# Talk:F=ma

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary

**The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.**

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

~~F=ma~~[edit]

It is a formula, made of variables and operators. Silly thing to have here. E=mc² likewise, though somehow we've had that for ages. What next: 1+1=2? That's attestable and conveys meaning too! Equinox ◑ 13:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

- E=mc² is used very much outside of a natural science context and would in my opinion deserve an entry. This one's not, though.
**delete**-- Liliana • 14:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC) **Delete**. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- What part of WT:CFI does this violate? I don't know whether this or any formula should be in Wiktionary, but I would like to see a line or reasoning that connects its deletion to WT:CFI or an amendment to WT:CFI that could win broad support. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that it's sum of parts, just like its English equivalent 'force equals mass times acceleration'. —CodeCat 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
*F*and*=*and*m*are defined as "force", "equals" and "mass", respectively; and*a*most certainly could follow suit by being defined with acceleration in the future. This fact may give weight to the thesis that F=ma is a sum of parts.- Isn't it a product of parts? If it were a sum it would be F = M
A ... Chuck Entz (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)**+**

- Isn't it a product of parts? If it were a sum it would be F = M
- But I think it should be
**kept**anyway, as it's a staple in physics. It certainly meets the CFI rule "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." --Daniel 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- Which is also true of many mathematical equations and expressions, such as πr², 2πr, and the line of computer programming code return 0;. Surely you don't think this stuff belongs here? Equinox ◑ 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- A possible indicator of wider use is the puns that have arisen around some expressions, such as "Farce equals mess time exhilaration", "pie aren't squared, pie are round" Chuck Entz (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

- Which is also true of many mathematical equations and expressions, such as πr², 2πr, and the line of computer programming code return 0;. Surely you don't think this stuff belongs here? Equinox ◑ 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

- This isn't RFV. There's no need to point to CFI as long as one has a good rationale. -- Liliana • 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

- I would say that it's sum of parts, just like its English equivalent 'force equals mass times acceleration'. —CodeCat 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I have added some citations illustrating some usage besides the most obvious types of usage. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Daniel 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @CodeCat: I think it is used as a unit in contexts where the meanings of its components are not previously explained and could not necessarily be assumed to be understood individually. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Liliana-60: I have always viewed RfV as being about challenges to the attestation of terms which meet the other inclusion criteria of CFI and RfD about conformity of attestable terms to WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

- Thank you. --Daniel 15:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

**Keep**. Sometimes goes beyond the SOP explanation of the equivalence of the terms, and is instead used to mean, basically, "here is something fundamental".*bd2412***T**20:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- Delete. SOP (as a CFI-related argument. As a common-sense one:) No one will look this up in a dictionary, instead looking up the individual parts (most likely in the text they're reading rather than a general reference work).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

**Speedy delete**, not a word or an idiom. Linguistically it is not more justifiable than force equals mass times acceleration, in fact it's*less*justifiable, as at least that expression contains some words. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)*Obviously*not a speedy delete due to the controversy. We have not seen fit to exclude symbols and are very loose about SoP: sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- This isn't a symbol, it's a series of symbols. And a series of symbols that doesn't make up a word or words no less. Linguistically quite similar to abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

**Delete**as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- In the 2001 quotation, it is analogous to "the sky is blue" or "the fittest survive" or "people are good", and in the 2010 quotation it is analogous to "the fittest survive". The 2006 citation is analogous to "the quadratic equation is ax
^{2}+ bx + c = 0". - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)- Or a² + b² = c². Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Or H₂SO₃? --Daniel 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, that's chemistry as opposed to mathematics. H₂O could certainly be attested as an English word (pronounced /ˌaɪtʃtuːˈəʊ/ but whether any formula that refers to something specific is includable is questionable, but not a question for this already fairly long debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not H₂SO₃, but like CH
_{4}+ 2 O_{2}→ CO_{2}+ 2 H_{2}O. (For that matter, like "two hydrogens plus one oxygen yields one dihydrogen oxide"!) - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

- Or H₂SO₃? --Daniel 15:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

- Or a² + b² = c². Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

**Delete**—**Internoob**03:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)**Delete**--Hekaheka (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)**An additional point**: this isn't English. If anything, it's Translingual. But its real language is the language of mathematics, which also covers expressions like*a>b*,*a=b+2*,*c<(b+3)/4*, and all kinds that we wouldn't include. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)- In its most common use, you are certainly right. I think the issue is whether there is enough usage, something like the citations, in which it departs sufficiently in its manner of usage to warrant inclusion. There are probably a handful of such formulas that would be candidates for inclusion, "e = mc
^{2}" being one. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

- In its most common use, you are certainly right. I think the issue is whether there is enough usage, something like the citations, in which it departs sufficiently in its manner of usage to warrant inclusion. There are probably a handful of such formulas that would be candidates for inclusion, "e = mc
- I don't know about F=ma, but with e=mc
^{2}, there's a case that it doesn't really mean energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, it means "scientific magic" in many of its appearances. It's more than a statement in the language of science. I don't know of F-ma has made that yet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)