Re: density vs. "Webster's" Dictionaries

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 04:12 PM 5/1/99 -0500, brian whatcott wrote:
> the current meaning of "Webster's" is
> 'any American generic dictionary.'  There is no longer any copyright.

Very true (although I think the issue is loss of trademark not copyright).

>   I consulted some of the dictionaries titled "Webster's" in my
> possession:

Hmmm... "voting" is not a good a procedure for answering scientific
questions, even about terminology.

If you want a good laugh, go down to the library or bookstore and look up
the alleged definitions of scientific terms such as
 * quantum
 * elastic
 * field
 * ...
in a large number of dictionaries.  Some of the definitions look like they
would have been out-of-date in Samuel Johnson's time.  Others look like the
result of the parlor game "operator"; that is, an orignally-reasonable
definition was apparently passed through a dozen people who, with no
knowledge of the subject domain, made successive "improvements" to it.


Recommended procedures include:
 a) Use terminology that the intended readership is likely to understand.
When in doubt, include the definition.
 b) Use terminology the way thoughtful experts use it.

Applying rule (b) to the situation that gave rise to this thread, I see no
reason to doubt that
  * "current density" is a perfectly proper term
  * "electric charge density" can, in a suitable context, properly refer to
charge per surface area

These terms are in use, indeed in common use, by thoughtful experts.

Cheers --- jsd