Le lundi 16 janvier 2012 à 03:17 +0545, Chris Smith a écrit : > 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?
No, this is clearly *not* a number. Note that "amount of substance" is a precisely defined technical term referring to a "dimensioned" physical quantity. See also the BIPM's definition of SI units: http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf The mole is one of the 7 base SI units, we can't decide that it doesn't exist or claim that it's just a number if we want to implement SI units correctly. -- 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.
