0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Well this Pete, IMHO, this is dependent on the textbook itself. It also depends on wether the matter that one try's to define has 'already' been defined. When trying to define a matter that is yet to be defined, 'any' textbook is rendered useless. Edit: This being based on the fact that terminology is subject to context when in use.
I'm referring to terms that are already defined.
Why do you say that its dependent on the textbook?
The definitions of the terms "quantity", "unit", "dimension" etc. that are used in the SI Brochure are those given in the International vocabulary of metrology, a publication produced by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), a working group consisting of eight international standards organisations under the chairmanship of the director of the BIPM. The quantities and equations that define the SI units are now referred to as the International System of Quantities (ISQ), and are set out in the International Standard ISO/IEC 80000 Quantities and Units.
I've always considered textbooks to be the source of definitions when it comes to terminology. I was wondering who else thinks this way?
I guess it depends on what you're trying to find definitions of.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 09/09/2015 18:35:17I've always considered textbooks to be the source of definitions when it comes to terminology. I was wondering who else thinks this way?An example of the sort of definition you have in mind?-lightarrow
They come from knowledge of logic...If you declare an atom then you must define it meaning declare its structure and properties...In physics usually you would first discover an entity of matter and then, based on experimental result declare its structure and properties...