I agree. I believe science but I seriously think the BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) is wrong. They made SI bad by glossing over the necessary base unit of angle, there should be 8 base dimension, not 7.
I strongly disagree with the definition itself. And yes, there are stops that prevent me from doing that in scientific computing resources like sympy, matlab, and my professors.
yep, I don’t think the question “what’s the cos of a unit” is valid because cos expects a plane angle in the input and a unit doesn’t meet that expectation; it’s underdefined; it depends whether the calculator is set to radians or degrees.
It’s not undefined.
You cannot take the exponential of anything with dimensions. That also applied to logs and trigonometric functions. Ergo, angles must be unitless.
I agree. I believe science but I seriously think the BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) is wrong. They made SI bad by glossing over the necessary base unit of angle, there should be 8 base dimension, not 7.
Except it’s not a unit, it’s a unitless ratio. You’d have one for every number of dimension. The mol is arguably the extra one.
I seriously disagree with you, your you’re wrong.
here’s an article which supports my reasoning https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.05704
No one stops you from putting radians and steradians in your units. But it’s unitless by definition.
I strongly disagree with the definition itself. And yes, there are stops that prevent me from doing that in scientific computing resources like sympy, matlab, and my professors.
You disagree that a ratio is unitless? What’s the cos of a unit?
yep, I don’t think the question “what’s the cos of a unit” is valid because cos expects a plane angle in the input and a unit doesn’t meet that expectation; it’s underdefined; it depends whether the calculator is set to radians or degrees.
It’s not undefined. You cannot take the exponential of anything with dimensions. That also applied to logs and trigonometric functions. Ergo, angles must be unitless.