uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?

To: "uom-ontology-std" <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "ingvar_johansson" <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:32:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-id: <62277.83.254.150.253.1254169959.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Gunther,    (01)

despite being a philosopher and not being part of any UoM project, I would
like to answer and comment on your questions.    (02)

> Is there some way we can converge on something?
>
> Could we make a list of requirements described by examples
> for each of the capabilities of the theory.
>
> So, from my UCUM perspective, I would want to know, for
> every operation what the result would be. It's like a list
> of unit test cases that I would use to test my implementation.    (03)

> 1 = 1 : true or false?
True.    (04)

> 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?
True.    (05)

> 1 m = 100 cm : true or false?
True.    (06)

> 1 L/L = 1 kg/kg : true or false?
False; but VIM thinks its true.    (07)

> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
Can't be answered without further symbol specifications.    (08)

> 1.0 m = 1.001 m : true or false?
Can't be answered without further symbol specifications.    (09)

> 0 m = 0 kg : true or false?
False. In principle there may be spatially extended physical entities that
lack rest mass, which means that the statement 'B has a mass of 0 kg' may
true but 'B has a mass of 0 m' false.    (010)

Best,
Ingvar    (011)

> We would make a table of these statements, and add any sort
> of detail to them that we want to exemplify cases in which
> the equivalence (or any other) relation holds.
>
> Then we can use that to come down to one list of requirements
> and we only need to formulate the theory around those
> requirements. We can also challenge the requirements right
> then and there and argue why the relation should or should
> not hold in that case.
>
> I feel like unless we do this, any candidate theory that we
> look at here can be shot down because it fails to distinguish
> something that some (but not all) on this list would want to
> distinguish. So, can we make a table? May be on the Wiki where
> we can maintain a nice table of examples?
>
> thanks,
> -Gunther    (012)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/  
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/  
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>