Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:49:38 +0000 (UTC)
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> writes:
>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?
You should find it in your undergraduate calculus text, and
possibly in your high school trigonometry text.
- Next message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|