Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

[Mojo]

Given that the imaginary figure is 90°, what happens when it is rotated 45°?

You may refer to the metacentric diagrams.

However much you rotate it, things that are at 90° to each other will remain perpendicular.

 

[JayUtah]

I have to thank you at least for confirming that that method was used for durations of time, despite dozens of posters claiming they have never come across it in all their days.

Both can be true. I merely noted that it was not a notation that someone trained in the sciences would use. You have claimed "five years" of physics education (i.e., O-levels, in which the primes notation for time was not taught or tested) and, at other times, you have claimed to be a scientist. I pointed out your use of nonstandard notation merely as evidence that neither of those claims was likely true.

I can find no evidence of the use of primes notation for time after about 1950. I believe multiple people when they say it wasn't taught to them as part of their curriculum, which would have been roughly concurrent with yours. It's therefore quite reasonable to believe that people living today have not encountered that notation, disused and untaught for 70 years.

As for the 1950's...

Irrelevant rambling ignored.

So not sure where the ' and " came from for hours and minutes...

If you wish to claim this was a common or accepted usage, you had better discover where it came from and substantiate it for the critics you're accusing of ignorance for not knowing it. Otherwise withdraw the claim.

...or alternatively minutes and seconds.

This is the only acceptable usage according to the relevant standard. I have explained why. That standard has been superseded in recent decades to substitute nominal units instead of primes.

Both were considered OK.

If this is true then it merely confirms that you were poorly educated. Nevertheless you claimed "we all" used that muddled notation. Can you produce any evidence of anyone but yourself using it at any time?

This is not your only abuse of primes notation. As others pointed out, you used ″ to indicate degrees. In a post last year, you quoted from Mr Justice Sheen's report on the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Sheen correctly wrote (sec. 9.3) that the ship had rolled to 90º. But you transcribed it as 90″. Did your quaint school also allow ″ to represent any arbitrary unit of angle without context, rhyme, or reason?

Granted not everyone wants to take the time to discover how to put the º symbol in a post. But your solution wasn't to write out "degrees," which would have been acceptable. Instead, your solution was to further abuse primes notation and proffer a symbol that means something in angles, but entirely the wrong thing.

It's easier to believe you just don't know how primes notation works than it is to believe you were educated this way.

You wouldn't really use this notation in homework or exams but OTOH you wouldn't lose marks if it was clear to the examiner what you meant.

In my class you would have lost points, first for using a nonstandard notation for time, and second for using it incorrectly. You would not have passed any class I taught, nor any exam that I administered. The correct use of units and symbols is considered essential in any technical context. It is never overlooked on the whim of an examiner.

If you knew it wasn't proper to use ″ for minutes of time on homework or exams, why did you think anyone here would immediately know what it was supposed to mean? It's either a widely-enough accepted standard that one other person would demonstrably have heard of ″ as minutes of time, or used ″ to mean minutes of time, or you're wrong.

When I stated 35" I assumed it was obvious what was meant but clearly not.

Nonsense. Under the (wrong) premise that ″ can indicate either minutes or seconds, you provided no information to tell the reader which you intended. You admit that your vernacular usage risks ambiguity. Why would you assume your meaning was obvious? Now you're claiming it's a minority usage, but not long ago you insisted that it would be "[h]ard to see how" anyone could misinterpret you. And you further insisted that you had

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).

This suggests you believed your notation was correct and common outside the U.S., and what you styled to be the U.S. convention was an unwelcome complication.

No, you're just digging yourself in deeper.

So to illustrate it to one poster who claimed to be baffled, I inadvertently wrote it as 0.35'

No, it wasn't inadvertent. You first wrote 35″ wrongly believing that meant minutes of time. You repeated the error, even after having been corrected. Not until several days later did you start using the correct primes notation, 35′, for minutes, but without acknowledging any of the efforts to correct you. Perhaps you believed if you unobtrusively corrected yourself, your previous error would be forgotten.

It's worth noting that you were asked

And why can't you type the words, "35 minutes" like a normal person?

There are plenty of examples of you using more conventional notation, e.g. :—

The journey time from Visby is circa one hour and from Berga 40 minutes.

