On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 22:18, Fredrik Johansson <fredrik.johans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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).
Yes, that is a fair point. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
