Philosophy of Science 31 (4):357-380 (1964)
|Abstract||In the first part of this paper it is shown that unit names, whether simple or complex, whether of fundamental, associative or derivative measurement, may always be regarded as the names of scales. In the second it is shown that dimension names, whether simple, like "[M]", "[L]" and "[T]", or complex dimensional formulae, may always be regarded as the names of classes of similar scales. Thus, a new foundation for the theory of dimensional analysis is provided, and in the light of this, its nature and scope are examined. Dimensional analysis is shown to depend upon certain conventions for expressing numerical laws|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Richard Menary (2010). Dimensions of Mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (4):561-578.
Tom Cochrane (2009). Eight Dimensions for the Emotions. Social Science Information 48 (3):379-420.
Heidi Tiedke (2011). Proper Names and Their Fictional Uses. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (4):707 - 726.
Eros Corazza (2002). Description-Names. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):313-325.
Nino B. Cocchiarella (2005). Denoting Concepts, Reference, and the Logic of Names, Classes as Many, Groups, and Plurals? Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (2):135 - 179.
J. Van Brakel (1982). Conventions In Naming. Philosophy Research Archives 8:243-277.
Robert L. Causey (1969). Derived Measurement, Dimensions, and Dimensional Analysis. Philosophy of Science 36 (3):252-270.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,676 of 722,834 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?