I have been trying to classify data types in physics

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics

and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics.

More specifically, looking at F in F=ma I see something like a pointer
to an address, not the address itself. Or if ma is number in a
spreadsheet cell, F is the name of that cell.

I know this is not how physicists see it. I am looking to find the
correct mathematical terminology so that I can state the problem
clearly. Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these
things?

I have been trying to classify data types in physics

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics

and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics.

More specifically, looking at F in F=ma I see something like a pointer
to an address, not the address itself. Or if ma is number in a
spreadsheet cell, F is the name of that cell.

I know this is not how physicists see it. I am looking to find the
correct mathematical terminology so that I can state the problem
clearly. Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these
things?

pioneer1 wrote:
I have been trying to classify data types in physics

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics

and I am confused about what is considered string (in the
sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number
or
quantity or magnitude in physics.

More specifically, looking at F in F=ma I see something like a
pointer
to an address, not the address itself. Or if ma is number in a
spreadsheet cell, F is the name of that cell.

I am not sure exactly what you want to do:

But you might try Haskell <http://haskell.org/>, using say Hugs
http://haskell.org/hugs>. One can write say:
module Physics where

I submitted this question to sci.math.research but it was rejected for
being related to physics or computer science and not math perse.

I have been trying to classify data types in physics

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics

and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics.

More specifically, looking at F in F=ma I see something like a pointer
to an address, not the address itself. Or if ma is number in a
spreadsheet cell, F is the name of that cell.

pioneer1 <1pioneer1@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been trying to classify data types in physics

http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics

and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics.

More specifically, looking at F in F=ma I see something like a pointer
to an address, not the address itself. Or if ma is number in a
spreadsheet cell, F is the name of that cell.

I know this is not how physicists see it. I am looking to find the
correct mathematical terminology so that I can state the problem
clearly. Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these
things?

I believe you may be barking up the wrong "tree" (sorry).
I'm not aware of a field of physics that studies these things,
per se, but I believe dimensional analysis is what you're
looking for. In other words, what you call data types
is what physics calls units.

John Forkosh <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:

pioneer1 <1pioneer1@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been trying to classify data types in physics
http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics
and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics. I am looking to find the
correct mathematical terminology so that I can state the problem
clearly. Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these
things?

I believe you may be barking up the wrong "tree" (sorry).
I'm not aware of a field of physics that studies these things,
per se, but I believe dimensional analysis is what you're
looking for. In other words, what you call data types
is what physics calls units.

Yes, provided that it is understood that units and dimensions
inherently have nothing to do with physics.
Units can in principle be chosen freely,
subject only to consistency.
Units are tools to describe reality,
to map physical quantities into numbers
and any -physical- result must be independent
of the chosen description.

Calling a dimension a data type may be misleading,
for it suggests that dimensions do have an inherent physical meaning.
This is not the case.
Systems of dimensions can be chosen freely and arbitrarily,
again subject only to consistency,
Jan

0type Real = Double

. . . what you call data types
is what physics calls units.

There are no data types in physics, just numbers.

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
John Forkosh <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:

pioneer1 <1pioneer1@gmail.com> wrote:
I have been trying to classify data types in physics
http://www.densytics.com/wiki/index.php?title=Data_types_in_Physics
and I am confused about what is considered string (in the sense of
computer language terminology) and what is considered number or
quantity or magnitude in physics. I am looking to find the
correct mathematical terminology so that I can state the problem
clearly. Do you know a field of physics or math that studies these
things?

I believe you may be barking up the wrong "tree" (sorry).
I'm not aware of a field of physics that studies these things,
per se, but I believe dimensional analysis is what you're
looking for. In other words, what you call data types
is what physics calls units.

Yes, provided that it is understood that units and dimensions
inherently have nothing to do with physics.
Units can in principle be chosen freely,
subject only to consistency.
Units are tools to describe reality,
to map physical quantities into numbers
and any -physical- result must be independent
of the chosen description.

Calling a dimension a data type may be misleading,
for it suggests that dimensions do have an inherent physical meaning.
This is not the case.
Systems of dimensions can be chosen freely and arbitrarily,
again subject only to consistency,
Jan

Wandering a bit from the OP's question, but I'd think that
units are more fundamental than numbers. Just because
there are many different/equivalent "representations"
(e.g., theoretical units), doesn't mean units aren't
fundamental.

On the other hand, there are no directly measurable
numbers, per se, in nature (though there are dimensionless ratios).
You can't measure "one", just one apple, one erg, etc.

Numbers, at least vis-a-vis physics, are a completely human
construction (despite Kronecker's claim that "God invented the
integers").

We find numbers very useful to describe measurements,
but maybe that's just because we first found numbers useful to calibrate
our measuring instruments in the first place. And then we find numbers
useful to formulate theories correlating our already-numerical measurements.
Now, I agree there are many holes in the above reasoning,
and I have zero idea how physics might be done without numbers.

But maybe that's just how human brains work. To that extent, we're all
trapped in Whorf's "conceptual boat" (lots of google hits for that).

By looking for numeric-like data types that are physically fundamental,
I think the OP was mistakenly elevating numeric-like entities to a
foundational level they don't really occupy.

As I mentioned to John
Forkosh I am trying to understand if F in F=ma is type string or type
number? In programming there is no ambiguity.

F is clearly defined as
number.

In physics, there is an ambiguity in the equality sign. It may
mean F :: a (F is proportional to a) or it may mean F = ma (F is a
name for ma, we may substitute F for ma).

John Forkosh <j...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
. . . what you call data types
is what physics calls units.

I am not sure because I am trying to understand if force in F=ma is
type string or type number. Only type number has units and dimensions.
The distinction between string and number is called types too, correct?

If I understand correctly, then in physics symbols are loaded and
they can represent either a string or a number and a physicist will
know how to interpret the symbol correctly depending on the context.
Is this correct?

The formally correct version of this equation is
F = k m a
where k is a dimension-less constant depending only on the units chosen
for measuring the physical quantities force, mass and acceleration; by
suitable choice of measurements units, it can be chosen to be equal to 1.

The formally correct version of this equation is
F = k m a
where k is a dimension-less constant depending only on the units chosen
for measuring the physical quantities force, mass and acceleration; by
suitable choice of measurements units, it can be chosen to be equal to 1.

I don't understand this remark.
Are you implying that every physical formula
should be thought of as containing an invisible extra constant,
dimensionless and of value 1?

You can of course think so,
but what good would that do?