6 ms·

How can we compute angle - (angle^3)/6? 360 - (360^3)/6 = -7M degrees or is it this? 2pi - (2 pi)^3 / 6 = -35 radians = -2k degrees Or maybe this

How can we compute angle - (angle^3)/6? 360 - (360^3)/6 = -7M degrees or is it this? 2*pi - (2 * pi)^3 / 6 = -35 radians = -2k degrees Or maybe this? 1 - (1^3)/6 = 0.8 turns = 300 degrees They're wildly inconsistent because I'm not taking the units into account and we have to take the units into account.

eigenket 3y ago
Units are not the same as dimensions, something can have a dimension of 1 (which is what we usually mean by "dimensionless") and still have different units, just as something can have a dimension of length but still be measured in meters or feet. As far as you three examples go, which is "correct" depends on what you are trying to calculate - if you want this to approximate the power series for sin close to 0 you should use radians. Otherwise you use something else.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  Sure, but that's orthogonal to the "angles don't really have units" assertion and the "it does make sense to add an angle to its cube" assertion, which are the ones I'm responding to. As another example for the second assertion, you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed, etc, which comes up all the time. But that doesn't mean `dimensionless + seconds + seconds^2` implies seconds are dimensionless any more than sin's series with `angle + angle^3` implies that angles are dimensionless.
  - eigenket 3y ago
    If you say "angles have units" I agree with you - obviously you can measure them in degrees or radians or whatever you want. I was responding to the claim > Angles aren't dimensionless any more than lengths are dimensionless They are dimensionless, but they still have units. The concepts are orthogonal. As for the question about adding an angle to its cube, I would say the enormous usefulness of computing trig functions by power series suggests strongly that this is meaningful.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
      > I would say the enormous usefulness of computing trig functions by power series suggests strongly that this is meaningful. That argument holds just as true for dimensional quantities frequently computed by power series though, which means it can't be valid.
      - eigenket 3y ago
        I would argue that dimensionful quantities are never used as arguments to power series, however you are correct that this does not imply that angles are dimensionless, since (like we do with other quantities, we can divide by whatever unit we like to get something dimensionless). I withdraw that argument. A better argument that angles are dimensionless is that dimensionless quantities are formed by the ratio of two quantities with the same dimension, and the angle subtended by an arc in a circle is given by the ratio of the arc length and the radius.
    - adrian_b 3y ago
      > They are dimensionless, but they still have units. The concepts are orthogonal. The concepts are not orthogonal, they are incompatible. A dimensionless quantity (which angles are not) is by definition the ratio of two quantities that are measured with the same unit. When you compute the ratio by division, the two identical units disappear from the result, therefore the result is indeed dimensionless. There is no way to choose a unit for a dimensionless quantity in the usual sense. At most you could define a new different dimensionless quantity, as the ratio of two dimensionless quantities, i.e. as a ratio of ratios, but because it needs a different definition this should better be viewed as a different quantity, not as the same quantity with a different unit.
      - eigenket 3y ago
        Ok, you've replied to quite a lot of my comments, with some fairly confusingly worded responses. Some of your claims appear to be incompatible as far as I read them. For example you claim that angles are not dimensionless, but that dimensionless quantities are formed by the ratio of two quantities with the same unit. Since the angle subtended by an arc in a circle is the ratio of the arc length and radius, it would seem that these two claims contradict each other. I do agree that without some aditional work the power series argument I wrote above does seem to be wrong.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed The argument of exp does have to be dimensionless, exactly because adding seconds to seconds squared doesn't work. If t has units of time, there has to be another factor with units of inverse time, for example continuous compound interest is exp(rate*time).
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Actually the dimensions are by definition the same as the fundamental units, i.e. the units that are chosen freely, independently of all other units. A dimensional formula of a quantity just writes its unit as a function of the fundamental units. In any equality of physical quantities, in the two sides not only the dimensionless numeric values must be equal, but also the units must be equal, which is usually expressed by saying that the dimensions must be the same, and it is verified by writing in both sides the dimensional formulae, i.e. the units of both sides as functions of the fundamental units. A dimensionless quantity is a ratio of two quantities that are measured by the same unit, so that the units simplify during the division. There may be different but related dimensionless quantities, which are differentiated by different definitions of those quantities, but a dimensionless quantity cannot have different units. This is just meaningless mumbo-jumbo that has been sadly introduced in the documents of the International System of Units, in 1995, after a shameful vote of the delegates, who have voted automatically, without thinking or discussing, a vote equivalent with establishing by vote that 2 + 2 = 5.

