Talk:2019 revision of the SI

Revocation of 31-Jan-2011

It is a mute point whether one writes 2 x 10^-8 or 20 x 10^-9. The former keeps the mantissa in the range 1.0 to 10.0 while the latter maps onto μg. In such circumstances, I think it appropriate to keep the article in line with the original text. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of 29 March 2011

I have rolled back a series of changes that were made earlier today. While I agreed with some of the changes, I did not agree with them all. In particular,

• The CCU wrote to the CIPM - see the title given in the reference.
• Hard spaces between numbers and symbols were removed. The hard spaces were put there to ensure that the value and symbol were not separated by line breaks. This is standard practice.
• The way in which negative superscripts was handled - for example changing J·K⁻¹ to J/K. While I agree that these two have the same meaning, I used J·K⁻¹ for the sake of consistency with the rest of the article.
• The symbol "sec" is not the recognised symbol for "seconds" - "s" is.

Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact on reproducibility

The current text contains a table, introduced with:

"The following table catalogues the improvements"

They don't look like they are all improvements, as in half the cases the change is from an exact value to an uncertain value. I suggest the table catalogues the changes.
—DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC))