Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Neil W Rickert (rickert+nn_at_cs.niu.edu)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: SF: Back to theory"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "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"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:59:44 +0000 (UTC)
lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
><nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>In the context of angles it is. Radian is a unit of anglular
>>measurement. Pi is just a number. In the context pi radians was meant.
>Yeah, Bob, I'm just glad I didn't say pi when I meant pi radians for a
>straight angle or you and the peanut gallery would have been laughing
>up your sleeves for days. So maybe I should rephrase a previous
>question and ask if pi falls on pi? Context is everything, Bob.
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.
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Tim Peters: "Re: SF: Back to theory"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "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"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|