Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Andrew said:

" It doesn't really make sense to say nanodimensionless per
microdimensionless, I prefer nanolitres per microlitre even though you
need to duplicate it if you have other conversion factors."

Duplication brings in the possibility of error and inconsistencies, and is
tedious and I think should be reduced at all points.

I think your statement above makes perfect sense, it just isn't commonly
said. Colloquially we say "how many femtos in a micro?" - same thing. But, I
wasn't advocating using dimensionless really, I think these conversions
between prefixes could be built in, just as the prefixes themselves are.

If reducing constructs in the specification was your goal then prefixes are
unnecessary and could be implemented via multipliers. At the moment, we
provide prefixes as a separate construct without easy conversion between
them - it just seems like we are providing half a feature.

---

• [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, James Lawson, 06/03/2008
  • [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, Mike Cooling, 06/03/2008
    • [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, Peter Hunter, 06/03/2008
      • [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, Mike Cooling, 06/03/2008
        • [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, Andrew Miller, 06/03/2008
          • [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion, James Lawson, 06/03/2008
            • [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion, Mike Cooling, 06/03/2008
              • [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion, Michael Hucka, 06/03/2008
            • [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion, Mike Cooling, 06/03/2008
            • Message not available
              • [cellml-discussion] unit conversion, Mike Cooling, 06/03/2008

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.