When should I use $=$ and $\\equiv$? - Mathematics Stack Exchange There are separate symbols for those meanings, including $\triangleq$ and ≝ (Unicode 0x225d) The $\equiv$ symbol has been used for this purpose so often that this is now sometimes considered a correct usage The $\equiv$ symbol was also repurposed to mean a congruence relationship like several of the other answers have discussed
notation - What is the difference between $=$ and $\equiv . . . For identities sometimes $\equiv $ is used instead of $=$ for example we may use $ e^{i\theta} \equiv \cos \theta + i \sin \theta$ or $\sin ^2 x + \cos ^2 x \equiv 1$ or $(x+y)^2 \equiv x^2+y^2+2xy$ to emphasize that this is an identity not an equation
How is the unit of measure equivalent abbreviated? According to the American Chemical Society page CAS Standard Abbreviations Acronyms, the abbreviation for the unit of measurement 'equivalent' is equiv, while that of the adjective 'equivalent' is equiv (with a dot) Also, the ACS page Standard Abbreviations and Acronyms, shows equation abbreviated to eq and equivalent as equiv
Appropriate Notation: $\\equiv$ versus - Mathematics Stack Exchange The notation $\equiv$ is also (sometimes) used to mean that, but it also have other uses such as $4\equiv0$ (mod 2) I encountered $:=$ a lot more than $\equiv$ , and it is my personal favourite There is also the notation $\overset{\Delta}{=}$ to mean "equal by definition"
Question of style: equiv vs. equals - Mathematics Stack Exchange I understand your point about using $\equiv$ to denote equivalence according to some defined equivalence class However, I often see $\equiv$ used simply to define a simpler notation for something In those cases, no equivalence class is put forward to govern the binary $\equiv$ operator Are such uses incorrect, technically? $\endgroup$ –
What is the difference between $\\leftrightarrow$, $\\iff$, and . . . $\begingroup$ My posts about the difference between $\equiv$ and $\iff$ and the difference between $\implies$ and $\rightarrow$ are apropos Echoing the other commenters here with my usual caveat: "symbolic logic is an area rife with conflicting notation, terminology and even notions; my understanding is eclectically evolving "