Re: SI Units Solicitation - Upgrade from comments

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>]

On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> > Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > > Even the term "Real" itself for real numbers is suspicious. All numbers are
> > > really imaginary, unless you believe Kronecker in which case integers
> > > aren't. :-) :-)
> > >
> > > -- Brian
> 
> Brian overlloks the fact that our nomenclature stems in part from
> Mathematics,

No, it is more likely that Shmuel overlooked those two hidden smileys 
at the end of Brian's post. I am quite aware of the relevance of
mathematics to the world Shmuel refers to as "real", and of the fact 
that words in mathematics (group, ring, field, category) have different 
meanings in English. 

If Shmuel were aware of modern mathematics, he might know that all of "real
analysis" could  be expressed in terms of other number systems (the
hyperreals of nonstandard analysis or Conway's "surreal numbers", probably 
more) which include infinitesimals. Appropriating the term real for 
one limited set can be seen as an example of numeric bigotry :-). 

> If you believe that complex numbers are irrelevant to the real world,
> talk to an 
> EE or to someone that has to deal with Quantum Mechanics.

I really have no idea how you can make so many assumptions about what I
know or believe. Perhaps you shouldn't assume that everyone who posts is
uneducated in mathematics.

-- Brian