One of my biggest beefs about mathematical and engineering articles is the inclusion of equations without defining what (all) the terms mean. Wikipedia does this all the time, and as best I can see it’s actually worse than just writing random strings of nonsense.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
YES! To say nothing of the time spent scrolling back going "wait, what is k here?" until you just realize that... it's not defined anywhere.
2 replies 1 retweet 41 likes -
Replying to @ErickGalinkin
A “k” happens to be *exactly* the variable that I was commenting about!
2 replies 0 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @ErickGalinkin
I remember that a lot of the semiconductor physics articles on Wikipedia used to suffer a lot from this problem. (I don't dare to check the current state. :) I remember "k" being particularly nasty, because usually it's just the Boltzmann constant, but sometimes it isn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think that's because ppl are copying formulas from textbooks without fully understanding them (yet). I also remember the article for the Shockley equation describing the temperature dependency incorrectly bc the author didn't seem to understand I_s(T). But that's fixed now.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I_s = reverse bias saturation current T = temperature ;)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.