The axiomatization of Quantity Calculus, the logical foundations of DA

logics
Messages
137
Reaction score
0
I was intrigued reading * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_calculus" that after two centuries axiomatization of QC has not been completed, though there are only 5 basic elements and 4[3] concepts:
S[tandard],= U[nit], D[imension], Q[uantity]. I suppose nobody here has tackled the problem or knows the state of the art or can tell whether the task is unnecessary or impossible, but, with your help, I would like to examine the problem.

I tried to gather basic scientific information, I found a "formal? " definition of Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity" in DA. Moreover, in the article * we read that QC... is "analogous" to a system of algebra with units instead of variables. Now, could you tell me if
1) VIM3's is the official, best definition available of Q
2) [you know or] where to find an appropriate definition of D in D[imensional] A[nalysis] and in relation to Q
3) set theory [arithmetics] ZFC is appropriate for a sistem "analogous" to algebra
4) the fact that different entities share same dimensions is an obstacle to axiomatization
5) there is a list of derived quantities
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
question 3) is discussed in another thread
5) I know there is a list, but I can't remember where I saw it (there were some 30 items). It is not at wiki : "list of derived quantities". This question is not important
 
Last edited:
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top