• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

Steve

Penultimate Amazing
Steve
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
15,873
Location
Sydney Nova Scotia
Vixen said:
A bit like:

  • a ship can float on its side once it lists over its centre of buoyance: just like Herald of Free Enterprise! (Actually, resting on a bank!)
  • A ship's cannonball in Nelson's day 'cannot have travelled at 900mph'!
  • an EPIRB has to be switched on by one of the Captain's mates before it works!
  • You can't use base sixty notation for hours, minutes and seconds!
  • a bow visor will fall off if hit by a strong wave!
  • a ship 155m long will sink with no trace within 0.35' because all of the windows on the listed side will have smashed thus letting in water rapidly!
  • 80m is too deep to recover a wreck or the bodies!
  • there were no telephone or radio signals between 01:00 and 02:02 because of the 'storm' (only Beaufort 7)!
  • It takes over two hours for a rescue helicopter to fly from either Helsinki or Visby, or Stockholm after an official mayday call from an MRCC!!!
  • Eleven crew listed as rescued on rescuers lists suddenly are not rescued after all!
  • Helicopter Y64 went to pick up a nurse and a doctor from Stockholm via Visby first before going to the rescue!!!
Click to expand...

Gets more ludicrous every time you try, doesn't it! 0.35 feet? or 0.35 minutes of time? or 0.35 minutes of arc? or 0.35 of something else that exists only inside your head?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
35' for feet is quite normal convention.
Click to expand...


Yes. However, 35 min(s) or 35 minutes for 35 minutes of time is quite normal convention.

And 35' for 35 minutes of time is exceptionally unconventional. So don't use it. It looks ridiculous - and even more so, of course, when you keep getting it wrong.
 
Steve said:
Gets more ludicrous every time you try, doesn't it! 0.35 feet? or 0.35 minutes of time? or 0.35 minutes of arc? or 0.35 of something else that exists only inside your head?
Click to expand...


It's getting faster. It used to be 35 seconds, but now it's down to about 21.
 
Steve said:
Vixen's more recent claim is 0.35 feet. Or perhaps 0.35 minutes.
Click to expand...

I am aware that different posters went to different schools in different countries. People educated in England not all that long ago had £.s.d to contend with (I caught the tail end): 20 shillings to a pound, 12 pence to a shilling, 24d. to a florin, or four sixpences, and don't even mention a guinea...!

All of this base-12 and base-20 stuff, including when height and measurements were in inches, feet and yards, are all subsets of base-60, so there is really no problem in understanding there are 4 thrupences (3d) to a shilling (1/-) and eight half crowns (2/6 or 2s.6d.)to a pound (£1). Ten shillings is ten bob.

Likewise, feet and inches are very simple. As are the hours, minutes and seconds of a clock (base-60) were 30' is half an hour and 15' quarter of an hour (I do normally write it as 30" and 15" as per schooldays but am happy to defer to the logic of the hour being the zero designation).

The coordinates for M/S Estonia are (you are not going to like this): 59° 23′ 0″ N, 21° 41′ 0″ E*. Oh dear, does 23' and 41' refer to 23 feet, 41 feet, or 23 minutes (time), 41 minutes (time), or 23 minutes due North or 41 minutes due East? Is it time, length or location/direction?

Context answers your question.

*Perhaps you prefer the decimalised version: 59.383333, 21.683333. My sixpence says probably.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am aware that different posters went to different schools in different countries.

*Perhaps you prefer the decimalised version: 59.383333, 21.683333. My sixpence says probably.
Click to expand...

The point is that your long irrelevant rant still doesn’t excuse your errors or make you competent. Whether you decimalize or use primes for units, you still can’t get simple figures right. And yet you want to lecture us all on ship physics and other technical subjects. You don’t know what you’re talking about, full stop.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, a full fringe reset of all the topics on which Vixen has confirmed her ignorance and on which she has proven to be entirely uneducable. But woe betide any who question her, for they are morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I was quoting other posters. Was it not clear? That list doesn't refer to my ignorance. However, the howlers have given me a jolly good laugh.
 
The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

Vixen said:
I was quoting other posters. Was it not clear? That list doesn't refer to my ignorance. However, the howlers have given me a jolly good laugh.
Click to expand...


Those are all points you’ve raised previously, and on which you’ve expressed unremitting and arrogant ignorance. Was I not clear? You have demonstrated zero competence in any of the topics you’ve raised here, extreme disrespect for your betters, and a moral smugness that cements it all together.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I am aware that different posters went to different schools in different countries. People educated in England not all that long ago had £.s.d to contend with (I caught the tail end): 20 shillings to a pound, 12 pence to a shilling, 24d. to a florin, or four sixpences, and don't even mention a guinea...!

All of this base-12 and base-20 stuff, including when height and measurements were in inches, feet and yards, are all subsets of base-60, so there is really no problem in understanding there are 4 thrupences (3d) to a shilling (1/-) and eight half crowns (2/6 or 2s.6d.)to a pound (£1). Ten shillings is ten bob.

