Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] explanatory and response variables (was calibration )



Yesterday I wrote:
I see no harm in using well established mathematical terms --
dependent and independent variable -- in particular contexts.

John D. responded:
What evidence is there that "independent variable" is a well-established
/mathematical/ term? If I search a large mathematical encyclopedia,
I get zero hits for that term:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/search/?query=independent+variable

It seems we must first agree on the operation definition of the phrase
" well established mathematical term."

Here is my suggestion: Randomly select 20 calculus textbooks in a math library. A word or phrase is "a well established mathematical term" if it is found in at least 80% of textbooks. The textbooks should be up to 60 years old. Why up to 60? Because I was introduced to these two terms about 60 years ago. They were in Polish -- zmeinna zalezhna and zmienna niezalezhna.

John, if you accept this operational definition then I will be happy to conduct an investigation. If not then please suggest a better definition, in the context of our concern. I think that most physics and engineering majors were introduced to the concept of dependent and independent variables via mathematics. To them these terms are "widely known."
_______________________________________________________
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physicist
5 Horizon Road, apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/