Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #98377 > unrolled thread

Re: Merry Christmas!

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Re: Merry Christmas! David Ryeburn <david_ryeburn@telus.netz> - 2017-01-07 17:23 -0800
    Re: Merry Christmas! dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-01-08 14:03 +1100
      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 13:35 -0500
        Re: Merry Christmas! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 05:42 +1100
        Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-08 20:01 +0000
          Re: Merry Christmas! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-01-08 22:48 +0000
            Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 02:05 +0000
          Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-09 15:52 -0500
        Re: Merry Christmas! John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2017-01-08 21:44 -0500
          Re: Merry Christmas! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 14:27 +1100
          Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 12:06 +0000
            Re: Merry Christmas! John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2017-01-09 19:16 -0500
              Re: Merry Christmas! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-01-10 13:39 +1300
        Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-14 23:17 -0500
    Re: Merry Christmas! Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-01-08 01:41 -0500
      Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-08 06:55 +0000
        Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 17:24 -0500
      Re: Merry Christmas! John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2017-01-08 11:38 -0500
        Re: Merry Christmas! Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2017-01-08 09:18 -0800
          Re: Merry Christmas! AL <45364747@invalid.com> - 2017-01-08 11:03 -0700
            Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-08 19:35 +0000
            Re: Merry Christmas! Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2017-01-08 14:05 -0800
              Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 17:56 -0500
                Re: Merry Christmas! Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2017-01-08 15:21 -0800
                  Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 21:15 -0500
                    Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 02:45 +0000
                      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 22:18 -0500
                      Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-09 16:40 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-14 23:35 -0500
                          Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-01-14 21:56 -0800
                          Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-15 08:30 -0500
                Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 02:25 +0000
                  Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 22:08 -0500
                    Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 12:01 +0000
                      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-09 18:15 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-09 20:07 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-10 05:26 +0000
                    Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-09 20:04 -0500
                      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-10 00:08 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-10 18:44 -0500
                          Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-11 17:06 -0500
                            Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-12 08:11 -0500
                            Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-12 16:02 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-15 00:30 -0500
                          Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-16 02:20 -0500
                            Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-16 16:34 -0500
                              Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-16 18:18 -0500
                                Re: Merry Christmas! Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2017-01-16 18:16 -0800
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-17 00:01 -0500
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-17 07:49 -0500
                                Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-17 07:44 -0500
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-17 15:57 -0500
                                    Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-17 19:00 -0500
                                      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-17 23:40 -0500
                                        Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-20 16:07 -0500
                                          Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-20 18:39 -0500
                                            Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-21 08:01 -0500
                                            Re: Merry Christmas! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 08:13 +1100
                                              Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-21 17:40 -0500
                                                Re: Merry Christmas! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-22 21:03 +1100
                                                Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-22 08:32 -0500
                                                  Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-22 14:32 -0500
                                                    Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-23 15:55 -0500
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-01-17 16:51 -0600
                                    Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-17 18:57 -0500
                                    Re: Merry Christmas! martin <martin@rakupottery.org.uk> - 2017-01-17 23:15 +0000
                            Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-18 20:02 +0100
                              Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-18 15:29 -0500
                                Re: Merry Christmas! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-01-20 09:28 +1300
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-20 16:15 -0500
                                Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-20 19:17 +0100
                              Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-20 16:08 -0500
                                Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-21 01:39 +0100
                                  Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-21 08:03 -0500
                                    Re: Merry Christmas! sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2017-01-21 08:04 -0800
                                      Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-21 13:07 -0500
                                        Re: Merry Christmas! sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2017-01-21 11:21 -0800
                                          Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-22 08:22 -0500
                                      Re: Merry Christmas! nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-21 13:09 -0500
                                      Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-27 00:12 +0100
                                        Re: Merry Christmas! sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2017-01-26 17:21 -0800
                                          Re: Merry Christmas! Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2017-01-26 20:26 -0500
                    Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-14 23:54 -0500
              Re: Merry Christmas! AL <45364747@invalid.com> - 2017-01-08 16:11 -0700
                Re: Merry Christmas! Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2017-01-08 15:26 -0800
                  Re: Merry Christmas! AL <45364747@invalid.com> - 2017-01-08 23:26 -0700
                    Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 12:10 +0000
                      Re: Merry Christmas! AL <4567784747@invalid.com> - 2017-01-09 08:46 -0700
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-01-10 08:48 +1300
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 20:22 +0000
                      Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-09 18:22 -0500
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2017-01-10 13:20 +1300
                        Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-10 05:33 +0000
                          Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-10 05:36 +0000
                Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-09 02:33 +0000
        Re: Merry Christmas! JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-01-08 14:19 -0500
          Re: Merry Christmas! Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-01-08 19:36 +0000
            Re: Merry Christmas! John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2017-01-08 21:18 -0500
          Re: Merry Christmas! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-01-09 07:23 +1100
          Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-15 00:38 -0500
    Re: Merry Christmas! John Somerset <somerset@nospam.com> - 2017-01-08 22:01 -0500
    Re: Merry Christmas! "Happy.Hobo" <Happy.Hobo@Spam.Invalid> - 2017-01-14 23:03 -0500

