1

I am trying to express the following idea: I have L(t) and F(t) to denote that L and F are functions of t. Now, for the rest of the text, I want to use a shorter notation, that is L and F instead of L(t) and F(t).
My attempt:

For notational convenience we will drop the notation for dependence on t and L ...

Could you please help me in adding, in this same sentence, the fact that "we also drop the notation for dependence between t and F ?

P.S.:Please don't hesitate to edit the title to give a better description to my question.

Improve this question
1
  • 4
    If you describe once that L and F are functions of one variable, t, then you don't usually need to justify omitting the parentheses. Something like "Let L and F be functions of t: L=L(t), F=F(t)." and just keep using L and F afterwards.
    – Victor Bazarov
    Commented Nov 10, 2015 at 15:38

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

I would just say "for convenience, we drop the input notation t", or "...the notation for dependence on t". It is implied you mean for both functions L and F.

Improve this answer
1

Omit is the word you want, it means "supposed to be there but not included."

Leave out will work as well and sound a bit less technical.

... for convenience, we'll omit the input notation the notation for dependence on t and L ...

Improve this answer
2
  • The original poster's example seems formal. "we'll" might not be formal enough.
    – Jasper
    Commented Dec 11, 2015 at 21:46
  • I think present tense works here "we omit...".
    – user26236
    Commented Dec 16, 2015 at 13:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .