If you really want to bang your head against the wall at how man can't agree on anything, take a look at the concept of long and short scales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales Anyone who has worked with big numbers and old data just loves this one.
73, Drew KO4MA
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Robertson ve9qrp@gmail.com Sent: Apr 23, 2010 7:30 AM To: Idle-Tyme nss@mwt.net Cc: AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org, Sil - ZL2CIA zl2cia@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Arecibo on 432 MHz Moon Bounce (some calculations)
Just to add to this discussion of decimal separators, my Canadian province of New Brunswick is bilingual, and therefore has overlapping French-speaking and English-speaking school boards. Those in the French schools and the 30% of the English who have opted to be taught in French immersion express pi as 3,14, while in English education they express it as 3.14. I always do a double-take when I see the comma there in my kids' homework, but they are very comfortable with using either system depending on the language of discussion.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Idle-Tyme nss@mwt.net wrote:
Wow that's all messed up? I'm 52 and this is the very first time i have ever seen anything like this and i have been dealing with science worldwide all my life. wow.
Joe
The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/22/2010 1:14 PM, Sil - ZL2CIA wrote:
Idle-Tyme wrote:
On 4/21/2010 8:25 PM, i8cvs wrote:
Comma or no comma, shouldn't matter 1000 mega watts or 1,000 Mega watts is still one thousand million watts! NOT one thousands watts. true?
The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com
Hi Idle-Tyme
I don't agree with your statement:
1000 mega watt are one thousand million watt 1,000 mega watt or 1.000 mega watt is only one million watt because zero after the comma means nothing like 1,0000000000000 is still one million watt or 1 MW
NO! it's a comma, not a decimal point! it's one thousand, one thousand written 1000 or 1,000 is still one thousand they are exactly the same.
That's only true in the English speaking world, and this is the cause of the confusion in this debate.
In the Netherlands (and most of Europe), you would write one thousand million watts as 1.000 megawatts.
The decimal indicator in Europe is a comma. For example, 1,5 means one and a half 1.000.000 means one million.
Sil (ex PA3HIL)
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Perhaps we should stick to the unambiguous exponential/scientific notation. Today's date is 2.01E3:4E0:2.3E1
On 23-Apr-10 11:50, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
If you really want to bang your head against the wall at how man can't agree on anything, take a look at the concept of long and short scales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales Anyone who has worked with big numbers and old data just loves this one.
On Apr 23 2010, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
Perhaps we should stick to the unambiguous exponential/scientific notation. Today's date is 2.01E3:4E0:2.3E1
On 23-Apr-10 11:50, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
If you really want to bang your head against the wall at how man can't agree on anything, take a look at the concept of long and short scales:
Unambiguous?
In many parts of the world, today's date would not be 2.01E3/4E0/2.3E1 but rather would be 4E0/2.3E1/2.01E3.2 or 2.3E1/4E0/2.01E3.2 or 2.01E3/2.3E1/4E0
Of course, April 23, 2010 seems clearer than either: 2010/4/23 or 2010/23/4 or 23/4/2010 or 4/23/2010 ...
(IMHO, 2010/23/04 makes most sense, since simple alphabetic sorting of such dates also comes out in chronological order, with the most significant digits referring to the biggest chunks - years - and the leas significant digits referring to the smallest chunks - days - but the leading zeros are also critical because you don't want October [10] sorting before March [3] and so it goes!)
Face it, the human race can't agree on anything, except to disagree. 73 de W0JT
Or today is 2455310 in Julian day mode.
Joe
The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 4/23/2010 8:34 AM, tosca005@umn.edu wrote:
On Apr 23 2010, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
Perhaps we should stick to the unambiguous exponential/scientific notation. Today's date is 2.01E3:4E0:2.3E1
On 23-Apr-10 11:50, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
If you really want to bang your head against the wall at how man can't agree on anything, take a look at the concept of long and short scales:
Unambiguous?
In many parts of the world, today's date would not be 2.01E3/4E0/2.3E1 but rather would be 4E0/2.3E1/2.01E3.2 or 2.3E1/4E0/2.01E3.2 or 2.01E3/2.3E1/4E0
Of course, April 23, 2010 seems clearer than either: 2010/4/23 or 2010/23/4 or 23/4/2010 or 4/23/2010 ...
(IMHO, 2010/23/04 makes most sense, since simple alphabetic sorting of such dates also comes out in chronological order, with the most significant digits referring to the biggest chunks - years - and the leas significant digits referring to the smallest chunks - days - but the leading zeros are also critical because you don't want October [10] sorting before March [3] and so it goes!)
Face it, the human race can't agree on anything, except to disagree. 73 de W0JT _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
----- Original Message ----- From: "Idle-Tyme" nss@mwt.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 4:35 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was: Arecibo, now confusing math
Or today is 2455310 in Julian day mode.
Joe
The Original Rolling Ball Clock Idle Tyme Idle-Tyme.com http://www.idle-tyme.com
Hi Joe,
Many years ago AMSAT uses another day numbar and for the AMSAT calendar transmitted by the RTTY telemetry beginning with OSCAR-13 and the AMSAT day 0 = 1 January 1978
Or today is 11799 in AMSAT day mode.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message ----- From: tosca005@umn.edu To: "Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF" nigel@ngunn.net Cc: "AMSAT-BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:34 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was: Arecibo, now confusing math
On Apr 23 2010, Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF wrote:
Perhaps we should stick to the unambiguous exponential/scientific
notation.
Today's date is 2.01E3:4E0:2.3E1
On 23-Apr-10 11:50, Andrew Glasbrenner wrote:
If you really want to bang your head against the wall at how man can't agree on anything, take a look at the concept of long and short scales:
Unambiguous?
In many parts of the world, today's date would not be 2.01E3/4E0/2.3E1 but rather would be 4E0/2.3E1/2.01E3.2 or 2.3E1/4E0/2.01E3.2 or 2.01E3/2.3E1/4E0
Of course, April 23, 2010 seems clearer than either: 2010/4/23 or 2010/23/4 or 23/4/2010 or 4/23/2010 ...
(IMHO, 2010/23/04 makes most sense, since simple alphabetic sorting of
such
dates also comes out in chronological order, with the most significant digits referring to the biggest chunks - years - and the leas significant digits referring to the smallest chunks - days - but the leading zeros are also critical because you don't want October [10] sorting before March [3] and so it goes!)
Face it, the human race can't agree on anything, except to disagree. 73 de W0JT
Hi ,W0JT
In Italy we use 23/4/2010 or 2.3E1/4E0/2.01E3 or 2.3 x 10^1 / 4 x 10^0 / 2.01 x 10^3
Many years ago AMSAT uses another day numbar and for the AMSAT calendar the AMSAT day 0 = 1 January 1978
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF" nigel@ngunn.net To: "AMSAT-BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:05 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Was: Arecibo, now confusing math
Perhaps we should stick to the unambiguous exponential/scientific
notation.
Today's date is 2.01E3:4E0:2.3E1
Hi Nigel G8IFF/W8IFF
For my scientific calculations using my hand calculators I would use similarly
Today's date is 2.01 x 10^3 : 4 x 10^0 : 2.3 x 10^1
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
participants (5)
-
Andrew Glasbrenner -
i8cvs -
Idle-Tyme -
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF -
tosca005＠umn.edu