You use primes notation only for the time it took MS Estonia to sink, at first incorrectly and then correctly. You could have avoided all ambiguity--for which you were being roundly roasted--by writing out 35 minutes or 35 min--both well-established, widely-used standard notations. Were you trying to emphasize the correct use of primes notation, for that value only, in the hope it would supplant your mistake?

Days later you wrote 0.35′. (Someone misquoted you as 0.35″ and others including myself perpetuated it.) When this latest gaffe was pointed out, and an explanation demanded, your answer was

35' for feet is quite normal convention.

Back then your explanation was certainly not

...it should have read 0'35" to make the point it was 35 minutes of an hour (because it was less than one hour it didn't need to be mentioned, in the same way you can put 6" for length without having to put 0' for feet if it was less than a foot).

Now you're claiming 0.35' was a typo, and what you really meant to write was 0′ 35″, which you further claim would have made the intended units unambiguous. But it took you days to arrive at this new explanation, that you had simply mistyped both the decimal and the double-prime. Correcting the typo somehow didn't occur to you days ago when you were being asked to clarify what 0.35' meant. You repeated the typo instead of correcting it. So I believe "It was a typo" is just your daily change-of-story in the ongoing pretext to incorporate others' corrections into an, "I really knew it all along," ploy.

Alas, it didn't go down well and caused more confusion and chaos on the level of world war three breaking out!

The confusion and chaos is entirely the result of you changing your story on a daily basis, pontificating about things you know nothing about, and maintaining steadfastly that it's others' fault for being unable to decipher your ignorant gobbledygook.

We belabor it because it is evidence of the level of dishonesty, ignorance, and bluster you have employed at this forum. That in turn speaks to whether you are technically competent and morally qualified to pass judgment on the expert work of others who investigated the sinking of MS Estonia.

Hopefully, he and others now appreciate that 35" did not refer to depth of water...

Nobody seriously did. They're just mocking you for the absurdity engendered by your compound errors, and amplified by your ongoing ham-fisted lies. Without context, the most natural interpretation of 35″ is thirty-five inches, since it's the most common primes notation still in use. They're mocking you for being incorrect and unclear.

...which would be written 2'11" anyway...

No. It's perfectly acceptable to leave such extents in inches. If I order a six-panel door for a standard American house, its dimensions will be given in the catalog as 32″ × 80″. Despite yet another of your ignorant claims,

Feet and inches primes operate on on a base-12 notation, just as geolocations and time assumes a base-60 one. Therefore thirty-five inches translates as 2'11". It is technically incorrect for the second primes to go above 11.

there is no requirement to normalize any quantity in primes notation. You conceded as much when you wrote 6′ 2 ⅛″ instead of 2 yd 0′ 2-⅛″.

In American architecture, however, the AIA and UBC require dimensions 12 in or longer to be expressed on drawings in feet and inches. But this is a narrow requirement that doesn't even apply to all aspects of the American building trades or other areas of commerce. In contrast, the ASME standard is that when inches are used as the primary unit, only (decimal) inches are used even if a dimension amounts to more than a foot. We buy a 32″ door from the lumber yard, which goes into a hole labeled 2′ 8-¼″ on the floor plan. And then we can stand in that doorway and watch a Boeing 707 fly overhead at 500 ft/s whose plans show it to have an inside fuselage diameter of 139.3 in.

It would not credibly sink in 35 seconds. Context is all.

No. Correct use of the proper units and notation is paramount, as the various qualifying and licensing exams go to great lengths (pun intended) to instill. No inference of context properly redefines standard symbols and units. No, it's not credible to imagine that a large ship sank in 35 seconds. But if you write

The ship sank in 35″.​

The most natural modern reading of it is, "The ship sank in thirty-five inches," as absurd also as that would be.

You wrongly claimed

So, when you see 35" and the context is duration of time, then do assume they refer to minutes as a unit of time. Anything over 59" would then convert to 1' x". Where x = time in minutes.

