Community Tip - You can subscribe to a forum, label or individual post and receive email notifications when someone posts a new topic or reply. Learn more!
X

It will be very dood work not only units but with quantities too.

For example I have in this calculation mass of water/steam and mass of gas.

This quantities have same unit of mass but in is two different quantities:

I agree. The method for achieving that I would propose is to provide additional user "Dimensions" (Dimensions being indicators of thing we believe are independent, as per the example).

Thus we would have a set of spare user dimensions U [0;9], along with the angle dimension I have already proposed Beyond the Money Dimension - The inclusion of Angles as a unit. The "Uno" dimension and other distint quantity signifiers would be a worthwhile benefit for software support.

There is a good review article on the issues around getting the SI ready for the automation age that MathCAD has already pioneered (and needs to keep pioneering) at http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/47/6/R01/ [stacks.iop.org/Met/47/R41]

How many is "a lot more"? We need real numbers, preferably integers, hopefully positive ones.

Why put any arbitrary limit on it? Why do you need a number? If I want to create a worksheet that calculates the entire world's import and export flow of fruits and cheeses, perhaps I want to track every type of fruit and every type of cheese as separate quantities.

Ah! that's an idea - subjective units. The Scoville is another one where user-defined mappings can occur, eg, 1 MSHU can be represented as "ARRGGH! Pass the Fire Hydrant", "Mildly piquant" or "Sasquatch". However, I am somewhat surprised that somebody with the surname 'Hardy' would regard a mere 3 bottles of red as "Giant Hangover" rather than "Apéritif" 🙂

Back to standard units, I'd like to see the Potrzebie System implemented, can't let Google and that Wolfram chappie take the furshlugginer ground on this one!.

Well MathCAD had all the info from May 2009 (see my docs file). Mathematica only had it for a few months following a discussion I had with Jon McLoone last summer. It just missed being an integral part of Mathematica 8.

It's only omission is that there is no option to require the Sine function (etc.) to demand Angle dimensioned inputs, nor and option to get the inverse functions to produce Angle dimensioned results. But beyond that Jon has done an excellent job.

I'm expecting (holds breath) it to show in V16 / Prime 2. ;-]

Well MathCAD had all the info from May 2009 (see my docs file). Mathematica only had it for a few months following a discussion I had with Jon McLoone last summer. It just missed being an integral part of Mathematica 8.

I think there have been at least 2 major releases of Mathematica since I put my first proper Mathcad wish list together (including a working demo of a multi-dimensional array capability and backdoor programmable 3D graphics) ... I'd hate to guess how many since Valery started his MM proposal.

We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.

You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.

Thank you for your participation.

You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.