Re: A weighty subject

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU writes:
>
> << And he makes an important point when he mentions that a
>  definition can't be wrong.  It might be ill-advised, confusing,
> non-standard
>  etc., but it is the whole point of a definition that it is a
> quantity to
> be
>  defined.
>
>  Joel >>
>
> Joel,
>
> I hope you don't really mean it when you say a definition
> can't be wrong,
> and
> that something already defined can be redefined at anyone's
> personal whim.

I mean it in the same context that Jim Green meant it.  Which I interpret as
follows:  in an axiomatic system of analysis, Newtonian Mechanics qualifies
in my opinion.  Definitions are defined by the definer and as a *logical*
consequence can not be wrong, in so far as they do not conflict with other
definitions within the system.

> Not only can redefining something that is already defined be
> wrong, but it
> may also be fraudulent and have criminial consequences.  A gas station
> owner
> knows it is illegal to redefine what a gallon is.

This is why I said it may be ill-advised, you posited several instances
where it may be ill-advised.  Fraudulent, only if I represent my new
definition of the gallon as being the "same" ("equivalent") to the US
Federal law definition of a gallon.  Of course in the context of defining
weight to mean what the scale reads debate, nobody has been making
fraudulent use of their favorite definition, that I could tell.

> I do agree that PHYS-L is a place to talk about definitions and their
> shortcomings.  However, it is not the place to chuck them out
> or redefine
> them.

Why not? I think it is certainly the place to at least talk about chucking
them out or redefining them, certainly if the shortcomings are severe enough
to warrant it, also it is the place because the process of discussion itself
is enlightening.  I've noticed my opinion changing and my understanding of
the issues involved to have evolved noticably as a result of this latest
round of "weight".  I thank all participants in this discussion for that
fact.

> Having said that, I've always thought the meter was too long.
>
> Bob Carlson

I'll have to think on that one Bob.  I've always thought it was a little
short.  :-)

cheers,
Joel