|
Math Problem
Any fool can look at the numbers and guess the answer is around seven knots. In
fact, one did. The problem is to know how to solve it properly for the general case, some you've shown you can't do, and have no interest in learning how. This was posed as a "math problem," not a random guess problem. And there were two problems, the second was obviously too complicated for you. Perhaps Skitch, the OP, can tell us who had the proper answer? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeff the *real* problem was what kind of counter-current was needed to change a boat's course by a large amount. That question was answered within minutes by the very first repsonder (me). After that, the posts got playful as to what precision -- not accuracy -- that a "little over 7 knots" could be. you, on the other hand, concerned yourself with precision calculations on imprecise -- and unknowably precise -- assumptions. in other words, you didn't understand the question, only the need for complexity. The simple and original answer was understood by everyone -- but you -- without regard to their understanding of, let alone the capability of calculating, the lengths of non-square triangles. Yes, if you can't solve the real problem you can make an approximation. What's your point? You don't know how to solve the real problem? We already know that. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... the square root of 50 was in fact important to the discussion, but it seems you still don't know why. go back and re-read the post again and again and again and again until you see why. (hint: 5^2 + 5^2 = 50) Hey Jax, how come you didn't get the right answer to the question? I did. I then provided the appropriate formulae. All you did was babble about "components" and then give the wrong answer. You went on for 4 posts about the "square root of 50" which isn't relevant to the problem. You're right, you can't have a "rational discussion" with me, or with anyone else. BTW, one doesn't describe a current by which direction is comes from, one describes it by which direction its going. Take the Power Squadron course, really. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, it is near impossible to have a rational discussion with you, as you once AGAIN show you have zero understanding of either the issue or the resultant answer. you really, really, really don't understand the question, i.e. how much current and from which direction would be needed to cause a boat to change course by some large angle. you, you blithering idiot, are rambling on and on and on and on hoping against all hope that newbies will forget that you motor training wheels while Walter Mittying yourself to be Shackleton. Yes I know you "think" you answered the question, just like you "think" you're a member of Mensa, and you "think" you graduated high school. But saying that the answer is something that has a collection of components is NOT showing that you actually know how to compute such a collection. The fact that you keep insisting you solved it proves you don't really know how to do it. And being able to guess within 15% isn't bad, but doesn't show you know how to navigate. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... I know that *you* don't understand, jeffies, but the problem really was answered comprehensively within a few minutes of the question being posted. jeffie, rational discussion with you is near to impossible, for you are not only much lacking in mental candlepower you are also so lacking in such you are not even capable of understanding just how lacking. don't buy an EPIRB, jeffie. Let Darwin help you sail, if you ever do decide to sail in lieu motoring. I think I gave the answer to the "math problem." As to whether this current can e Hey Jax, how come you didn't get the right answer to the question? I did. I then provided the appropriate formulae. All you did was babble about "components" and then give the wrong answer. You went on for 4 posts about the "square root of 50" which isn't relevant to the problem. You're right, you can't have a "rational discussion" with me, or with anyone else. BTW, one doesn't describe a current by which direction is comes from, one describes it by which direction its going. Take the Power Squadron course, really. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, it is near impossible to have a rational discussion with you, as you once AGAIN show you have zero understanding of either the issue or the resultant answer. you really, really, really don't understand the question, i.e. how much current and from which direction would be needed to cause a boat to change course by some large angle. you, you blithering idiot, are rambling on and on and on and on hoping against all hope that newbies will forget that you motor training wheels while Walter Mittying yourself to be Shackleton. Yes I know you "think" you answered the question, just like you "think" you're a member of Mensa, and you "think" you graduated high school. But saying that the answer is something that has a collection of components is NOT showing that you actually know how to compute such a collection. The fact that you keep insisting you solved it proves you don't really know how to do it. And being able to guess within 15% isn't bad, but doesn't show you know how to navigate. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... I know that *you* don't understand, jeffies, but the problem really was answered comprehensively within a few minutes of the question being posted. jeffie, rational discussion with you is near to impossible, for you are not only much lacking in mental candlepower you are also so lacking in such you are not even capable of understanding just how lacking. don't buy an EPIRB, jeffie. Let Darwin help you sail, if you ever do decide to sail in lieu motoring. I think I gave the answer to the "math problem." As to whether this current can e |
Math Problem
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... As it happens, I don't have an opinion about the square root of 50. opinion? how the hell can one had an **opinion** re sq rt 50???? You asked me what I thought the sq root of 50 was, didn't you? As your question is totally irrelevant to the current discussion, I have no thoughts on the matter. Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think that my mathematical skills are lacking?? ah ..... maybe see above??? That just proves that your powers of deduction are lacking. Now, can you explain why you think that my answer to the original question was wrong? Skitch asked- Say you are sailing a course of 190 and making 5 kn. An adverse current suddenly gets you and you are now making a COG of 90. Assume the new COG is at the same speed (5kn) and I answered- Current = 50*, 8kts What is your answer, Jax? Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
rational thought is beyond you, isn't it.
