3 ms·
I didn't miss the point; the point was "X is not ambiguous if you assume Y to resolve the ambiguity". If you assume that the writer considered kg to only mean
by perl4ever 7y ago
I didn't miss the point; the point was "X is not ambiguous if you assume Y to resolve the ambiguity".
If you assume that the writer considered kg to only mean mass you can infer that they were talking about earth weight in lbs.
But I don't think one can reasonably assume that, when they wrote weight and didn't specify where, when Mars weight would be more relevant.
If someone isn't being clear and precise, then you can't resolve meaning by assuming clarity and precision. Interpretation doesn't govern reality.
This is reminding me very strongly of the perennial discussions of undefined behavior handling by compilers.
- LeifCarrotson 7y agoOh, you think they took a 4 lbs Martian weight and erroneously divided by 2.2 to get kg? The 'assumption' that kilograms mean mass is a fact, not just personal preference, though I can see how a journalist might miss the distinction and make the error if they only had pounds and their editor said "all units must be reported in metric and imperial". Regarding compilers, resolving this would be like checking that a size_t result (guaranteed to be unsigned) was greater than zero. Sure, it's nice when writers make clear their basic assumptions if they expect their readers to have little knowledge of the subject. We're in the unique position of expecting a writer to have little knowledge, expecting them to be self-aware of that, and expecting them to recognize there's a potential distinction to be drawn between Earth weight, Mars weight, and mass.