Quantifier problems of equations in physics Equations in physics are often written without quantifiers. For instance, from time to time we can see the equation
$$E = mc^2$$
is casually written down.
I am wondering shouldn't it be written rigorously as something like: For all $E$ in a given range of values and all $m$ in a given range of values, we have
$E =mc^2$?
If not, then logically the equation $E = mc^2$ is sometimes valid and sometimes invalid as $E, m$ run through their given ranges, so that one cannot use "$E = mc^2$" to express what it is intended to mean.
Then how does one incorporate this phys-mathematics writing style, as illustrated in the beginning, with the authentic mathematical writing style, as illustrated in the second paragraph, in the sense of logical rigor?
 A: Excellent points you make. All true too. The written statement you gave is the way one should understand the rest-energy equation. To reconcile the fact that $E=mc^2$ is not always true when $E$ is the total energy (or rather, rest and kinetic energy), we write the full form of the energy equation, which is generally true: $$E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2$$
where $p$ is the momentum of the object.
That way, the logical statement you have written is easily visible. When the object is static, or at rest, its momentum $p=0$ and we recover the famous $E=mc^2$.
In general, this is the same for most physics equations. There is usually an always-true, larger form equation whenever there is a famous sometimes-true equation.
In terms of specifying the range of applicability, we write that in after an equation. Example:
$$E=mc^2,\quad 0\le m<20M_{Pl}$$
this would indicate that the equation $E=mc^2$ is only valid for all values of $m$ that are non-negative and are less than 20 Planck masses. Usually, however, values like mass are assumed to have the restriction that $m\ge0$ as usually negative mass doesn't make sense. Additionally, this is just an example; there is no upper limit on the mass value for that equation.
A: Physics literature is, usually, not strict in using mathematical rigour. The overlap of mathematics and physics is mathematical physics, and people in mathematical physics are usually found in mathematics rather than physics departments. If you look at papers published in journals in this field, like e.g. Comm.Math.Phys, J.Math.Phys., Lett. Math.Phys., ... you can expect to find physical arguments treated with mathematical precision, and the statements of proposition and theorems therein are at the level of rigour you may expect from a mathematical text.
