Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:05:37 -0600
Neil W Rickert wrote:
<snip>
> In a mathematical context, angles are given in the natural form of
> expression. Adding the superfluous word "radians" is optional, and
> at the discretion of the writer/speaker.
>
> The use of radians is not a choice of measurement unit. It is the
> natural unit. The only reason to ever specify is to avoid ambiguity
> with unnatural units such as degrees.
>
Did you just make this up? Or is there an official 'Style Guide'
that specifies this?
-- "Mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence" -- Time Bandits
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|