Talk: Length

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

This article belongs to wiktionary or no? -- Taku 21:55, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

no LirQ

---

• Delete Length - Dictionary entry. WINAD. User:200.165.208.90
  • Keep. wshun 04:13, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, article convinced me even though at first I thought it an obvious delete. Fuzheado 07:28, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has more info than a dictionary entry. Evil saltine 08:07, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Patrick 16:18, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting article. Tiles 00:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Del - I like the article but it is nothing but usage. Move it to wiktionary obviously. -- Taku
  • Keep. It's somewhat interesting as it is and could esily grow a bit. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hard to see exactly how it would get linked to, but it is an interesting article - Marshman 19:01, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep ~~
  • Del - It's a terrible article, which only serves to confuse the term length. It contains no information that isn't in the term curve. Cederal.
  • Keep. It definitely needs work, but Cederal is horribly wrong. Cederal seems ignorant of physics. In that field, length is one of the fundamental "dimensions" (that term being understood as in dimensional analysis). Michael Hardy 16:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I consider myself a physicist, and as such, I must claim that the term length in physics is the same as in mathematics. If you want to discuss use of language, physicists do use the term length in dimensional analysis, but this is only a burrowed use from it's mathematical meaning. This article claims that "Length is not an intrinsic property of anything", while it's obviously an intrinsic property of curves in metric spaces. Just because relativity says our world is not metric (and has only a pseudo-metrics) doesn't mean anything...

-User:Cederal 18:24, 5 May 2004 (GMT) (sorry, I don't know the transformation to UTC)