... But I'll still mull it a bit, to see if there is anything else I'm missing.

And I'm perfectly fine at determining real meaning from real-language. Still working at determining real meaning from symbolic-language.

But I'm still of the opinion that the equations are simply short-hand formal expressions of "concept" and meaningless on their own. If the expression doesn't tell you anything useful that you can "understand," on some level it's useless outside of a purely theoretical context.

IE, ((n+r)/v) - x + 2 is meaningless on its own. It's a string of letters and symbols.

A string of characters is meaningless without a conception of "meaning." If you assign no meaning to the specific letters/variables, or assign no meaning to the symbols used arithmetically, then all you have is a gibberish with no meaning whatsoever. Usage is not divisible from understanding. It's only through conception and "understanding" that usage/syntax mean something. Of course the above "function" *was* gibberish written as example of gibberish. But anyway.

But then this is getting into philosophy, and I'm really not looking to get into a philosophical argument, as that's really not what this is about.

As I said, I'll mull what he's said, but thus far he hasn't said anything that has changed my mind about the need for an underlying "meaning" of expressions. I'm basically of the opinion that an expression must have a meaning, or a real equivalent in order for it to "mean" anything other than a gibberish of letters and symbols.

I can plug info into equatiosn all day long and derive the right answers. But plugging in numbers does nothing toward understanding what you're saying with them. It's the "meaning" (or conception of the actual process going on) not the "syntax" that I'm interested in.

I suppose it could be likened to learning the syntax of a language, how to use specific types of words in conjunction with each other, but never being given a dictionary to define the specific words. Thus no conceptualization can take place, and nothing meaningful is derived.

IE, A rainy car is ubiquitously normal in cases of equine holocaust.

The sentence structure and syntax are fine, adjective describes noun, noun is described as doing something and qualified with an adverb, and it's put in the context of an event. But, the words are wrong, and no meaning is derived. It's gibberish. To create a meaningful sentence requires more than syntax, it requires defintions as well. Relationships to other words and conceptualization of all parts as a whole. Ths is my point. My question is one of definition rather than syntax.

In what manner do we use mass in a mathematical sentence. (Syntax)
vs.
What is mass and how does it operate. (Definition)

Clearer? I'm more interested in the latter.

I'm now aware of the formulas for how we use it in determining momentum, force, power, etc. However, they have not enlightened me on exactly what the thing called mass is, or how it, in and of itself, operates.

We can debate philosophy of language, conceptualization, etc. all day and go in circles. But, I'd prefer not to get into those realms, sinec they don't address the original question.

But, thanks to everyone for the input. It's appreciated. :) And I'll mull some more.

Cheers,
~Michael