On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:45 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I have two problems with this. First of all mol is not a number as > dozen. It's a measure of quantity of matter. The idea was created > before the atomistic theory of matter and the only important property > is additivity. You use the Avogadro's constant (again not a pure > number) to connect the two. So to use mols you don't need to know that > matter is made of discreet particles.
Quoting from NIST: "The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12; its symbol is "mol."" This is clearly a number, isn't it? When you divide a mass by a mass you should get a number. It is arbitrary what lumped number you want to report that in: million, dozen, mol....so I think mole is ok as a number unit. But since no other dimensinally cancelling ratio will be reported in anything but a number, we should be consistent. So... If we use amu = g/6.e23 then g/amu gives 6e23 and g/amu/mol will give 1. If we defined dozen=12 then foot/inch/dozen would also be 1. And we leave avogadro as it is. Sound ok? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
