From: Phil Richards (news_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-13 12:45:47
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:35:34 -0500, Dan W. wrote:
> Dimension IS needed, but not in the semantic context that it is used in
> the current proposals --namely, as an identifier for a set of
> dimensionally equivalent units. It is rather needed to disambiguate
> dimensionally equivalent units that should non-the-less be treated
> Sets of dimensionally equivalent units may need to be split into different
> dimensions, to denote != meanings. Cases found so far:
> torque vs. work
Ok, I'll bite. Some questions about practical usage.
What is the result of
torque(1.0) / work(1.0)
? I assume it has dimensionality "torque^1,work^-1". Or does it have no
If you've got work, I assume you've also got time, mass, length as either
base dimensions or derived dimensions. What is the dimensionality of
0.5 * mass(1.0) * power<2>(length(3.0) / time(4.0))
? torque^1? work^1? Neither?
If you can give an example of how you would expect a unit system based
that has torque and work as distinguished dimensions, it would certainly
help me get my head round things.
-- change name before "@" to "phil" for email
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk