On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:43 AM, Joe Collins wrote: (01)
> Thank you, Gunther, for providing some specific examples. We won't
> agree on the
> generalities and abstractions until we can agree on the specifics.
>
>> 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?
>
> So, suppose I have two software applications that need to
> communicate and I want
> to check if they would pass the same "type" of information to each
> other.
> I check on both sides and I find that they will exchange something
> of type
> "R x N.m" (outer product of a Real and N.m). Is this sufficient to
> believe that
> they will be exchanging like quantities? (02)
The answer to that question depends on a number of others, in
particular whether what they (you) mean by 'like' is adequately
captured by the dimension expression. If it isn't, then this
hypothetical system is badly designed and they aren't sending the
right information to one another. But that isn't the question that
Gunther posed. His question is much simpler, and has a simpler answer. (03)
>
> The answer is "Maybe". If you don't like multi-valued logic and
> prefer to play
> it safe, then the answer is "No", particularly in this case because
> torque and
> energy are sufficiently closely related that they may be easily
> confused.
>
> The solution is then to use the additional mapping, "Kind", to
> distinguish
> between torque and energy. (In my opinion, SI does NOT equate "N.m
> of torque"
> with "N.m of energy", just N.m with N.m). In this case
> Kind(torque)=torque and
> Kind(energy)=energy. To support type-checking, my type needs to be
> "R x Unit x Kind", where Kind represents the set of possible values
> that that
> mapping can return. The types are the same if the Unit part AND the
> Kind part
> are the same.
> Now when I check the types of data used by the two aforementioned
> applications I
> can distinguish between torque and energy.
> Is this sufficient? I don't think we can say what is sufficient,
> just what is
> safer and safe enough for now. It's definitely safer to use Kind and
> that's what
> SI/VIM gives us to distinguish any otherwise indistinguishable units.
>
> There's only one hitch: Kind is defined in SI (generally) with some
> examples
> given, but the full range of values Kind can take is both *not
> specified* and
> appears unbounded. I don't think this is too big a problem: we just
> need a list
> of everyone's favorites.
>
>
> As for the question
>
>> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
>
> A computer scientist would say: "True, to within floating point
> precision".
>
> A physical scientist would (verbosely) reason: The default
> assumption of
> standard uncertainty tells me that
> "1" means "1 +- 0.5" and
> "1.00" means "1.00 +- .005".
> Of course, this assumption is only valid if the definition of the
> set of
> numerical values supports it. A physical scientist understands,
> however, that
> values devoid of uncertainty are largely meaningless, and, so,
> proceeds with the
> assumption.
>
> To answer the question of equality one must have a definition of
> equality within
> the definition of uncertainty.
> A problem with this question is that physical scientists don't
> usually ask it:
> there is no standard definition of equality.
> To define equality, one needs to go back to the meaning, which is
> that these
> numbers are estimates (based on measurements and perhaps some
> calculation as well).
> The question is more like: "Are these measurements the same value to
> within
> measurement uncertainty?"
>
> Since the standard practice is to apply probabilistic reasoning
> under the
> assumption that the quantity is a random variable with a normal
> (gaussian)
> distribution, where the mean and standard deviation are given
> ("1" means "1 +- 0.5", etc.) the only way we can get a "Yes/No"
> answer is to
> define an acceptance threshold to the overlap integral. An
> acceptance threshold
> is a real number on the interval [0,1]. Having specified a
> threshold, and
> finding that two values pass, we would say: "The measurements are
> the same to
> within measurement uncertainty."
> This usual practice has problems. It assumes that the estimates are
> independent.
> In practice, estimates are often not independent, and the degree of
> dependence
> is unknown. (04)
IMO, this is all beside the point. The question as posed does not
mention accuracy or measurements or anything else. It simply asks
whether 1 is the same as 1.00. And I think the only possible answer
is, yes. (If I were being a computer scientist, I could hallucinate
the integer/FP distinction onto this question, and then the answer
would depend upon the programming language I was using; but this very
fact is evidence that this is not the intended meaning of the
question, surely.) (05)
>
> In this case,
>> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
>
> I believe that the physical scientist and the computer scientist
> will often
> agree, but they would do so for different reasons. It is the physical
> scientist's reasoning that we must support. (06)
Why? I don't think our ontology is intended to be restricted to use
only by physical scientists. (07)
>
> What is required to answer this question? A definition of one or
> more acceptable
> uncertainty representations and corresponding definitions of
> equality. The
> definitions of uncertainty are standard, but definition of equality,
> I don't
> think that is standard. (08)
Well, actually, it is. It means 'the same as'. It does not mean
'nearly the same as' or 'not the same as, but so close that I can't
measure the difference' or 'very likely very close to' or any of these
other notions. Equal means *equal*. If A=B then there is *one thing*
with two names, not two things that are very close. (09)
Pat Hayes (010)
>
>
> Joe C.
