My comments Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (19 Oct 2005 18:37 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 19:17 UTC)
Re: My comments Thomas Bushnell BSG (19 Oct 2005 19:44 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 19:55 UTC)
Re: My comments Thomas Bushnell BSG (19 Oct 2005 20:11 UTC)
Re: My comments John.Cowan (19 Oct 2005 20:10 UTC)
Re: My comments Thomas Bushnell BSG (19 Oct 2005 20:13 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 20:25 UTC)
Re: My comments Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (19 Oct 2005 20:23 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 20:36 UTC)
Re: My comments Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (19 Oct 2005 21:36 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 21:42 UTC)
Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye (19 Oct 2005 22:08 UTC)
Exactness (was Re: My comments) bear (20 Oct 2005 01:50 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (20 Oct 2005 03:45 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (20 Oct 2005 09:13 UTC)
Re: Exactness Bradd W. Szonye (20 Oct 2005 20:15 UTC)
Re: Exactness bear (20 Oct 2005 22:09 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 02:08 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 03:05 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 08:15 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 18:38 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 20:12 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 20:29 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 20:38 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 20:44 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 21:20 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 21:44 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (21 Oct 2005 22:18 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (21 Oct 2005 22:48 UTC)
Re: Exactness Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (22 Oct 2005 00:34 UTC)
Re: Exactness Thomas Bushnell BSG (22 Oct 2005 01:02 UTC)
Re: Exactness Per Bothner (22 Oct 2005 00:59 UTC)

Re: My comments Bradd W. Szonye 19 Oct 2005 19:55 UTC

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> While they seem silly for small integers, inexact integers make sense
>> for huge values. For example, people often round huge integers to the
>> nearest million or billion. An even better example: Avogadro's number
>> is an integer, but it should not be represented as an exact integer,
>> because its exact value is unknown.

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What makes you think Avogadro's number is an integer?

Because there's no such thing as half an atom of carbon. Furthermore, as
you mentioned yourself, the error in measuring the canonical gram is
much larger than the mass of an atom, so why /wouldn't/ it be an
integer? Indeed, if we were to switch the gram from a sample to a more
fundamental definition, I would expect something like "1/12 the mass of
one mole of carbon-12," with the mole fixed at an integral number of
atoms.

> Oh, and that assertion I made that there are an integral number of
> atoms in a sample at a moment in time: not really true.  After all,
> the atoms are evaporating and condensing on to and off of the surface
> of the sample all the time at an exceedingly high rate ....

While it's true that it's (practically and theoretically) impossible to
count the number of atoms in a sample, that doesn't make the number
non-integral. It simply makes it inexact.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd