Re: Re: mole units
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg61637] Re: [mg60943] Re: [mg60876] mole units
- From: Chris Chiasson <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:39:18 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200510040816.EAA21653@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Having had some time away from the issue, I believe that Mathematica's
way of handling Mole is correct. I guess I just felt betrayed because
I rely on Mathematica's units as a form of error checking for my
On 10/4/05, Jose Luis Gomez <jose.luis.gomez at itesm.mx> wrote:
> Hi Chris, as far as I remember, it is CORRECT that Mole is adimensional,
> saying "a Mole of atoms" is similar to saying "a dozen of atoms", a Mole is
> a very important number in Chemistry, but you could say "a Mole of cars", or
> "a Mole of computers", just like you can say "a dozen of computers". The
> difference is that "dozen" is a useful number in every-day life and "Mole"
> is a useful number in Chemistry.
> José Luis
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Chris Chiasson [mailto:chris.chiasson at gmail.com]
> Enviado el: Sábado, 01 de Octubre de 2005 01:56 a.m.
> Para: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Asunto: [mg60876] mole units
> Hey all, remember that thread about making a FundamentalSI function?
> Well, I was using it and noticed that it had taken away the Mole
> "unit" from some of my equations. I then tried:
> Interestingly, the result is a number (a special one, obviously), not
> an error. Mathematica is essentially treating mols as dimensionless
> numbers, like Milli Kilo, etc. Personally, I think this behavior is
> bad. What do you think?
> Chris Chiasson
Prev by Date:
Re: Typographical niceties
Next by Date:
Re: Re: significance arithmetic and numeric equation solving
Previous by thread:
Re: mole units
Next by thread: