Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: should c be a subset of c++? |
| Date | 2015-11-18 06:03 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <lnziybh0ay.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <6f55f057-7afa-470b-b399-ff9a3b4da2ed@googlegroups.com> <5646612f.24876078@news.xs4all.nl> <n25u7b$1j2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <564ba6ac.25932250@news.xs4all.nl> <ad165bf0-7d7c-4af6-beaf-9e22322f6bf9@googlegroups.com> |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 10:17:25 PM UTC, Richard Bos wrote:
>> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > But even more, there are materials with a positive Hall coefficient.
>> > That is, where the current charge carriers are positive.
>>
>> All true, and all irrelevant - because in all those cases, _one_ of the
>> charges must be negative. We got to choose whether the electron or the
>> proton was negative, and arguably got it wrong - but even if we'd got it
>> right, we wouldn't have been able to avoid a negative charge on either
>> one particle or the other.
>>
> If you observe cars travelling down a typical road, you might well come
> to the conclusion that the vehicle's velocity is signed. But it's just
> an illusion, created by the fact that you can't measure the slight
> angular displacements.
> What assurance do we have that particle charge signs aren't like that?
Velocity is a vector. In a 1-+dimensional environment, it reduces to a
signed quantity. Electrical charge is, as far as I know, a discrete
scalar with oppositely signed values. The physical theory that
describes it has been confirmed to an impressive number of deimal
places.
Are you *still* trying to argue that negative values are not physically
significant?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 19:06 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 00:41 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-11-07 10:01 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 09:12 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-07 11:58 -0600
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 10:25 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-07 11:54 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-07 14:22 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 13:05 -0600
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 11:39 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-13 13:20 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-13 16:36 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-14 00:03 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-13 17:06 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-13 13:29 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 12:57 -0600
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-08 11:37 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-08 17:16 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-08 18:19 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 23:25 -0600
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 22:34 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-13 22:18 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-14 00:11 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-17 22:16 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-17 21:09 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-18 05:22 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-18 06:03 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-18 08:44 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-18 09:11 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-18 09:54 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-24 01:49 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-24 02:58 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-24 11:58 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-24 09:09 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-25 00:12 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-25 12:35 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-27 16:30 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-19 10:37 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-20 15:40 -0800
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 22:20 +0000
csiph-web