 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Is it really any weirder than 273.15?
>
> Likewise, I don't think 9.81 is a more convenient constant than 32.2!
Sorry I meant the unnamed numerical constants in equations, rather than the
official named constants like 'g'. I was just used to seeing simple
equations in text books with no numbers in them (just symbols) yet in one of
my books they use imperial units and almost every equation has some
numerical constant in it. On top of that they find it necessary to write
the units needed for every quantity, which I guess have to tie up with the
constant. It just looks messy (and presumably quite hard to remember),
that's all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/23/2010 10:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> "Shifting the decimal point" isn't a recognised mathematical operation,
> well, it wasn't when I took maths. Multiplication and division are.
> Just because one takes a shortcut doesn't mean it's a different operation.
Shifts are perfectly legitimate mathematical operations. Many of the
things computers do couldn't be done easily without a shift operation :P
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> It's true then. Americans don't walk much. :-P
Well, I mean, there's a small multiple right? It's not like you can only
drink one pint of beer, either. :-) Walking somewhere between 0.1 and 10
miles is convenient. Outside that, you're going to measure in yards or
you're going to take a horse.
> We use stones for weighing people. For instance I am 12 stones but I
> would like to be 11 and a half. Or 11-7, that is 11 stones 7 pounds or
> 73 Kg.
Cool. Where is this?
>> There's nothing lighter than an ounce,
>
> What about a dram (not a "wee dram" ;-) ) there are 16 of them in an
> ounce and 437.5 grains in an ounce.
I wasn't sure if a dram was imperial or not.
> This is true but I would measure the length to be 12' 9" or 12 foot 9
> (inches is understood).
Yes, exactly. The construction rulers here measure in both inches and feet,
so it's trivial to get either measurement in situations where people use
both scales.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:41:13 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 8/23/2010 10:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "Shifting the decimal point" isn't a recognised mathematical operation,
>> well, it wasn't when I took maths. Multiplication and division are.
>> Just because one takes a shortcut doesn't mean it's a different
>> operation.
>
> Shifts are perfectly legitimate mathematical operations. Many of the
> things computers do couldn't be done easily without a shift operation :P
Binary shifts are multiplication and division as well. :P
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:05:56 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:04:42 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>> >> You're making a mental calculation there - you're dividing by 10.
>> >> It's easy, but that doesn't mean there's no calculation at all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Oh come on, you are not dividing, just shifting the decimal point.
>>
>> Which by definition, mathematically, is division (or multiplication if
>> it's the other direction).
>
> still, it doesn't demand any calculation at all to correlate 1.80 meters
> to 1 meter and 80 cm or to 180 cm. They are all equivalent, even in
> digits...
But not in decimal points. It's still division/multiplication by 10, no
matter how you describe how it looks.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Shifts are perfectly legitimate mathematical operations. Many of the
>> things computers do couldn't be done easily without a shift operation :P
>
> Binary shifts are multiplication and division as well. :P
What you want is binary rotations. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/08/2010 2:56 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> It's true then. Americans don't walk much. :-P
>
> Well, I mean, there's a small multiple right? It's not like you can only
> drink one pint of beer, either. :-) Walking somewhere between 0.1 and 10
> miles is convenient. Outside that, you're going to measure in yards or
> you're going to take a horse.
>
Just pulling your leg Cuz. ;-)
>> We use stones for weighing people. For instance I am 12 stones but I
>> would like to be 11 and a half. Or 11-7, that is 11 stones 7 pounds or
>> 73 Kg.
>
> Cool. Where is this?
>
Here's a clue
http://tinyurl.com/6zz4l7
>>> There's nothing lighter than an ounce,
>>
>> What about a dram (not a "wee dram" ;-) ) there are 16 of them in an
>> ounce and 437.5 grains in an ounce.
>
> I wasn't sure if a dram was imperial or not.
It has a crown, does it not? :-)
>
>> This is true but I would measure the length to be 12' 9" or 12 foot 9
>> (inches is understood).
>
> Yes, exactly. The construction rulers here measure in both inches and
> feet, so it's trivial to get either measurement in situations where
> people use both scales.
>
We're going metric and have rulers with inches on one edge and
centimetres on the other. (Rotated 180 degrees so you can't do a direct
comparison/conversion.)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Here's a clue
> http://tinyurl.com/6zz4l7
I don't know. That doesn't do anything except give me a blank page.
> We're going metric and have rulers with inches on one edge and
> centimetres on the other. (Rotated 180 degrees so you can't do a direct
> comparison/conversion.)
Yeah, that's how our measuring tapes are too. Except the inches side has
both feet+inches and inches.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Here's a clue
> http://tinyurl.com/6zz4l7
Oh, it downloaded a MP3. OK. Nevermind. Very cute.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-8-2010 18:11, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:41:13 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2010 10:53 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> "Shifting the decimal point" isn't a recognised mathematical operation,
>>> well, it wasn't when I took maths. Multiplication and division are.
>>> Just because one takes a shortcut doesn't mean it's a different
>>> operation.
>> Shifts are perfectly legitimate mathematical operations. Many of the
>> things computers do couldn't be done easily without a shift operation :P
>
> Binary shifts are multiplication and division as well. :P
yes and no. Conceptually yes, in a hardware implementation on a chip no.
That is why they are so much cheaper than real multiplicatons and
division. The same goes for wetware. But I appreciate your stubbornness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