But you did not establish that the context was time. Your statements were all of the form, "The ship sank in 35″," full stop. Besides, you chose an outmoded method of notating time, and used it incorrectly. It's not your critics' fault that they didn't unravel your tapestry of omissions and errors to properly divine what you might have meant. On the contrary, your ineptitude illustrates exactly why the world insists upon precise and immutable notation.

You can make this stop. Just admit you were wrong to write 35″ intending to say thirty-five minutes. Just concede that wrongness is a property that can attach to your beliefs and claims.

Or just stop concocting ever more dubious piles of codswallop to pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

But no-one has confirmed that " was used for minutes. That's your real error here, insisting that ' can be a valid way of designating hours and " can be a valid way of designating minutes.

Indeed, Vixen is jumping on a sort of straw-man conflation between two related statements. "I've never seen ″ used to denote minutes of time," is not the same as, "I've never seen primes notation used for time." The latter is most likely simply the product of being younger than several decades old.

We haven't seen ″ used to denote minutes of time because it's emphatically wrong to do so. ′ is the proper primes notation for minutes. Until Vixen shows evidence for her claim that others used ″ for minutes, her ineptitude is still the best explanation for her usage.

In the larger sense, we haven't seen primes notation for time in decades because it has fallen out of favor and been superseded with notation that's easier to use and understand. Zooterkin, I believe, came up with the musical title 4′ 33″ as an example of (relatively) modern usage. Vixen seems to have taken this as vindication that the system was once used (never in dispute), and that her use of ″ for minutes of time is also valid (greatly in dispute).

It isn't, and if you were taught that way at school, then you were taught wrong, despite your snooty Oxbridge educated mortarboard and gown wearing teachers.

I really don't buy that her old-school school would have let anyone get away with misusing primes notation. In my mind, the mortar-boarded, enrobed, R.P.-blubbering masters would have been more faithful to the correct use of an older, more traditional system beloved by the classical authorities.

 

[novaphile]

Brilliant

Outfield.

 

[Vixen]

Using &t$ for minutes of time duration was conventional for me. I have no recollection of having been 'taught' it but we all did it.

This is like debating with someone who claims Paris is not the capital of France. In fact, the arguer vehemently affirms, he has never heard of Paris and therefore it does not exist! The astonishing thing about arguing against something that is an established fact is that someone should wear their ignorance of Paris as a crown.

 

[Vixen]

In other words you received a second class education in a snooty atmosphere run by pretentious prats who never pulled you up on your non-standard use of primes.

You could have simply said - "Well, we used it that way at school, and nobody ever told us it was wrong, but if it is then I apologise and will stop using it that way in future seeing as it causes confusion."

It was obviously superior to most if only one or two of us have ever heard of time notation.

 

[Vixen]

However much you rotate it, things that are at 90° to each other will remain perpendicular.

You are the one who introduced the red herring perpendicular issue. That is your strawman.

 

[Vixen]

Both can be true. I merely noted that it was not a notation that someone trained in the sciences would use. You have claimed "five years" of physics education (i.e., O-levels, in which the primes notation for time was not taught or tested) and, at other times, you have claimed to be a scientist. I pointed out your use of nonstandard notation merely as evidence that neither of those claims was likely true.

I can find no evidence of the use of primes notation for time after about 1950. I believe multiple people when they say it wasn't taught to them as part of their curriculum, which would have been roughly concurrent with yours. It's therefore quite reasonable to believe that people living today have not encountered that notation, disused and untaught for 70 years.



Irrelevant rambling ignored.



If you wish to claim this was a common or accepted usage, you had better discover where it came from and substantiate it for the critics you're accusing of ignorance for not knowing it. Otherwise withdraw the claim.



This is the only acceptable usage according to the relevant standard. I have explained why. That standard has been superseded in recent decades to substitute nominal units instead of primes.



If this is true then it merely confirms that you were poorly educated. Nevertheless you claimed "we all" used that muddled notation. Can you produce any evidence of anyone but yourself using it at any time?

This is not your only abuse of primes notation. As others pointed out, you used ″ to indicate degrees. In a post last year, you quoted from Mr Justice Sheen's report on the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Sheen correctly wrote (sec. 9.3) that the ship had rolled to 90º. But you transcribed it as 90″. Did your quaint school also allow ″ to represent any arbitrary unit of angle without context, rhyme, or reason?