How can we compute angle - (angle^3)/6? 360 - (360^3)/6 = -7M degrees or is it this? 2*pi - (2 * pi)^3 / 6 = -35 radians = -2k degrees Or maybe this

eigenket 3y ago

Units are not the same as dimensions, something can have a dimension of 1 (which is what we usually mean by "dimensionless") and still have different units, just as something can have a dimension of length but still be measured in meters or feet. As far as you three examples go, which is "correct" depends on what you are trying to calculate - if you want this to approximate the power series for sin close to 0 you should use radians. Otherwise you use something else.

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
Sure, but that's orthogonal to the "angles don't really have units" assertion and the "it does make sense to add an angle to its cube" assertion, which are the ones I'm responding to. As another example for the second assertion, you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed, etc, which comes up all the time. But that doesn't mean `dimensionless + seconds + seconds^2` implies seconds are dimensionless any more than sin's series with `angle + angle^3` implies that angles are dimensionless.
- eigenket 3y ago
  If you say "angles have units" I agree with you - obviously you can measure them in degrees or radians or whatever you want. I was responding to the claim > Angles aren't dimensionless any more than lengths are dimensionless They are dimensionless, but they still have units. The concepts are orthogonal. As for the question about adding an angle to its cube, I would say the enormous usefulness of computing trig functions by power series suggests strongly that this is meaningful.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
    > I would say the enormous usefulness of computing trig functions by power series suggests strongly that this is meaningful. That argument holds just as true for dimensional quantities frequently computed by power series though, which means it can't be valid.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      I would argue that dimensionful quantities are never used as arguments to power series, however you are correct that this does not imply that angles are dimensionless, since (like we do with other quantities, we can divide by whatever unit we like to get something dimensionless). I withdraw that argument. A better argument that angles are dimensionless is that dimensionless quantities are formed by the ratio of two quantities with the same dimension, and the angle subtended by an arc in a circle is given by the ratio of the arc length and the radius.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    > They are dimensionless, but they still have units. The concepts are orthogonal. The concepts are not orthogonal, they are incompatible. A dimensionless quantity (which angles are not) is by definition the ratio of two quantities that are measured with the same unit. When you compute the ratio by division, the two identical units disappear from the result, therefore the result is indeed dimensionless. There is no way to choose a unit for a dimensionless quantity in the usual sense. At most you could define a new different dimensionless quantity, as the ratio of two dimensionless quantities, i.e. as a ratio of ratios, but because it needs a different definition this should better be viewed as a different quantity, not as the same quantity with a different unit.
    - eigenket 3y ago
      Ok, you've replied to quite a lot of my comments, with some fairly confusingly worded responses. Some of your claims appear to be incompatible as far as I read them. For example you claim that angles are not dimensionless, but that dimensionless quantities are formed by the ratio of two quantities with the same unit. Since the angle subtended by an arc in a circle is the ratio of the arc length and radius, it would seem that these two claims contradict each other. I do agree that without some aditional work the power series argument I wrote above does seem to be wrong.
- orangecat 3y ago
  you can compute e(-t) via power series too, adding seconds to seconds squared and seconds cubed The argument of exp does have to be dimensionless, exactly because adding seconds to seconds squared doesn't work. If t has units of time, there has to be another factor with units of inverse time, for example continuous compound interest is exp(rate*time).
adrian_b 3y ago
Actually the dimensions are by definition the same as the fundamental units, i.e. the units that are chosen freely, independently of all other units. A dimensional formula of a quantity just writes its unit as a function of the fundamental units. In any equality of physical quantities, in the two sides not only the dimensionless numeric values must be equal, but also the units must be equal, which is usually expressed by saying that the dimensions must be the same, and it is verified by writing in both sides the dimensional formulae, i.e. the units of both sides as functions of the fundamental units. A dimensionless quantity is a ratio of two quantities that are measured by the same unit, so that the units simplify during the division. There may be different but related dimensionless quantities, which are differentiated by different definitions of those quantities, but a dimensionless quantity cannot have different units. This is just meaningless mumbo-jumbo that has been sadly introduced in the documents of the International System of Units, in 1995, after a shameful vote of the delegates, who have voted automatically, without thinking or discussing, a vote equivalent with establishing by vote that 2 + 2 = 5.