On May 10, 2:14 am, "AngleWyrm" <anglew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Chip Eastham" <hardm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:14eeff6b-7d31-4725-8725-2e335e6e774c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sometimes a polynomial is only a polynomial.
>
> > You are ascribing units of length to the unknown
> > x. It's not necessarily so. One might consider
> > complex values for x with no units of measurement
> > (a pure number). It depends on the application.
>
> Are you saying that polynomial numbers cannot have units of measure?
No, I'm saying you cannot specify a unit of measure
to accompany the value of a polynomial, for your
particular application. I stated that it's "not
necessarily so" that the unit will always be one
of length/distance for x, as you assert without
explanation in starting the thread.
If you intend that x is a value that can be added
to itself as well as multiplied by itself, then
supplying units of measure to x (versus taking x
to be a "pure number" as I described) is
problematic.
Regarding the pure number x = 2, we can certainly
say 2+2 = 2*2.
But regarding x = 2 feet, we cannot say that
2 feet + 2 feet is the same as 2 feet * 2 feet,
because the former is 4 feet and the latter is
4 square feet. They have different units of
measure.
I hope we can agree that 2 has a meaning of
"twoness" that is abstracted from any specific
application calling for 2 feet, 2 gallons, or
2 pounds. The notion of pure number is simply
that meaning of a value without units of
measurement. It would be a straw man argument
to claim that being able to do without units
of measure means one can never supply them.
As I said, we supply units of measure (with
consistency) as the application requires.
regards, chip
|
