Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:54:47 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:25:20 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Albert wrote:
>> Did you just make this up? Or is there an official 'Style Guide' that
>> specifies this?
>
>Nope. It is standard usage to drop "radian" from the text when angles
>are the subject. The radian is the only natural (i.e. intrinsic) measure
>of a planar angle. On the sphere the steradian is used as the natural
>solid angle measure. The total roundabout solid angle is 4*pi steradians.
>
>Degrees and grads are arbitrary units and are not derived from the
>nature of the geometric figure at all. We use degrees because Babylonian
>astrologers had a thing about the the numbers 60 and 360. Aside from the
>familiarity we have with the degree system there is really very little
>to recommend it.
So does pi fall on pi?
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