Granted not everyone wants to take the time to discover how to put the º symbol in a post. But your solution wasn't to write out "degrees," which would have been acceptable. Instead, your solution was to further abuse primes notation and proffer a symbol that means something in angles, but entirely the wrong thing.

It's easier to believe you just don't know how primes notation works than it is to believe you were educated this way.



In my class you would have lost points, first for using a nonstandard notation for time, and second for using it incorrectly. You would not have passed any class I taught, nor any exam that I administered. The correct use of units and symbols is considered essential in any technical context. It is never overlooked on the whim of an examiner.

If you knew it wasn't proper to use ″ for minutes of time on homework or exams, why did you think anyone here would immediately know what it was supposed to mean? It's either a widely-enough accepted standard that one other person would demonstrably have heard of ″ as minutes of time, or used ″ to mean minutes of time, or you're wrong.



Nonsense. Under the (wrong) premise that ″ can indicate either minutes or seconds, you provided no information to tell the reader which you intended. You admit that your vernacular usage risks ambiguity. Why would you assume your meaning was obvious? Now you're claiming it's a minority usage, but not long ago you insisted that it would be "[h]ard to see how" anyone could misinterpret you. And you further insisted that you had

​

This suggests you believed your notation was correct and common outside the U.S., and what you styled to be the U.S. convention was an unwelcome complication.

No, you're just digging yourself in deeper.



No, it wasn't inadvertent. You first wrote 35″ wrongly believing that meant minutes of time. You repeated the error, even after having been corrected. Not until several days later did you start using the correct primes notation, 35′, for minutes, but without acknowledging any of the efforts to correct you. Perhaps you believed if you unobtrusively corrected yourself, your previous error would be forgotten.

It's worth noting that you were asked

​

There are plenty of examples of you using more conventional notation, e.g. :—

​

You use primes notation only for the time it took MS Estonia to sink, at first incorrectly and then correctly. You could have avoided all ambiguity--for which you were being roundly roasted--by writing out 35 minutes or 35 min--both well-established, widely-used standard notations. Were you trying to emphasize the correct use of primes notation, for that value only, in the hope it would supplant your mistake?

Days later you wrote 0.35′. (Someone misquoted you as 0.35″ and others including myself perpetuated it.) When this latest gaffe was pointed out, and an explanation demanded, your answer was

​

Back then your explanation was certainly not



Now you're claiming 0.35' was a typo, and what you really meant to write was 0′ 35″, which you further claim would have made the intended units unambiguous. But it took you days to arrive at this new explanation, that you had simply mistyped both the decimal and the double-prime. Correcting the typo somehow didn't occur to you days ago when you were being asked to clarify what 0.35' meant. You repeated the typo instead of correcting it. So I believe "It was a typo" is just your daily change-of-story in the ongoing pretext to incorporate others' corrections into an, "I really knew it all along," ploy.



The confusion and chaos is entirely the result of you changing your story on a daily basis, pontificating about things you know nothing about, and maintaining steadfastly that it's others' fault for being unable to decipher your ignorant gobbledygook.

We belabor it because it is evidence of the level of dishonesty, ignorance, and bluster you have employed at this forum. That in turn speaks to whether you are technically competent and morally qualified to pass judgment on the expert work of others who investigated the sinking of MS Estonia.



Nobody seriously did. They're just mocking you for the absurdity engendered by your compound errors, and amplified by your ongoing ham-fisted lies. Without context, the most natural interpretation of 35″ is thirty-five inches, since it's the most common primes notation still in use. They're mocking you for being incorrect and unclear.



No. It's perfectly acceptable to leave such extents in inches. If I order a six-panel door for a standard American house, its dimensions will be given in the catalog as 32″ × 80″. Despite yet another of your ignorant claims,

​

there is no requirement to normalize any quantity in primes notation. You conceded as much when you wrote 6′ 2 ⅛″ instead of 2 yd 0′ 2-⅛″.

