Barbara and/or Bill Hooper wrote:
<snip>
> ... unlike SI, there is no official body that is
> authorized to make decisions about correct usage for cgs. That is, cgs does
> not have an official body which can proclaim such hair-splitting
> distinctions as that certain units may not called units but must be called
> "multiples and submultiples" instead.
>
> I recognize CGPM's authority to do this, but I question its wisdom. I
> believe the CGPM will retreat from this awkward position in the near future.
> I look forward to that change.
I actually used to agree with Bill and saw it as hair-splitting, too.
Now, I've come to the position that there really should be only one
entity that is the unit for a physical parameter (such as length), and
all other terms are multiples and submultiples of that unit. Logically,
I see that as the more sound position. (Thus, an expression like "basic
unit of length" is an at-times-useful but logically unnecessary redundancy.)
And now, I better bite the bullet and face Monday at work. <ugh!>
Have a good week, y'all...
Ezra
