Re: must numbers in maths be unitless
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: William Elliot: "Re: very simple: intersection of zeroes of two functions"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Repaired: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist"
- In reply to: Johnny: "must numbers in maths be unitless"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:29:21 -0500
In <4289e36c.0501260738.2625ac43@posting.google.com>, on 01/26/2005
at 07:38 AM, transluuuuucent@yahoo.com (Johnny) said:
>I don't even know what I'm asking.
You're confusing a physical measurement with number. A physical
measurement gives the value of a physical quantity in some coordinate
system, and the associated number depends on the coordinate system.
But products or rations of physical quantities might be unitless, and
thus representable by pure numbers. Thus while if x and y are lengths
it is meaningless to compare x^2 to x or y^2 to y, it *IS* meaningful
to compare (x/y)^2 to x/y.
>What should I read?
Google for dimensional analysis. I'm not familiar with the literature,
but there's bound to be a lot.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: William Elliot: "Re: very simple: intersection of zeroes of two functions"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Repaired: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist"
- In reply to: Johnny: "must numbers in maths be unitless"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]