&gt;Even every proof can be expressed as a program, see Curry–Howard correspondence<p>Well, that is true, but that&#x27;s still pretty far removed from any common programming language. And readability doesn&#x27;t usually improve.<p>&gt;For a physicist PV=nRT is concise and clear but for everyone else?<p>You&#x27;ve somewhat got a point there, physics would be a lot easier if all formulas and variables were actually defined when needed. But symbolic notation is still a necessity, simply because symbolic manipulation is really powerful, and it&#x27;s a pain to have to write &#x27;BOLTZMAN_CONSTANT&#x27; every single time, instead of just k_B.<p>Also, your notation might work for simple equations like the ideal gas equation, but an equation that&#x27;s only slightly more complicated, the van der Waals equation, would become quite hideous:<p><pre><code>    (pressure + number_of_particles^2 * attraction &#x2F; volume^2) * (volume &#x2F; number_of_particles + excluded_volume) == BOLTZMANN_CONSTANT * number_of_particles * temperature
</code></pre>
I really wouldn&#x27;t want to have to write that out several times just to do some calculations with it.