4
$\begingroup$

One can find many cases that mathematicians and physicists use different notations for the same concepts. Here is a few cases I find.


Inner product of vectors: Mathematicians use $(a,b)$ or $\left<a,b\right>$ for inner product of two vectors $a,b$ while physicists use $\left<a|b\right>$ for vectors $\left.|a\right>,\left.|b\right>$.

Hermitian inner product: Mathematicians adapt rule $\left<\lambda a,b\right>=\lambda\left<a,b\right>=\left<a,\bar\lambda b\right>$ while physcists adapt $\left<\lambda a|b\right>=\lambda^\dagger\left<a|b\right>=\left<a|\lambda^\dagger b\right>$

Tensor notation: Mathematicians tend to use a single letter, say $T$ to express a tensor; while physicists tend to write down every index, say $T^i_j$, for instead of one component, but the whole body.

Summation notation: I think very rigorous mathematicians will not allow $a^kb_k$ to represent $\sum_{k=1}^na_kb_k$.


So my question is, what are other cases do you know about different notations for the same concept? Also, why (what advantages) do they use respectively?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

In a physics or mathematical physics context I've often seen $\int \mathrm{d}x\; f(x)$ rather than $\int f(x) \;\mathrm{d}x$, e.g. in courses I've done on waves, diffusion, and statistical mechanics. Briefly the benefits of the former are the emphasis on integration being a linear operator, and clarity for multi-dimensional integrals. The latter is more familiar and often more convenient, especially in the single-dimensional case. However the preference for one notation or the other can't be divided strictly along maths/physics lines.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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