Making math more Lego-like
Why do this rather then define an abstract, human-evaluatable, programming language? Give it some S-expr syntax and make more things implicit and you&#x27;re golden.<p>Making strange squigles on a page doesn&#x27;t help. Making strange greek symbols on the page doesn&#x27;t help. Writing functions, &quot;unit tests&quot;, building on abstractions, and creating &quot;libraries&quot; do help. We all know this because it works well in CS. Why would this not work well in physics?<p>Ditch the alphabet soup (and yes, even the 5th centry Greek alphabet soupe). Abstract common ideas into &quot;functions&quot;. Write human-provable &quot;test-cases&quot;. Add documentation. Use logically derived variable names (even if they&#x27;re 5-10 characters). Formalize the definitions and syntax of this language and it&#x27;s abilities. You&#x27;d be golden.<p>Phi shouldn&#x27;t mean 30 things depending on the field you&#x27;re in.<p>Am I wrong? Is this not possible? Is there a reason as to why math and logic can&#x27;t be expressed as an abstract programing language? Is there a reason why it wouldn&#x27;t be better to have a completely standard way as to how to define all of your algorithms and logical assertions?<p>I could be wrong but no one has provided information as to why what we do is better. Nor does this look much better (what kmill has linked).