 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:18:01 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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. ;-)
That depends on whether the bits actually get rotated. From my
recollection of x86 assembly, it's a shift, not a rotation. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:21:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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.
That still doesn't mean it isn't mathematically a multipilcation or
division - the operation doesn't change just because you took a
shortcut. ;-)
> But I appreciate your stubbornness.
I figured you - of all people - would. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> That is why they are so much cheaper than real multiplicatons and
> division.
If you're using a compiler where a shift by a constant is cheaper than a
division by a constant, you're in trouble.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:33:19 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:18:01 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> 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. ;-)
>
> That depends on whether the bits actually get rotated. From my
> recollection of x86 assembly, it's a shift, not a rotation. :)
>
> Jim
My recollection, of course, has changed now that I re-read this, I
remember ROR and ROL operators, which do in fact rotate. I just remember
using SHL and SHR more frequently.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
