Everything should be made simple but not simpler.

[silkworm]

That would mean memorising hundreds of symbols.

 

You wouldn't HAVE TO memorize anything, but this would be much simpler than the current system and would facilitate quick learning and understanding. And if done properly the symbol can take the place of the actual meaning and be as universally used as the symbols 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0.

 

Also what would people (and by people I mean researchers) do when they require a new symbol for something, apply to some international watch dog to be allowed to put another line throught the equalateral triangle with the verticle cross in it?

 

This is far from an everyday occurance, and when it does happen hopefully the researches will find a proper symbol, with more thought than those who came before us. If they don't want to make one, hopefully the scientific community will come a consensus. Either way, this is small potatos compared to the benefit of doing this.

 

I know just as an undergraduate when doing labs I come accross variables that I havn't been told a set letter for and if I have been then I've forgotten it because it's superfulouse knowledge, I just pick a letter or symbol that I feels appropriate and make a note of what I'm using it as.

 

Excellent, I try to do that too but generally have trouble reading my own handwriting. In an undergraduate lab, you're not going to be teaching anyone to do anything. Variables are variables when you're working, but if you're looking to publish, just look up the symbols, and when you're being taught you expect to see the same symbol mean the same thing in a different setting.

 

Under a unified system the symbol would mean the same as the word, for example gravity would be g. That's how you could spell it. Up and down could be spelled y. Left and right would be x. Toward you and away would be z. Volume would be v, then velocity s instead of having Vv to keep straight in the same equation, and this difference would be the same no matter where you were instead of going to calculus and having s mean position. When you get heavier things get more complicated and variables shift even more. It's not like you have to sit down and memorize them, it would be the same as the word and it would become second nature after awhile. It's not very complicated at all, and it simplifies the communication, creates a permanent and universal shorthand that's easy to understand because of it's presence in other scientific areas. (NOTE: The symbols don't have to be letters, I was just using them as an example).

 

As for the memorizing thing, I also very much believe in the US going SI, but also for terms like nano, pico, decka, centi, to be taken out of use and the scientific notation from the base unit be used. Talk about unnecessary memorization and overcomplication. I mean calling nanotechnology nanotechnology still works, but when dealing with numbers and trying to visualize and convert size it gets in the way. It's easier to visualize magnitudes than prefixes and helps in communication and understanding.

[swansont]

You wouldn't HAVE TO memorize anything' date=' but this would be much simpler than the current system and would facilitate quick learning and understanding. And if done properly the symbol can take the place of the actual meaning and be as universally used as the symbols 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0.

[/quote']

 

 

Sounds like you want a version of kanji, and yes, you would need to memorize them.

 

The qwerty keyboard has not been replaced by a more efficient layout, for similar reasons to why a new symbol system is unworkable.

[wormholeman]

"Originally Posted by swansont

Gotta love the irony of not defining what WTF means..."

 

I laughed when I read that.

 

Good one swansont

[Saint]

How about this for starters - authors are responsible for writing papers, responses, etc... in terms that can be understood by their target audience. Period. This is a skill that many people, not just physicists, are lacking. It's one of the reasons that skilled teachers are so few a far between. It's tough to do.

[wormholeman]

I laughed because swansnot typed, OTOH (I dident know what OTOH means,

I just assumed it was an acronem for something.) Then as I read and scrolled

down I saw that silkworm swore "WTF", (I know what that means) and

wanted to know what OTOH ment, then as I scrolled down more swansnot explained the irony between those two incidence's(there's probobley a better word for it but I'll use that). because this subject is about understanding and it all focuses on the same catagory, understanding it so well made me laugh.

[Kedas]

I just want to add something to this discussion about what is assumed easy by most people but hard for everyone.

some consider it an art

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0721670113/102-5350392-8443362?v=glance&n=283155

 

I didn't saw it mentioned here but cultural differences are also a big factor in understanding and that is even assuming that there is only one truth.

 

some experience

We have a programmer in China that works for us.

Communicating with him about problems that need solving is a lot harder than you would think.

Here a recent article that is related to this

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00087E7F-7EC8-130A-8AB283414B7F4945

[wormholeman]

I am really sorry but I made a mistake. The Einstein quote "Everything should be made simple but not simpler" is my error. It cant be a code ("If I understand you and your able to succeed in what you want me to understand then I will know what your talking about.

and simpler as in "None sence".") because he has the word "made" in it. So that would make more sence because science usually has to do with technological advances. it probobley also includes understanding, (Einstein says "(Everything) should be") in the quote. But I feel I owe to say this in this thread for what I believe to be my mistake to resolve any confusion.

 

Marlon

 

ahhh! I give up thiis is getting confusing....