On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I disagree, 1/s is the definition of the hertz, period (pun accidental :-). > > Sorry, but that's just not true. There are other 1/s quantities that > have nothing to do with cycles, like the becquerel: > > http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/siderive.html
I stand corrected; the SI standard does state the purpose of the hertz. From http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf: "Although it would be formally correct to write all three of these units as the reciprocal second, the use of the different names emphasises the different nature of the quantities concerned." (I could make an argument out of the "formally correct" part, but I'm not going to do pursue that...) Anyway, my main disagreement was with "units are not the most rigorous of mathematical constructs". As mathematical constructs, using only their formal definitions, units are perfectly rigorous. It is the interpretation of units that is sometimes nonrigorous (we seem to agree on this). Fredrik --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
