Originally posted by TitusvEWith language, there are dictionary definitions, there is general usage, there is exceptional usage, there is poor usage, and even incorrect usage.
Yes, I know how to interprete the word "finite" in a certain context. I understand that sometimes people mean nonzero when saying "finite". This doesnot mean it is a correct way of saying.
Originally posted by TitusvEI agree pretty much with what twhitehead says.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Well, that's all semantics, isn't it?
What do you mean by that? That we should not bother as long as things are clear what people mean by it? Shouldn't scientist be a bit more careful with their words and definitions than the man in the street? Suppose we are messing with other defitions and make their me ...[text shortened]... ? finitesimal??
But do you agree that using "finite" for nonzero is wrong, in principle?[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf I have it correct, absolute zero is not neccesarily an asymtote limit. The way we are pursuing it now seems that way but absolute zero temperature is not the same as absolute zero energy. It may well be in some future experiment absolute zero temperature is reached, it just means absolute stillness. Heisenberg saw to that. So in my mind absolute zero is not unreachable and therefore is finite.
Ultracold physicists tend to since models tend to be different for zero or finite temperature.
Originally posted by TitusvELet us instead try the word "measurable" in place of "finite". In some contexts, infinitely large distances are not measurable but a zero distance is. In other contexts, it is the infinitely small distances that are not measurable.
But do you agree that using "finite" for nonzero is wrong, in principle?