Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:42:00 -0600

Neil W Rickert wrote:
> 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.

The question was not about where I could learn about radians, but
rather where I would learn:

"Adding the superfluous word "radians" is optional, and
at the discretion of the writer/speaker."

"The only reason to ever specify is to avoid ambiguity
with unnatural units such as degrees."

The question is about writing style, not mathematics. 

-- 
"Mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence"
	-- Time Bandits

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Neil W Rickert wrote: ... Or is there an official 'Style Guide' ... >>that specifies this? ... The question was not about where I could learn about radians, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Neil W Rickert wrote: ... Or is there an official 'Style Guide' ... >>that specifies this? ... The question was not about where I could learn about radians, ...
    (sci.math)