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#99299

On 1/26/2017 3:12 PM, Happy.Hobo wrote:
> On 1/21/17 5:04 PM, sms wrote:
>> Waze is an awesome App.
>
> I like Waze, but don't use it much because I walk and bike.  That means
> I go places cars can't go, and if I use Waze, it records those paths as
> usable.  Eventually (theoretically) someone will discover it and correct
> it, but still ...

Interesting. I bike a lot too, but I never tried to use Waze for that 
since traffic issues rarely affect bicyclists. I've used Google Maps for 
bicycling, on occasion, and I've even sent them corrections to their 
bicycle routes. Received a nice reply once, acknowledging an error, but 
informing me that they had no way to fix it in their system.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#99301

On 2017-01-26 20:21, sms wrote:
> On 1/26/2017 3:12 PM, Happy.Hobo wrote:
>> On 1/21/17 5:04 PM, sms wrote:
>>> Waze is an awesome App.
>>
>> I like Waze, but don't use it much because I walk and bike.  That means
>> I go places cars can't go, and if I use Waze, it records those paths as
>> usable.  Eventually (theoretically) someone will discover it and correct
>> it, but still ...
>
> Interesting. I bike a lot too, but I never tried to use Waze for that
> since traffic issues rarely affect bicyclists. I've used Google Maps for
> bicycling, on occasion, and I've even sent them corrections to their
> bicycle routes. Received a nice reply once, acknowledging an error, but
> informing me that they had no way to fix it in their system.

They expect _you_ to fix it using MapMaker (ending in March), thence 
right in Google Maps.  (I haven't tried the later yet).

-- 
"If war is God's way of teaching Americans geography, then
recession is His way of teaching everyone a little economics."
   ..Raj Patel, The Value of Nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98661

On 01-08-2017 22:08, JF Mezei wrote:
> Each of A-B, B-C, C-A represents an arc of a circle (circumference)
> going in a different location, and based on general location, the
> applicable radius of earth. Because these arcs are tiny compared to a
> 360° arc around the planet, higher precision is needed.

All the survey measurements I've seen in USA have a precision of a 
hundredth of a foot (eighth of an inch).  The positions of your points 
A, B, & C would be measured in one or more indirect steps from an 
established reference point.  I don't know whether satellite GPS is 
being used now instead of the "old way."

It's possible, therefore, to be an inch off after eight steps.  But it 
is more probable that some errors will be positive and some negative, so 
very little error overall.

Satellite GPS, if used, would rarely be more accurate than seven inches. 
  If A, B, & C are likely to be more than an inch off, what's the point 
of precision in π?

One could use compass and straightedge on a map to find the center of 
the circle and likely be accurate enough.

And the circle itself was probably created FROM the already marked 
centerpoint by people with tape measures!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98427

On 1/8/2017 3:05 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <o4tupr$11c$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2017 10:18 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
>>
>>> in the real world (as opposed to "pure math"), "pi = ~3.14" is
>>> almost certainly adequate for all but the most nit-picky
>>> applications.
>>
>> In the real world? These days most of us non-math people would
>> probably use our phone for any calculations. The generic Calculator
>> app that came on my phone has pi out to 11 places...
>
> Which is, in the real world, overkill on the order of using a hand
> grenade to kill a mosquito.

Hand grenades, mosquito? My grandkids might call you a drama queen. I'm
guessing that most all modern calculators and apps have a similar pi
accuracy. Someone probably put it in the code long ago and it's just
easier to leave it there for the various devices that use it. Why not?

> there's not much point in going beyond 5 or 6 decimal places unless
> there's some pressing reason for ultra-high accuracy."

Unless that's what's already programmed into the device you're using. I
suppose you could manually enter a 3 digit pi if you wanted... 8-/

> Or, put another way, the only "real" purpose for computing pi to a
> bazillion decimal places is the "fame" that comes from doing it,

In my case I can't even remember how to do long division. My phone's
calculator app is my friend. But I'll try not to become too famous if I
ever hit my 11 places pi key again... ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98430

In article <o4ugs0$63g$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com> 
wrote:

> On 1/8/2017 3:05 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <o4tupr$11c$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/8/2017 10:18 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
> >>
> >>> in the real world (as opposed to "pure math"), "pi = ~3.14" is
> >>> almost certainly adequate for all but the most nit-picky
> >>> applications.
> >>
> >> In the real world? These days most of us non-math people would
> >> probably use our phone for any calculations. The generic Calculator
> >> app that came on my phone has pi out to 11 places...
> >
> > Which is, in the real world, overkill on the order of using a hand
> > grenade to kill a mosquito.
> 
> Hand grenades, mosquito? My grandkids might call you a drama queen. I'm
> guessing that most all modern calculators and apps have a similar pi
> accuracy. Someone probably put it in the code long ago and it's just
> easier to leave it there for the various devices that use it. Why not?
> 
> > there's not much point in going beyond 5 or 6 decimal places unless
> > there's some pressing reason for ultra-high accuracy."
> 
> Unless that's what's already programmed into the device you're using. I
> suppose you could manually enter a 3 digit pi if you wanted... 8-/
> 
> > Or, put another way, the only "real" purpose for computing pi to a
> > bazillion decimal places is the "fame" that comes from doing it,
> 
> In my case I can't even remember how to do long division. My phone's
> calculator app is my friend. But I'll try not to become too famous if I
> ever hit my 11 places pi key again... ;)

<sigh> Another idiot arguing for the sake of hearing himself arguing. 
Why am I disappointed? I really ought to know better than to expect 
anything else by now.

-- 
Brought to you by the letter K and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98461

On 1/8/2017 4:26 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <o4ugs0$63g$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com>

>>>>> in the real world (as opposed to "pure math"), "pi = ~3.14"
>>>>> is almost certainly adequate for all but the most nit-picky
>>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world? These days most of us non-math people would
>>>> probably use our phone for any calculations. The generic
>>>> Calculator app that came on my phone has pi out to 11
>>>> places...

> <sigh> Another idiot arguing for the sake of hearing himself arguing.
>  Why am I disappointed? I really ought to know better than to expect
>  anything else by now.

<sigh> You're the asshole who brought up the 'real world'. Unless you're 
still using your slide rule even you haven't used a 3 digit pi for many 
years now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98468

In message <o4vac2$t1o$1@dont-email.me> 
  AL <45364747@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2017 4:26 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article <o4ugs0$63g$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com>

>>>>>> in the real world (as opposed to "pure math"), "pi = ~3.14"
>>>>>> is almost certainly adequate for all but the most nit-picky
>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the real world? These days most of us non-math people would
>>>>> probably use our phone for any calculations. The generic
>>>>> Calculator app that came on my phone has pi out to 11
>>>>> places...

>> <sigh> Another idiot arguing for the sake of hearing himself arguing.
>>  Why am I disappointed? I really ought to know better than to expect
>>  anything else by now.

> <sigh> You're the asshole who brought up the 'real world'. Unless you're 
> still using your slide rule even you haven't used a 3 digit pi for many 
> years now.

I normally use a TWO digit pi because I can do that math in my head
without needing a calculator. I can do 3 digits as well, but it's nearly
never needed.

"Let's see, it's 15 across, so that's 45 + 1.5... call it 47. Close
enough. If I'm feeling anal, I can add .75 and say "47 and a quarter"

-- 
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea
is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both
of them together is certain death.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98477

On 1/9/2017 5:10 AM, Lewis wrote:

> I normally use a TWO digit pi

Those little tiny slide rules that we kept in our shirt pockets for
quick estimates in the old Saturn 5 days would calculate to 2 place 
accuracy as I recall. They worked fine for the rough work.

> because I can do that math in my head without needing a calculator. I
> can do 3 digits as well,

That's impressive. Fortunately my calculator (phone) is usually at hand.

> but it's nearly never needed.

Agreed. My mathematical forte is mentally knocking off all those extra 
unnecessary digits my calculator app insists on giving me... ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98490

In article <o50b5h$a3v$1@dont-email.me>, AL <4567784747@invalid.com>
wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 5:10 AM, Lewis wrote:
> > 
> > I normally use a TWO digit pi
> 
> Those little tiny slide rules that we kept in our shirt pockets for
> quick estimates in the old Saturn 5 days would calculate to 2 place 
> accuracy as I recall. They worked fine for the rough work.
> 
> > because I can do that math in my head without needing a calculator. I
> > can do 3 digits as well,
> 
> That's impressive. Fortunately my calculator (phone) is usually at hand.
> 
> > but it's nearly never needed.
> 
> Agreed. My mathematical forte is mentally knocking off all those extra 
> unnecessary digits my calculator app insists on giving me... ;)

You do that yourself ... how quaintly old-fashioned.   ;-)
My HP calculator lets me set how many decimal place I want displayed
(as does any good spreadsheet program).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98491

In message <o50b5h$a3v$1@dont-email.me> 
  AL <4567784747@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 5:10 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> because I can do that math in my head without needing a calculator. I
>> can do 3 digits as well,

> That's impressive. Fortunately my calculator (phone) is usually at hand.

It's not really impressive. Triple the number and add 1/10th the number.
That's two places. Add half the 1/10th and that's three places. Done.

Less time and effort than punching the numbers into a calculator.


-- 
FRIDAYS ARE NOT "PANTS OPTIONAL" Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF23

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98504

Another example of decimal accuracy needing more than apparent:


Retail banking: you exhange  USD 1.00 into CAD , and the bank will give
you an exchange rate in cents (eg 0.75 to the dollar or 1.35 to the dollar).

But between 2 banks, when they do SWIFT transfer, they add 4 decimals to
the exchange rate.

So just because you as consumer only get to see 2 decimans (cents) on
exchnage rates does not mean that internally they don't use far more.

When Apple buys $10 million worth of iPhones, Apple's USA bank wires USD
$10 million to the Taiwanese bank. The Taiwanese bank then converts to
Taiwanese dollars using 4 more decimals before depositing amount into
Foxconn's account and sending it confirmation that Apple has paid.

And when the USA and Taiwanese bank settle accounts later that month
(which can be billions in amounts), you can bet they use 4 additional
decimals in exchange rates.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98506

In article <58741b42$0$42552$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> Another example of decimal accuracy needing more than apparent:
> 
> Retail banking: you exhange  USD 1.00 into CAD , and the bank will give
> you an exchange rate in cents (eg 0.75 to the dollar or 1.35 to the dollar).
> 
> But between 2 banks, when they do SWIFT transfer, they add 4 decimals to
> the exchange rate.
> 
> So just because you as consumer only get to see 2 decimans (cents) on
> exchnage rates does not mean that internally they don't use far more.

Banks here in New Zealand usually have the exchange rates listed to
four decimal places on a board in the window / entrance (these days
it's an electronic board or flatscreen TV).

Interest rates, both mortgage and investment, are usually only listed
to two decimal places.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98517

In message <58741b42$0$42552$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Another example of decimal accuracy needing more than apparent:


> Retail banking: you exhange  USD 1.00 into CAD , and the bank will give
> you an exchange rate in cents (eg 0.75 to the dollar or 1.35 to the dollar).

No they won't. They will give you 0.756630 canadian cents on the US
dollar, and the $1 is 1.0000... dollars (infinitely precise, you know
there is exactly one and no more or less than one by any fraction). So
precision is limited by the least precise number, which will be the
real exchange rate.

> But between 2 banks, when they do SWIFT transfer, they add 4 decimals to
> the exchange rate.

They do not "add" 4 decimals. 

Once again, you betray your total lack of mathematical concepts beyond
first year Algebra (12 years old) and Geometry (13 years old).

-- 
I WILL NOT INSTIGATE REVOLUTION Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G06

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98519

In message <slrno78sk8.1jf1.g.kreme@snow.local> 
  Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <58741b42$0$42552$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> 
>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> Another example of decimal accuracy needing more than apparent:


>> Retail banking: you exhange  USD 1.00 into CAD , and the bank will give
>> you an exchange rate in cents (eg 0.75 to the dollar or 1.35 to the dollar).

> No they won't. They will give you 0.756630 canadian cents on the US
> dollar,

Other way around, obviously. 0.756630 US¢ for each CAD.

-- 
She'd always tried to face towards the light. But the harder you stared into
the brightness the harsher it burned into you until, at last, the temptation
picked you up and bid you turn around to see how long, rich, strong and dark,
streaming away behind you, your shadow had become- --Carpe Jugulum

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98440

In message <o4ugs0$63g$1@dont-email.me> 
  AL <45364747@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 1/8/2017 3:05 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
>> In article <o4tupr$11c$1@dont-email.me>, AL <45364747@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/8/2017 10:18 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
>>>
>>>> in the real world (as opposed to "pure math"), "pi = ~3.14" is
>>>> almost certainly adequate for all but the most nit-picky
>>>> applications.
>>>
>>> In the real world? These days most of us non-math people would
>>> probably use our phone for any calculations. The generic Calculator
>>> app that came on my phone has pi out to 11 places...
>>
>> Which is, in the real world, overkill on the order of using a hand
>> grenade to kill a mosquito.

> Hand grenades, mosquito? My grandkids might call you a drama queen. I'm
> guessing that most all modern calculators and apps have a similar pi
> accuracy. Someone probably put it in the code long ago and it's just
> easier to leave it there for the various devices that use it. Why not?

Because it gives a baseless impression of precision. As I said before,
the circumference of a circle that is 12m across is 37m and NOT
37.699111.....

You do not get to generate precision just by throwing meaningless digits
into a math problem.

>> there's not much point in going beyond 5 or 6 decimal places unless
>> there's some pressing reason for ultra-high accuracy."

> Unless that's what's already programmed into the device you're using. I
> suppose you could manually enter a 3 digit pi if you wanted... 8-/

Using an arbitrary precision will give you the *wrong* answer

>> Or, put another way, the only "real" purpose for computing pi to a
>> bazillion decimal places is the "fame" that comes from doing it,

> In my case I can't even remember how to do long division. My phone's
> calculator app is my friend. But I'll try not to become too famous if I
> ever hit my 11 places pi key again... ;)

As long as you remember that 11 places gives you the orbit of Neptune
within a few inches and that your writing down 12*pi to 11 decimals is
not just silly, but also inaccurate.

The fact is that tripling the number and adding 1/10 is perfectly fine
for the vast majority of calculations. If you need precision for really
big numbers, 22/7 works exceedingly well.


-- 
>> a Freudian slip is when you say one thing but you're really thinking about a mother.
> no, a Freudian slip is sexy underwear your mother wears

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98408

On 2017-01-08 11:38, John Somerset wrote:

> In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus came from about 1650 BC.  Problem 41 tells 
> how to compute the volume of a cylindrical granary:
> V= [(1-1/9)d]^2 h

What numbering scheme did they use at the time ?  "0" came much later in
history of arabic numbers. So curious how they would do decimals back then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98410

In message <587290b9$0$18109$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2017-01-08 11:38, John Somerset wrote:

>> In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus came from about 1650 BC.  Problem 41 tells 
>> how to compute the volume of a cylindrical granary:
>> V= [(1-1/9)d]^2 h

> What numbering scheme did they use at the time ?  "0" came much later in
> history of arabic numbers. So curious how they would do decimals back then.

They didn't do decimals, they did fractions.


-- 
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you
really make them think, they'll hate you.” ― Don Marquis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98438

On 1/8/17 2:36 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <587290b9$0$18109$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com>
>    JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-01-08 11:38, John Somerset wrote:
>
>>> In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus came from about 1650 BC.  Problem 41 tells
>>> how to compute the volume of a cylindrical granary:
>>> V= [(1-1/9)d]^2 h
>
>> What numbering scheme did they use at the time ?  "0" came much later in
>> history of arabic numbers. So curious how they would do decimals back then.
>
> They didn't do decimals, they did fractions.
>
>
Yeah, 3.16 is the modern equivalent of 4 times the square of 8/9.

When I was in school, answers in math class were likely to be given in 
fractions and not decimals. If you don't have a calculator, fractions an 
be easier, even to work out an algebra example requiring a whole page of 
figuring.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98417

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> John Somerset wrote

>> In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus came from about 1650 BC.
>> Problem 41 tells  how to compute the volume of a cylindrical granary:
>> V= [(1-1/9)d]^2 h

> What numbering scheme did they use at the time ?  "0" came much later in
> history of arabic numbers. So curious how they would do decimals back 
> then.

Don’t need decimals with decent sized granarys. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#98664

On 01-08-2017 14:19, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2017-01-08 11:38, John Somerset wrote:
>
>> In Egypt, the Rhind Papyrus came from about 1650 BC.  Problem 41 tells
>> how to compute the volume of a cylindrical granary:
>> V= [(1-1/9)d]^2 h
>
> What numbering scheme did they use at the time ?  "0" came much later in
> history of arabic numbers. So curious how they would do decimals back then.

There are neither zeroes nor decimals in that formula.
Not that there is much connection between the two.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web