1. We must have strings as a data type in physics.
   
2. For a discipline pretending to be a “mathematical! science!” physics does not even have a rigorous data typing system.
   
3. This places physics, in the hierarchy of sciences, below computer science.
   
4. In computer programming, you have numbers and strings, among other data types.
   
5. I propose to introduce “string data type” to physics.
   
6. If a term cancels out of an equation, it is either a placeholder or a label; it cannot be a quantity relevant to that equation.
   
7. Such terms must be indicated as strings and enclosed in double quotation marks.
   
8. So, we should write that famous double definition written as \(F=ma\), as, \enquote{F} = \enquote{m} \(a\).
   
9. Because the only non-cancelling physical quantity in \(F=ma\) is acceleration, \(a\), which is
   

\begin{equation*} a = {{\rm distance} \over ({\rm unit \; time}) \times ({\rm unit\; time})} \end{equation*}

10. So \(F = ma\) merely declares “acceleration” and “force” to be synonymes.
    
11. By writing \enquote{F} and \enquote{m} as strings in double quotation marks we make clear that they are placeholders and not real physical quantites..
    
12. Next, we should make illegal to load the equation sign with for meanings: definition, equality, identity, and proportionality.
    
13. No science can have a notation as fundametal as the equation sign to be a loaded sign. A loaded sign belongs to casuistry not to science.
    
14. But no physicist will ever obey these rules and give up his freedom to practice casuistry.
    

p.xlvii

1. A general problem with using ewuations is that they assume dhe definition of standard units for all variables, and this assumption presupposes the whole structure of mathematical physics that Newton was beginning to develop.
   
2. In othor words, it's anachronistic.
   
3. We must always bear in mind, as we study this book, that there were no such things as "grams" or "newtons" that could be plugged into equations.
   
4. The ideas of force, mass, and so on, were defined in terms of ratios, and their relationships were explored and developed in the course of the book.
   
5. To treat them as magnitudes given in themselves is to obscure the way these ideas grew out of Newton's work.