Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login


Primary tabs


Hi, would it be necessary to explain the notation "=="? I have never before seen it in 50 years!
I think one shoul write "vice versa" (with a space).

Parting words from the person who closed the correction: 
Hi, would it be necessary to explain the notation "=="? Changed to "=". Same for ":="
Status: Accepted
Reference to the user who closed the correction.: 
Reference to the article this correction is about: 
Status of the article (was it accepted?): 
Status of the article (is it closed?): 
What kind of correction is this: 


The only place that I have ever come across == is in C++. The usage here is interesting, as we really are testing for equality instead of setting $r$ equal to something. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that most of us are math geeks rather than computer science geeks. :-) Thus, I think that = would be more appropriate than ==.

Yeah, it is a CS notation which I mostly approve of. It helps distinguish `=' as an assignment from `=' as a relation.

Interestingly the article uses a mixture of syntax: the symbol ``:='' is the assignment in Pascal programming while while == is a C/Java notation for testing equality. Since the article prefaces the ``:='' symbol by words like "assign" and "set" it seem unnecessary to use := and == notation as there is no ambiguity once the descriptive words are included. (Sorry to suggest it be changed, but unlike CS, in math we can include extra words to make the symbols more meaningful.)

Mathematica also uses " := ", e.g., when setting the first term of a recurrence relation to 1. The last time I programmed in Pascal I still needed help tying my shoes. Thanks for that blast from the past! At work it's all C++.

Subscribe to Comments for ""=="?"