Re: Planck's constant U+210E

From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Apr 20 2006 - 11:05:23 CST

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Planck's constant U+210E"

    On 4/20/2006 8:50 AM, Andreas Prilop wrote:
    > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, James Kass wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Did you check the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols range for these?
    >>
    >
    > U+210E is *specifically* Planck's constant, not a *general*
    > italic "h".
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Actually, it is both. You will see that the range of general italic
    characters has a hole at 1D454

    You guessed it, that's because U+210E was already encoded.

    The purpose of all these characters is, as Deborah wrote:

    > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
    >
    >
    >> > To differentiate it for purposes of representing mathematics in plain
    >> > text.
    >>
    >
    >
    The distinction you make in your answer,
    > Planck's constant is physics, not mathematics.
    >
    >
    would surprise many, nay, I say most, physicists, myself included.
    When you write physical laws as equations, you are using mathematical
    notation,
    not something else.

    > Do you mean U+210E should be used as a "*general* mathematical
    > [or physical] italic small h"?
    > Should it be used for, say, height?
    > Should it be used for, say, specific enthalpy?
    >

    The answer is 'yes' to any of these things and more (provided you want a
    lower case 'h').

    > If so, then U+210E is *not* Planck's constant.
    That's a defect on its name, based on the fact that many early character
    sets
    did not have a complete collection - however, with MathML, you are
    definitely
    encouraged to use U+210E for any mathematical variable that needs the
    lower case 'h', including those used for physics.

    A./



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 20 2006 - 11:09:27 CST