Likewise, feet and inches are very simple. As are the hours, minutes and seconds of a clock (base-60) were 30' is half an hour and 15' quarter of an hour (I do normally write it as 30" and 15" as per schooldays but am happy to defer to the logic of the hour being the zero designation).

The coordinates for M/S Estonia are (you are not going to like this): 59° 23′ 0″ N, 21° 41′ 0″ E*. Oh dear, does 23' and 41' refer to 23 feet, 41 feet, or 23 minutes (time), 41 minutes (time), or 23 minutes due North or 41 minutes due East? Is it time, length or location/direction?

Context answers your question.

*Perhaps you prefer the decimalised version: 59.383333, 21.683333. My sixpence says probably.
Click to expand...


No, you're confusing a) the number base system with b) the notation marks used within that system.

We.... do all know that time (at the level of minutes and seconds only) is in base 60.

We also know that the overriding convention for the notation marks of minutes & seconds of time is m/min/mins for minutes and s for seconds. Virtually nobody uses single/double prime notation ('/'') for notating minutes and seconds of time. That notation system is solely and specifically used for notating degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude/longitude. In fact, it's even know as the "DMS notation system" (where DMS stands for "Degrees, Minutes, Seconds"). It's worth noting that single/double prime notation is also used for the imperial measurement of feet and inches, but of course feet are in base 3 (3 feet to the yard) and inches are in base 12 (12 inches to the foot), and are of a totally different provenance to the use of single/double prime notation for base 60 systems.

You're utterly in the wrong when you attempt to use DMS notation for minutes (or, in your failed case, seconds...) of time. And I don't believe for one moment that it's what you were taught at school (though I suppose there's a chance you were taught it by an incompetent, mendacious or sly teacher), because I can guarantee from direct first-hand experience that it was never the notation taught in British schools. And you're double-wrong/mistaken/lying if you claim you were taught to use double prime for minutes of time.

So please, please, just give it up. It doesn't look clever. Quite the opposite. Moreso when you get it embarrassingly wrong. Write "min" or "minutes" for minutes of time. That way, a) everyone will actually know what you mean, and b) you'll stand no chance of messing it up again.
 
Vixen said:
Likewise, feet and inches are very simple. As are the hours, minutes and seconds of a clock (base-60) were 30' is half an hour and 15' quarter of an hour (I do normally write it as 30" and 15" as per schooldays but am happy to defer to the logic of the hour being the zero designation).
Click to expand...

I did 7 years of physics at school - in the 60's - and we never used ' and " as indicators of time. Your claim is pure b/s.
 
LondonJohn said:
No, you're confusing a) the number base system with b) the notation marks used within that system.

We.... do all know that time (at the level of minutes and seconds only) is in base 60.

We also know that the overriding convention for the notation marks of minutes & seconds of time is m/min/mins for minutes and s for seconds. Virtually nobody uses single/double prime notation ('/'') for notating minutes and seconds of time. That notation system is solely and specifically used for notating degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude/longitude. In fact, it's even know as the "DMS notation system" (where DMS stands for "Degrees, Minutes, Seconds"). It's worth noting that single/double prime notation is also used for the imperial measurement of feet and inches, but of course feet are in base 3 (3 feet to the yard) and inches are in base 12 (12 inches to the foot), and are of a totally different provenance to the use of single/double prime notation for base 60 systems.

You're utterly in the wrong when you attempt to use DMS notation for minutes (or, in your failed case, seconds...) of time. And I don't believe for one moment that it's what you were taught at school (though I suppose there's a chance you were taught it by an incompetent, mendacious or sly teacher), because I can guarantee from direct first-hand experience that it was never the notation taught in British schools. And you're double-wrong/mistaken/lying if you claim you were taught to use double prime for minutes of time.

So please, please, just give it up. It doesn't look clever. Quite the opposite. Moreso when you get it embarrassingly wrong. Write "min" or "minutes" for minutes of time. That way, a) everyone will actually know what you mean, and b) you'll stand no chance of messing it up again.
Click to expand...

I am dreadfully sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. The point I was making was (a) to explain the rationale for those who claim to be puzzled and (b) to make it clear that I have no intention of 'dumbing down' as it were, even if it doesn't conform with the US ways of doing things (actually making things more complicated than necessary IMV). I am with that piece of music cited by zooterkin '4'33"'. This refers to the length of the piece as well as its title. I hope that it will NEVER become '4min 33 secs'. I am with Jacob Rees-Mogg in this. (I will not be using Oxford commas, either.)

So please can we now draw a line under this issue.
 
Steve said:
I think Vixen completely blind to the fact that she that she wrote 0.35". Completely unable to comprehend that fact.
Click to expand...


That’s my point. For all her huffing and puffing, she is simply incompetent, beyond using symbols for units in a questionable way. There is a deep lack of understanding whenever she tries to present a topic that’s even remotely technical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom