First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Dimensional consistency andunitsconversions (was [Fwd: Re: ten Tusscher model])


Chronological Thread 
  • From: matt.halstead at auckland.ac.nz (Matt )
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Dimensional consistency andunitsconversions (was [Fwd: Re: ten Tusscher model])
  • Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:27:18 +1200
So one way out to avoid having to hope that software does the right
thing is to make it compulsory that there is units consistency for
each dimension across all variables (defined in variable elements) in
a CellML component so that the only units conversions that need to
take place are at the interfaces. Quantities that are dimensionless
after simplification aren't going to affect dimensional analysis of
the math, so we would be safe there.




On 4/23/07, David Nickerson <david.nickerson at nus.edu.sg> wrote:
> > So where does the problem lie? This says that all you supposedly
> > dimensionless constants should have units. Does it need to be clearer
> > that you are not allowed to simplify them out into dimensionless
> > yourself?
>
> yes - I think this is the issue. Also that tools shouldn't simplify them
> into dimensionless before doing the multiplication and/or units
> consistency checking.
>
> > Also. What does it matter that some software simplifies them out
> > before multiplicating them? So long as it checks units consistency
> > prior to simplifying them (if it really needs to do that anyway) then
> > the result should be the same.
>
> yep - that is the key. The units must be there when an application
> checks units consistency.
>
>
> Andre.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page