Richard Baker wrote:
>
> Julia said:
>
> > Shouldn't that be multiplicative inverse? Wouldn't the number that is
> > its own additive inverse be 0, which when multiplied by something
> > finite just make it 0?
>
> He means "additive inverse". He's implying that what I call "very very
> low" is in fact "zero" (which it probably is).
OK, go back to quoting the original post:
>>A Sievert is not a Gray, but rather a Gray multiplied by a dimensionless
>>factor that characterises the biological damage caused by a type of
>>radiation. I don't know what this factor is for microwaves, but it's
>>almost certainly very very low, because these units measure the energy
>>deposited by ionising radiation and microwaves don't cause ionisation.
>>
>>Rich
>>VFP Focused Cellphone Weapon
>
>
>I think what you meant to say was that the multiplicative
>dimensionless factor is the number that is its own additive inverse...
What was said was that a Sievert is a Gray multiplied by a dimensionless
factor... I was just looking at this part, and comparing it to the
table given by Bob Chassell.
And anything nonzero is still nonzero. Multiplying by zero makes it
zero. Multiplying it by some extremely small epsilon such that epsilon
> 0 makes it still nonzero. Unless you can unequivocably say that it is zero, then
>multiplying by zero is unacceptable *to me*. Argue about how many orders of
>magnitude smaller than 1 or 0.1 or 0.01 and I'm fine with that, but I'm not going to
>take zero for an answer if it is greater than zero, no matter by how small an amount.
Julia
