You're being overly pedantic (and I would argue actually incorrect). Kilograms and pounds are both referred to as "weight" in general conversation and nobody is going to be confused by this.

Go to any supermarket in a country that uses the metric system, potatoes will be sold by the kilogram - it's the natural way to phrase this outside of America.

In a physics context the definition of kilogram might be specifically mass, with newtons referring to weight/force. But words can have different meanings outside of technical contexts.

If you go to a metric country, and ask someone how much they "weigh", approximately zero people will say "x newtons", they will say "x kilograms" (or "x pounds" still in a lot of commonwealth countries if we're being pedantic).

Although the more I think about this the more I think the difference between technical and colloquial is actually that "weight" in colloquial use refers to mass, because force is not commonly relevant.

"Weight" historically referred to mass, in common speech dating back forever. It’s the Germanic word which has been used throughout the history of English, whereas "mass" comes from Latin via French, like 5–6 centuries ago. The two words are almost exact synonyms, in historical/colloquial use.

Both historically and today, a "pound" (Roman libra) is a unit of mass. People use a pound-force as a unit of force only in somewhat specialized contexts.

At some point in the relatively recent past, someone (not sure who) decided that we needed to have 2 separate words for mass vs. force, and we should keep the Latin word for mass and use the Germanic word to mean force.

Now pedantic people are constantly insisting that using the standard English word weight to mean mass is "wrong".

Actually in the past "weight" or the Latin "pondus" (=> pound) always referred correctly to what is now named "mass".

When someone mentioned "weight" just in a qualitative way, as a burden, they might have thought at the force that presses someone down, but whenever they referred to weight in a quantitative way, they referred to the weight as measured with a weighing scale, which gives the ratio between the mass of the weighed object and the mass of a standard weight, independently of the local acceleration of gravity.

Methods that measure the force of gravity and then the mass is computed from the measured force, i.e. with the force measured either mechanically with springs or electrically, have appeared only very recently.

The distinction between force of weight and mass became important only since Newton, who used "quantity of matter" for what was renamed later to the more convenient shorter word "mass".

Perhaps it would have been better to retain the traditional words like weight and its correspondents in all other languages with the meaning of "mass", because this meaning has been used during more than 5 millennia and use a new word, e.g. gravitational force, for the force of weight, because we need to speak about this force much more seldom than about the mass of something.

> Actually in the past "weight" [...] always referred correctly to what is now named "mass".

That’s the same thing I just said. Why add “actually” in front? Yes, weight was historically measured with balance scales.

I guess I should have been clearer that the term “mass” as used in physics only dates from 3 centuries ago (from Newton), and did not historically mean weight in Latin. (Mass comes from Latin via French for lump of dough.)

You are right, I have misunderstood what you have said, because it indeed looked like if "mass" would have been some traditional word having anything to do in any language with what are now called "weight" and "mass" instead of a recent post-Newton word choice for naming one of the 2 quantities, while keeping the old names for the other.

I still think that the choice of which of the 2 should get a new name was bad, because the traditional quantitative meaning almost always referred to what is now called "mass"(with extremely few exceptions such when somebody would be described as so strong as to be able to lift a certain weight).

Yes, in colloquial use weight refers to mass _most_ of the time. But can also refer to inertia or mass. Or be used metaphorically.

In this situation, the mass and weight are proportional and irrelevant to the problem. Other than proper respect of units, why would it really matter? I would agree that using mass+kg would remain correct and be less unusual, but it doesn't matter a lot.

It does not matter, it is just a pet peeve of mine. Might be due psychological trauma from when I was a kid and arguing with an older cousin about how pounds and kilograms are not units of the same thing, and the older cousin "winning" the argument in the eyes of the elders because the cousin was quite a few years older than me and considered to be smart in school.

From what I remember from intro physics, we distinguished between pounds and pounds force, the latter having the 32ft/s^2 multiplied in.

And wikipedia seems to agree with me, see pound (mass) vs pound (force).

Oh wow, learning a lot today. I was taught in the US that pounds are a measure of force, and that is how it was always used in physics problems.

As a European I learned in metric. When I first learned pounds, it was as the imperial system's equivalent of grams and a conversion factor was given. Force in physics class was taught in Newtons (kg*m/s^2).

Pounds as a mass unit are perverse enough. Things like pound force and psi (pounds per square inch) were used only to make fun of old mechanics papers and textbooks. Also, btu. It is quite amazing actually that someone would see the SI and think “no, too simple; I’ll keep my pounds, ounces, inches, and feet”.

Anyway, yes, the proper unit of force is the Newton.

In engineering school (in the US), we used pounds mass (lbm) as the unit of mass, and pounds force (lbf) as the unit of force.

I think there is some weird dual usage that makes them either mass or weight depending on the context. For example, torque is in ft•lbs or N•m so the pounds there are lbs force.

Though checking wikipedia again, it actually specifies that torque is measured in as lbf•ft. I take that to mean that 1 ft•lb is the torque of 1/2 oz (1/32 of an lb) at 1 foot. I expect that's a test question almost everyone would get wrong, myself included.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-foot_(torque)

Think like an ordinary person. You know, an ordinary person who would say that they weigh about 80 kilograms. Only science nerds would say that they mass about 80 kilograms, or that they weigh about 785 Newtons. Similarly, anyone who's used to living with US customary (or Imperial) units understands that a pound of force is what a pound of mass weighs and would see no reason, under any circumstances, why anyone would want to divide the gravitational acceleration out of a pound-foot to arrive at a "real" torque value. When the pound value is expressing a weight-equivalent force, that force is the force of a pound under normal gravitational acceleration at or near the surface of the Earth.

To me (Netherlands) a pound is simply 0.5kg. Force is expressed in Newton.

When I buy potatoes I am interested to buy 10 kg mass of potatoes, not the amount or potatoes of which has a gravity force of 98,1N. On mars you need to eat 10 kg of potatoes a week, not the amount of which has 98,1N gravity force.

The scales in the supermarket on earth automatically convert the weight into mass for my convenience by applying a constant factor of 1/9,81.

I am hardly far away enough from earth that the constant changed, so I did not need to distinguish between the two measures so far. When carrying the potatoes home I just use the mass of 10 kg as a proxy for the force I need.

And to determine the increased breaking distance of my car, I need to know the mass again.

> Wonder why the person that wrote the Wikipedia article changed it up when it is supposed to be a direct quote.

They likely changed it from lb to kg because that would be more friendly to an international audience, without realizing that lb is a measure of weight and kg is a measure of mass. Therefore they didn't know to change "weight" to "mass".

I have been to the US quite regularly, and been living in the UK for a number of years, and I have never seen someone using pounds as a unit of force instead of a unit of mass meaning roughly 500g, give or take. Second meaning was about 1.20€.

FWIW, the pound is a proper unit of mass: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) .

I'm a civil engineer. In statute terms pound is the unit of force and slug is the unit of mass. That might have colored my thinking.

Oh yes, that would make sense.

The difference between weight and mass is domain specific to physics.

I actually get annoyed at people who are pedantic about these things. Precision is important in some conversations, but just elitist in other.

Anyway, the term “weight” to refer to mass outdates its use as a force - its only since Newton that we distinguish the two, after all.

I really don’t like that example because it makes no sense. In no logical circumstance could the potatoes dehydrate so quickly when left out over a single night.

And they also don't consist of 99% water. That is why they called them "purely mathematical potatoes" and they could've chosen any type of fruit or vegetable. Heck, I'm just waiting for a car analogy now!

Brake fluid anyone?

But that 99% water simplification is needed for the purpose of the exercise.

The left out overnight is basically an absurd statement that is intended to confuse and not really related to the actual question.

The statement could be “left in a dry environment until” or simply “left to dry a few weeks”

You definitely could write that but it wouldn't change anything and you could make the same "argument" you are making now. "The left to dry a few weeks is basically an absurd statement that is intended to confuse" and it still wouldn't be true. It's not intended to confuse at all. It's intended to get the point across that you let this imaginary thing dry from 99% to 98%. They could've said "sponge" and let it out to dry any number of minutes. The point isn't to make a 100% accurate example of the drying properties of any actual 'thing'. They just needed something that people intuitively know "has water content" and that "can dry".

Wow by the downvotes I learned people react extremely negatively to any critique of math word problems. Spherical cows and 99% water potatoes are fine, those over simplifications are required for the analysis.

Saying Leaving the potatoes out overnight to imply they halved in mass, sounds as reasonable as “the potatoes were in the ground for 12 hours and then doubled in amount, what percent of water are they now?” It’s so gratuitous and requires ignoring all other laws of physics, while the goal of the spherical cow type simplification is to only ignore a few key challenging ones.

You probably won’t be thrilled by the spherical cows in the nearby pasture then.

Do spherical cows dream of mathematical potatoes?

Spherical cows, naturally, dream of spherical potatoes in a vacuum whilst grazing next to spherical chickens.

Honest question to know how others think.

It doesn't really matter, does it? The rate of evaporation is irrelevant to the problem. Mr. Potato could have waited a year, or dried them on the Uyuni salt plains.

Why do you care? Would this distraction affect your ability to solve the problem?