Talk:Physical quantity

message: This topic is of central importance in all natural sciences and deserves a better article than this loose jumble of sentences. A good starting point seems the german version of this article, that is if you are capable of reading german. IMHO the first thing to do is a solid structure. The article needs to be generalized in most points, others like the ISQ base quantities can be dropped. --84.141.61.63 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: A useful converter between SI and other units is available at http://AnalysisChamp.com/EEx/ExpEvalCV.asp. This converter is capable of performing complex conversions between any and all proper unit expressions and should be included as an external link to this article. 
MikeVanVoorhis (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to Complex Unit Converter 

message: first word, second line:
"Formally....." is an ambiguous word, because following definition is NOT formal but informal
somebody probably meant " current, official, mainstream, aknowledged... definition " ?93.43.232.68 (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: CORRECTION  needed 

message: I think I've discovered a hole in the English language. Let me draw a parallel to help explain it.
3 and 4 are numbers (positive integers if you want to be specific). But, when you see them in the form of a fraction — 3/4 — we have particular name for each of them IN THAT CONTEXT. 3 is the "numerator" and 4 is the "denominator".
Now consider a bunch of different measurements, such as:
• 2.54 centimetres
• 7 days
• 1.5 litres
• 12 ounces
• –40 degrees
The generic name for the words "centimetres", "days", "litres", "ounces", and "degrees" is "units". But what's the generic name for the numeric part of the measurement, the 2.54, 7, 1.5, 12, and –40? IOW, if any given measurement comprises an "X" and a unit of measure, what's the "X"?
Suggested answers when I inquired among my friends included "magnitude", "number", "numerical value", just plain "value", and "quantity", but each of those words is sufficiently generic that it can also be used in other contexts. What I was searching for (but which may not exist) is a word like "numerator", which of course is also a number, value, etc. but which is a specific KIND of number, value, etc. that only has meaning in the context of a fraction. I'm looking for the equivalent word that only has meaning in the context of a measurement.
For lack of a better term, I have used a placeholder term as the title of this section, drawing a parallel to "dividend" as "the number to be divided". Here the fake word "unitend" is taken to mean "the number to which the unit of measurement is to be applied". This is unsatisfactory for several reasons, not least of which is that my computer keeps trying to change it to "united". Does anyone have either (a) an official answer to this question or (b) a better suggestion?
Excuse me for my ignorance, but I'm new at this. I hope the requested 4 tildes go here:
RichardSRussell (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic term for, um, "unitend"? 

message: First line says, A physical quantity (or "physical magnitude")....... As far as I know Physical quantity is a quantity which can have magnitude. But the line sort of confuses it. Even though it is only a pedantic query I think it is important to use correct words.
Contact '97 (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited, replaced "number" with "magnitude" to the formula "Quantity is expressed by a Magnitude and a Unit" (where the unit can be of more than one kind, such as m/s). 2601:583:8205:9C20:111B:F58F:F00F:C787 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Quantity = Physical magnitude ?? 

message: The article physical quantity essentially refers its definition to being a physical property, with the qualification of being quantified by measurement. This qualification, however, is already implied by physical property (...is any property that is measurable,...). Therefore, the articles appear to cover the same subject matter under different terms. Physical quantity, however, focusses mostly on units and measures, while physical property is more of a short philosophical discussion. Kbrose (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article uses a definition of physical quantity quoting the JCGM, which however is attributed there to the more generic definition for quantity, not just physical quantity. Kbrose (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical quantity vs. physical property

message: I tagged this article as POV mainly due to things like   Some people might recommend so, but others do not.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The "International System of Quantities base quantities" table here lists both plane angle (radian) and solid angle (steradian) as a base quantities. However the linked page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Quantities) lists these both as derived quantities. I am not sure which is correct, but this appears to be inconsistent.
24.117.28.229 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. fgnievinski (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are plane angle and solid angle as base quantities