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.

  • 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 Nov 10 '15 at 15:38

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|||||

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|||||
  • The original poster's example seems formal. "we'll" might not be formal enough. – Jasper Dec 11 '15 at 21:46
  • I think present tense works here "we omit...". – Justin Young Dec 16 '15 at 13:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.