In American architecture, however, the AIA and UBC require dimensions 12 in or longer to be expressed on drawings in feet and inches. But this is a narrow requirement that doesn't even apply to all aspects of the American building trades or other areas of commerce. In contrast, the ASME standard is that when inches are used as the primary unit, only (decimal) inches are used even if a dimension amounts to more than a foot. We buy a 32″ door from the lumber yard, which goes into a hole labeled 2′ 8-¼″ on the floor plan. And then we can stand in that doorway and watch a Boeing 707 fly overhead at 500 ft/s whose plans show it to have an inside fuselage diameter of 139.3 in.



No. Correct use of the proper units and notation is paramount, as the various qualifying and licensing exams go to great lengths (pun intended) to instill. No inference of context properly redefines standard symbols and units. No, it's not credible to imagine that a large ship sank in 35 seconds. But if you write

The ship sank in 35″.​

The most natural modern reading of it is, "The ship sank in thirty-five inches," as absurd also as that would be.

You wrongly claimed

​

But you did not establish that the context was time. Your statements were all of the form, "The ship sank in 35″," full stop. Besides, you chose an outmoded method of notating time, and used it incorrectly. It's not your critics' fault that they didn't unravel your tapestry of omissions and errors to properly divine what you might have meant. On the contrary, your ineptitude illustrates exactly why the world insists upon precise and immutable notation.

You can make this stop. Just admit you were wrong to write 35″ intending to say thirty-five minutes. Just concede that wrongness is a property that can attach to your beliefs and claims.

Or just stop concocting ever more dubious piles of codswallop to pretend you know what you're talking about.

As I said, when I copied and pasted from the Sheen pdf. Microsoft Word transposed the degree sign to inverted commas. Had I noticed or thought it important I would have corrected it, as it is hardly difficult.

The HERALD came to rest on a heading of 136" with her starboard side above the surface. Water rapidly filled the ship below the surface level with the result that not less than 150 passengers and 38 members of the crew lost their lives. Many others were injured, The position in which the HERALD came to rest was less than 7 cables from the harbour entrance and was latitude 22' 28.5" North, longitude 3" 11' 26" East.

excerpt Sheen document

I expect it was a 'text recognition' translation making for poor copy.

However, how desperate do you need to be to go through a quoted post from a document looking for a typographical error.

As Shirley Conran once said, 'Life is too short to stuff a mushroom'.

So now you are going to be claiming for the next umpty-nine posts that I don't know how to notate latitude and longitude.


Perhaps it might be better to relax instead?

I am disappointed that you haven't apologised to me for falsely accusing me of all kinds of wrongdoing. That is the measure of a man's mettle.

 

[Mojo]

You are the one who introduced the red herring perpendicular issue. That is your strawman.

Here's where it was first introduced: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13681911#post13681911

 

[LondonJohn]

This is like debating with someone who claims Paris is not the capital of France. In fact, the arguer vehemently affirms, he has never heard of Paris and therefore it does not exist! The astonishing thing about arguing against something that is an established fact is that someone should wear their ignorance of Paris as a crown.

Yeah.....ummmm......what?

 

[JayUtah]

However, how desperate do you need to be to go through a quoted post from a document looking for a typographical error.

These are not typos. They are errors in usage accompanied by increasingly fabricated claims that they are nevertheless still somehow correct. You will not admit even the slightest error on your part, which disqualifies you from credibly reviewing the efforts of your betters.

So now you are going to be claiming for the next umpty-nine posts that I don't know how to notate latitude and longitude.

Straw man. My principal claim is that you insist upon incorrect notation for time durations, and that you have concocted an increasingly incredible story for why you think it's nevertheless correct. I have provided ample evidence to support my claim, which you do not address.

Perhaps it might be better to relax instead?

No, I don't think I will. I think I'll continue holding your feet to the fire until you either admit you made a mistake or provide evidence to support your claim.

I am disappointed that you haven't apologised to me for falsely accusing me of all kinds of wrongdoing.

No, you aren't some sort of victim here. I was good enough to present a fully-developed line of reasoning complete with documentation. You ignored the bulk of it, so you have no business complaining of anyone of making false accusations.

