Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "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 14:58:23 -0500
Albert wrote:
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
>> Albert wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Albert, I learned about radians in high school....
>>
> That isn't what I asked though, is it?
>
No, but if you remembered your lessons on radians, you wouldn't ask the
question, would you?
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "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
|