>
>
> Gunther Schadow wrote:
>> ingvar_johansson wrote:
>>> one more comment. You asked:
>>>
>>>> 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?
>>> and I said 'true' (and so did Pat H). But this does not imply that
>>> 1 N.m
>>> of energy = 1 N.m of moment of force, since energy and moment of
>>> force are
>>> different kinds of quantities (despite having the same dimension).
>>
>> and that's precisely my point and why I disagree with Pat Hayes
>> that this is not useful. I was asking if 1 N.m = 1 N.m and
>> the answer is ambiguous. The unit is newton-meter, it is not
>> newton-meter-of-energy, therefore, I would argue, that the unit
>> is the same even if the kinds of quantity are different. Unless
>> we agree on this (by either one of us changing our mind) I don't
>> see a value at looking at ontological constructs.
>>
>> I don't want to discuss the N.m issue in particular at this
>> time, only that it's pointless to proceed if there is
>> disagreement about this matter.
>>
>> The question remains what we believe jointly that UoM concepts
>> should do for us. You may want them to preserve the difference
>> between torque and energy, I don't. So the question remains
>> open on the list. But there is no point in proceeding if we
>> don't agree on this. We might, however, agree if we use these
>> example to be more clear about why we have the desire for the
>> UoM concepts to do what we want them to do and possibly how
>> else we might get our desires fulfilled.
>>
>> In my experience with dealing with scientific equations and
>> computations, the units were incredibly useful for (a) converting
>> to a unit that I needed and (b) giving assurance that I probably
>> didn't make some gross error in my equations. Thus, in my
>> experience with dimensioned terms it does not matter in the end
>> whether the m in N.m, was the length of a lever or a distance
>> of displacement, that is all in the concerns that led to my
>> equations. The units function more like a check-digit at the
>> end: if the unit term does not agree with the expected kind of
>> quantity, something went wrong in my calculation or the formula.
>>
>> This is why around UCUM implementation I use the concept of
>> a "DimensionedQuantity". A Quantity is any set of values
>> where at least some values have a difference operation. A
>> DimensionedQuantity is essentially a number with a dimension.
>> Such a quantity for example is 16 N.m. Units are themselves
>> DimensionedQuantities with a name (and the name can be complex
>> such as N.m or even 16.N.m) So, my ontology behaves exactly
>> like the symbols that I write on a sheet of blank paper when
>> I compute my scientific equations. It does not do more nor
>> less than what the units do on paper. I.e., 1 N.m = 1 N.m
>> = 1 kg.m2.s-2 = 1 J.
>>
>> There is nothing you can do to separate these concepts unless
>> by assuming into your theory the detail of all of mechanics
>> (and all of science) which you can't do.
>>
>> BTW, it is not true that N.m of torque and joule of energy
>> are completely unrelated. Because the torque times angle
>> moved is again your energy. Whether or not we maintain a
>> dimension for angle in UCUM is also besides this point. Of
>> course: by adding more distinct dimensions we may be able
>> to preserve more distinctions and by having less dimensions
>> we lose distinctions that we can make by just looking at
>> number and unit. But because I do not expect much more than
>> the function of a "dimensional check digit" and defined
>> conversion rates from the units, I can give or take a few
>> dimensions without much trouble. The only place were I really
>> get into trouble is where we haven't even started to discuss,
>> i.e., idiosyncratic "procedure defined units".
>>
>> regards,
>> -Gunther
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________
> Joseph B. Collins, Ph.D.
> Code 5583, Adv. Info. Tech.
> Naval Research Laboratory
> Washington, DC 20375
> (202) 404-7041
> (202) 767-1122 (fax)
> B34, R221C
> _______________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (011)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (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)
|