That is the measure of a man's mettle.

Among many other things, I don't consider you qualified to determine a man's mettle.

I'm correct. I know I'm correct because the things of which I speak are part of my licensed profession, and part of what I taught in college.

You can make this stop. Either provide the evidence that your vernacular usage is something that others besides you used and recognized, or just say, "I made a mistake." Whining that you're the victim of ill treatment and begging to be let off the hook will only steel my resolve to hold you accountable.

 

[JayUtah]

This is like debating with someone who claims Paris is not the capital of France. In fact, the arguer vehemently affirms, he has never heard of Paris and therefore it does not exist! The astonishing thing about arguing against something that is an established fact is that someone should wear their ignorance of Paris as a crown.

No. You aren't presenting obvious fact, and your critics are not arguing against obvious fact.

You are the one finally having to admit that your vernacular usage of primes notation for time was—at best—employed only at your unnamed school at an unnamed time and place, and that you recognized at the time it shouldn't be used for wider contexts.

You are the one admitting that primes notation is firm and fixed for feet and inches, such that the primes can be used by themselves. But somehow the minutes and seconds primes notation—for time only—can be redefined on a whim by something as ambiguous as "context."

Essentially you're the one arguing that Paris isn't the capital of France, that it's instead a town called Boubou, and that everyone at your school (but no one else) used it so it's okay, and that it can either be Boubou or Paris depending on context.

Are you quite well?

 

[erwinl]

As I said, when I copied and pasted from the Sheen pdf. Microsoft Word transposed the degree sign to inverted commas. Had I noticed or thought it important I would have corrected it, as it is hardly difficult.
excerpt Sheen document

I expect it was a 'text recognition' translation making for poor copy.

However, how desperate do you need to be to go through a quoted post from a document looking for a typographical error.

As Shirley Conran once said, 'Life is too short to stuff a mushroom'.

So now you are going to be claiming for the next umpty-nine posts that I don't know how to notate latitude and longitude.


Perhaps it might be better to relax instead?

I am disappointed that you haven't apologised to me for falsely accusing me of all kinds of wrongdoing. That is the measure of a man's mettle.

What we could use right now is someone who is well versed in something like accountancy?
For whom the accurate and unambigious use of numbers would be second nature?

 

[Vixen]

Oh mannnnnn.

Look, I'll try to make it as simple as possible to understand.

Imagine you are the captain of a ship. You are standing on the bridge, right in the centre of the bridge, looking straight ahead along the centre line of the ship.

OK with the concept so far?

Now, picture an imaginary line which runs from your eyes, through the tip of the bow of your ship, and out towards the horizon.

Still OK?

Anything to the left of that line - even by 1 arcsecond - is port. And anything to the right of that line - even by 1 arcsecond - is starboard.

Stop trying to change the subject and context. We were talking about a physical ship and a physical side of the vessel. The topic at hand was at which point would water came over the physical starboard side of the vessel when it listed at 45° in context of the sea, and at which point it is likely to capsize.

Answer that question.

 

[Vixen]

What we could use right now is someone who is well versed in something like accountancy?
For whom the accurate and unambigious use of numbers would be second nature?

Here is the Sheen Report:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...estigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf

Copy and paste Part 1 para 1.2 onto word doc yourself and you will see that it is Microsoft that transposes the ° into a ".

 

[Vixen]

Yeah.....ummmm......what?

You were bragging that never in your life had you ever encountered the use of primes to denote duration of time.

That's fair enough for people educated the other side of the world but to actually deny its existence all together is astonishing.

 

[Vixen]

These are not typos. They are errors in usage accompanied by increasingly fabricated claims that they are nevertheless still somehow correct. You will not admit even the slightest error on your part, which disqualifies you from credibly reviewing the efforts of your betters.



Straw man. My principal claim is that you insist upon incorrect notation for time durations, and that you have concocted an increasingly incredible story for why you think it's nevertheless correct. I have provided ample evidence to support my claim, which you do not address.



No, I don't think I will. I think I'll continue holding your feet to the fire until you either admit you made a mistake or provide evidence to support your claim.



