n(k)$ in such situtations?

share|improve this question
1  
I think $n$ is written as a function of $k$ only when it is important to do so; if working with general properties of $n$ that does not depend on $k$ it is irrelevant. –  Marra Apr 12 '13 at 11:47

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is somewhat of an overload of the letter $n$, but in some cases it is clear enough to be acceptable.

For example if $n(k)$ is some index, and we want to focus on one particular $k$ for the moment, and not carry the $n(k)$ around everywhere. In such cases it can be acceptable to write "Let $n=n(k)$, then $X_n$ bla bla bla".

A particular example is some family of subsets of $\Bbb N$, $\{A_n\mid n\in\Bbb N\}$. And for every $k$ we let $n(k)$ to be the least index such that $k\in A_{n(k)}$. Now we want to focus on what happens for a particular $k$, so we may write "Let $n=n(k)$, then $A_n$ ...".

share|improve this answer
    
Okay, so in a very strict sense it is not okay. That is what I wanted to know. –  queueoverflow Apr 12 '13 at 11:57
    
Think about it in the context of real numbers for a moment, writing $f=f(x)$ and treating $f$ as a number makes no sense. This is the same issue here, only when it comes to indexing it is often well-understood where $n$ is a function and where it is the particular index of interest. –  Asaf Karagila Apr 12 '13 at 11:59

It would probably be better to write $n_k = n(k)$ or something to that effect. If you consider the function as a map, it's more logical.

$n = n(k)$ makes me think that you mean "The value of $n(x)$ for any $x$ is equal to the value of $n(x)$ at $k$."

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.