Equals is generally used unless using a verb "is" and the phrase "equal to". While reading 3 ft = 1 yd you would say "three feet equals a yard," or "three feet is equal to a yard".
Equals is correct, as is is equal to. There are some instances when one might use are, but that would be limited to when a quantity separates are from equal to, and would sound correct, but not necessarily be mathematically correct.
Which of the following examples is/are phrased correctly? Twenty divided by five is four. Twenty divided by five equals four. Twenty divided by five is equal to four. Are all the options correct ...
But in the example in question, equals is not actually being used as a verb. When used as a verb, equals is used in the following manner: X equals Y. But here is a simplified version of the example sentence in question: They stood as equals. In fact, if you look at the heading Recent Examples on the Web: Noun, you'll see the following example:
As a programmer I have always assumed that using != as meaning not equal to when writing text (usually on the internet) came from programming languages. Is this true or is the origin different?
This wrongly conflates 'Two plus two equals four' and 'Two plus two is equal to four'. In symbols, 2 + 2 = 4 The equals sign is equivalent to 'equals' (no matter whether the LHS, the preceding, is a single number or twenty) or 'is equal to' (no matter whether the LHS, the preceding, is a single number or twenty). It can be read out either way (the shorter way is, as you might expect, more usual).
According to one of the questions already asked on EL&U, “E = mc²” is read as E equals M C squared. How do we read “E = (mc)²” so that it is not mistaken for “E = mc²”?
four plus two equals six In your first example sentence, " equal " is being used as a verb in the third person singular form: equals. four plus two is equal to six In your second example, " equal " is being used as an adjective, and so it needs to employ a linking verb (in this case, " be " or " is ") before it. The " to " after it is a ...
The only single words that I can think of that have ever been used to mean that have lost the meaning through the somewhat natural process where the "among equals" part becomes more or less of a joke: prince and its Latin root princeps. In phrases, first citizen is commonly employed, and the plain Latin for first among equals, primus inter pares, has some history behind it.
