equivalence/equivalent used throughout

[HowardCohl]

It seems that the word equivalence, equivalent, etc., is used in many places in the paper. I thought we were not going to use this word. If you are to use it, then you need to define what you mean specifically by equivalent.

[AndreG-P]

@HowardCohl you were right that the term was not correctly used in some places. However, in other cases its ok to use the word.

We were not going to use this word for translations because we cannot use the term equivalence to compare between different systems. However, when we are talking about equivalence in one system it is fine to use the word.

At some points we still using the word. For example:

[...] we would assume that the inputs $4b$' and$b4$' are mathematically equivalent;

Here we compare two expressions in the same system so they can be equivalent, such as 4b and b4. Another example is in Section 7, the 2nd item in the list:

Function Relation Tests (Symbolical): translates mathematically proven equivalent expressions from one system to a \gls*{cas} and evaluates whether the relation remains valid via symbolical equivalence checks.

We say that we use mathematically proven equivalent expressions. Here we mean equations that are given in the DLMF which are proven to be equivalent (equivalence between right-hand and left-hand sides).

Does this makes sense now? You can close the ticket if it does.

[HowardCohl]

Everything here looks good.