No, you aren't some sort of victim here. I was good enough to present a fully-developed line of reasoning complete with documentation. You ignored the bulk of it, so you have no business complaining of anyone of making false accusations.



Among many other things, I don't consider you qualified to determine a man's mettle.

I'm correct. I know I'm correct because the things of which I speak are part of my licensed profession, and part of what I taught in college.

You can make this stop. Either provide the evidence that your vernacular usage is something that others besides you used and recognized, or just say, "I made a mistake." Whining that you're the victim of ill treatment and begging to be let off the hook will only steel my resolve to hold you accountable.

You claim to trump me because you are a licensed professional. I am a chartered professional and not given to dishonesty of any form.

So you have falsely accused me of inventing a prime system and of inventing an FX acronym. You refuse to take it back even though you admit in a rare flash of frankness that you have heard of primes to denote time duration after all.

 

[erwinl]

Here is the Sheen Report:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...estigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf

Copy and paste Part 1 para 1.2 onto word doc yourself and you will see that it is Microsoft that transposes the ° into a ".

Just did.

Copy -> paste into Word, no other actions on my part.
The degree symbol is still present where it belongs.



And the original in the PDF for comparison.


It really looks like the changing of the ° sign into " is something done on your side of the process.

 

[Mojo]

Stop trying to change the subject and context. We were talking about a physical ship and a physical side of the vessel. The topic at hand was at which point would water came over the physical starboard side of the vessel when it listed at 45° in context of the sea, and at which point it is likely to capsize.

Nope, according to you, starboard is at 135°, not 45°.

And you don't seem to understand how the water that caused it to capsize was getting into the Estonia.

 

[JayUtah]

You claim to trump me because you are a licensed professional.

Not quite accurate. The profession in which I am licensed encompasses the proper way to use units and notation to express measurements of physical properties such as time. My further experience as a teacher of my profession requires me to understand the history and origins of these measurement and notation systems.

Because of this expertise I can say that your use of ′ to denote hours of time and ″ to denote minutes of time is incorrect. ′ properly denotes minutes of time. ″ properly denotes seconds of time. I have explained why at length several times.

I am a chartered professional and not given to dishonesty of any form.

Nonsense. You've been wantonly dishonest and misleading in this forum on a number of topics including your educational and professional qualifications. Even now you are misrepresenting my claims.

So you have falsely accused me of inventing a prime system...

Incorrect. I have accused you of misusing the primes notation. Specifically I have accused you of inventing new rules by which you claim it can operate, which find no footing either in the foundational principles of its operation or in historical usage.

I have supplied evidence to support my accusation, which you have not addressed. Yours is the affirmative claim, i.e., that your usage is acceptable and used by others besides yourself. You've been asked for evidence of that claim, but have refused to provide any. What you have offered instead is a shifting set of stories and additional claims that have the effect of backpedaling. I documented this thoroughly, and you did not address it.

...and of inventing an FX acronym.

Also incorrect. Your claim was that this acronym was used in actual film screenplays in a manner consistent with your usage of it in this forum. Only later, after considerable pressure, did you admit that this was not the case. That you have been able to find other vernacular uses of it outside screenplays is not evidence of your original claim that it was used in screenplays.

The point remains that it is your habit to adhere to your original beliefs long after the evidence shows them to be untenable.

You refuse to take it back even though you admit in a rare flash of frankness that you have heard of primes to denote time duration after all.

Incorrect, and already addressed. You have conflated the question of whether primes notation can be used to denote time with the question of whether you're using the primes notation correctly to do so.

I never disputed that primes notation can be used to denote time. I simply said it's not something someone trained in the sciences would use, and not something in common modern use by anyone. This remains my position.

Your claim is that primes notation for time can use ′ to indicate either hours or minutes, and that ″ can indicate either minutes or seconds, each depending on a notion of context rather than by the established standard. You have claimed this usage was common and accepted where you were schooled, and variously that it was used by others in a manner similar to yours. You've been asked a number of times to show evidence of this claim and you have refused.

You have not been accused falsely or without evidence. On the other hand, you have made an affirmative claim for which you will not supply evidence.