Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: This is depressing news...Google wants to 'host' Wikipedia..."
- 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 11:39:39 -0500
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....
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: hanson: "Re: This is depressing news...Google wants to 'host' Wikipedia..."
- 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
|
