equals with

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "equals with" is not correct in standard written English.
It is typically used incorrectly when trying to express equivalence or comparison between two things. Example: "In mathematics, two plus two equals with four is incorrect; it should be 'equals four.'"

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

*Citigroup reaches merger of equals with Wal-Mart.

The New York Times

Lincoln is first among equals with 10 nominations.

The Guardian - Film

Similarly, he said, "very few of the present justices have interacted as equals with Hispanic professionals".

The New York Times

Both deals have been presented as mergers of equals with laborious governance arrangements to boot.

The Economist

The computer has something to do with it; we're used to being engaged more as equals with our information sources".

The New York Times - Magazine

That too puts us in the "community of equals" with apes; female chimpanzees are known to eat rivals' babies.

The New York Times

P&O Princess has repeatedly rejected Carnival's takeover attempts in favor of a "merger of equals" with Royal Caribbean.

The New York Times

Abbey National has repeatedly rebuffed Lloyds advances, preferring instead to pursue a merger of equals with the Bank of Scotland.

The New York Times

"By de-narcotizing the relationship, we would recognize each other as equals, with dignity for each state".

The New York Times

The boys are presented as equals, with strong-willed Noh pursuing Phun as much as Phun chases him.

The New Yorker

Once scorned by snooty London, it is now preparing for a marriage of equals with its bigger British rival.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing relationships, clarify the context using synonyms like "equivalent", "comparable", or "on par" for better accuracy and clarity.

Common error

Do not treat "equals" as a verb requiring a preposition. "Equals" by itself already implies a state of equivalence. Adding "with" is redundant and grammatically incorrect.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "equals with" functions as a prepositional phrase attempting to express equivalence or similarity. However, according to Ludwig AI, it is grammatically incorrect. The examples show its usage in contexts where a comparison or a statement of equality is intended.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

30%

Encyclopedias

25%

Science

20%

Less common in

Wiki

10%

Formal & Business

8%

Reference

7%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, while the phrase "equals with" appears frequently across various sources, Ludwig AI identifies it as grammatically incorrect. It attempts to express equivalence, but the addition of "with" is redundant. For clear and correct writing, alternatives like "is equal to", "equivalent to", or "on par with" are preferable. Despite its common occurrence, especially in News & Media, Encyclopedias, and Scientific contexts, relying on grammatically sound alternatives enhances credibility and precision. Remember to avoid "equals with" in formal contexts.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

equal to

This is the most direct and grammatically correct way to express equivalence.

on par with

This suggests a level of similarity or equality in status or quality.

equivalent to

This indicates an equal value or meaning.

the same as

This denotes an identical quality or characteristic.

comparable to

This implies similarity for the purpose of comparison, although not necessarily perfect equality.

akin to

This suggests a resemblance or similarity in nature or quality.

tantamount to

This means equivalent in seriousness to something, often something negative.

in line with

This shows an alignment or agreement with a standard or expectation.

matching

This indicates a correspondence or similarity, often used in the context of pairing or comparison.

corresponding to

This suggests a direct relationship or equivalence between two things.

FAQs

Why is "equals with" considered grammatically incorrect?

The verb "equals" already signifies equivalence, making the addition of "with" redundant. A correct usage would be "is equal to" or simply "equals."

What can I say instead of "equals with"?

You can use alternatives like "equal to", "on par with", or "equivalent to" depending on the context.

Which is correct, "equals with" or "is equal to"?

"Is equal to" is the grammatically correct option. "Equals with" is considered incorrect. Consider using alternatives like "matching" or "corresponding to".

What's the difference between "equals with" and "is the same as"?

"Equals with" is grammatically incorrect. "Is the same as" is a correct phrase used to indicate identity or equivalence. Use "akin to" or "tantamount to" for more expressive synonyms.