Any fool can look at the numbers and guess the answer is around seven knots. In fact, one did. The problem is to know how to solve it properly for the general case, some you've shown you can't do, and have no interest in learning how. This was posed as a "math problem," not a random guess problem. And there were two problems, the second was obviously too complicated for you. Perhaps Skitch, the OP, can tell us who had the proper answer? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeff the *real* problem was what kind of counter-current was needed to change a boat's course by a large amount. That question was answered within minutes by the very first repsonder (me). After that, the posts got playful as to what precision -- not accuracy -- that a "little over 7 knots" could be. you, on the other hand, concerned yourself with precision calculations on imprecise -- and unknowably precise -- assumptions. in other words, you didn't understand the question, only the need for complexity. The simple and original answer was understood by everyone -- but you -- without regard to their understanding of, let alone the capability of calculating, the lengths of non-square triangles. Yes, if you can't solve the real problem you can make an approximation. What's your point? You don't know how to solve the real problem? We already know that. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... the square root of 50 was in fact important to the discussion, but it seems you still don't know why. go back and re-read the post again and again and again and again until you see why. (hint: 5^2 + 5^2 = 50) Hey Jax, how come you didn't get the right answer to the question? I did. I then provided the appropriate formulae. All you did was babble about "components" and then give the wrong answer. You went on for 4 posts about the "square root of 50" which isn't relevant to the problem. You're right, you can't have a "rational discussion" with me, or with anyone else. BTW, one doesn't describe a current by which direction is comes from, one describes it by which direction its going. Take the Power Squadron course, really. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, it is near impossible to have a rational discussion with you, as you once AGAIN show you have zero understanding of either the issue or the resultant answer. you really, really, really don't understand the question, i.e. how much current and from which direction would be needed to cause a boat to change course by some large angle. you, you blithering idiot, are rambling on and on and on and on hoping against all hope that newbies will forget that you motor training wheels while Walter Mittying yourself to be Shackleton. Yes I know you "think" you answered the question, just like you "think" you're a member of Mensa, and you "think" you graduated high school. But saying that the answer is something that has a collection of components is NOT showing that you actually know how to compute such a collection. The fact that you keep insisting you solved it proves you don't really know how to do it. And being able to guess within 15% isn't bad, but doesn't show you know how to navigate. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... I know that *you* don't understand, jeffies, but the problem really was answered comprehensively within a few minutes of the question being posted. jeffie, rational discussion with you is near to impossible, for you are not only much lacking in mental candlepower you are also so lacking in such you are not even capable of understanding just how lacking. don't buy an EPIRB, jeffie. Let Darwin help you sail, if you ever do decide to sail in lieu motoring. I think I gave the answer to the "math problem." As to whether this current can e Hey Jax, how come you didn't get the right answer to the question? I did. I then provided the appropriate formulae. All you did was babble about "components" and then give the wrong answer. You went on for 4 posts about the "square root of 50" which isn't relevant to the problem. You're right, you can't have a "rational discussion" with me, or with anyone else. BTW, one doesn't describe a current by which direction is comes from, one describes it by which direction its going. Take the Power Squadron course, really. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, it is near impossible to have a rational discussion with you, as you once AGAIN show you have zero understanding of either the issue or the resultant answer. you really, really, really don't understand the question, i.e. how much current and from which direction would be needed to cause a boat to change course by some large angle. you, you blithering idiot, are rambling on and on and on and on hoping against all hope that newbies will forget that you motor training wheels while Walter Mittying yourself to be Shackleton. Yes I know you "think" you answered the question, just like you "think" you're a member of Mensa, and you "think" you graduated high school. But saying that the answer is something that has a collection of components is NOT showing that you actually know how to compute such a collection. The fact that you keep insisting you solved it proves you don't really know how to do it. And being able to guess within 15% isn't bad, but doesn't show you know how to navigate. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... I know that *you* don't understand, jeffies, but the problem really was answered comprehensively within a few minutes of the question being posted. jeffie, rational discussion with you is near to impossible, for you are not only much lacking in mental candlepower you are also so lacking in such you are not even capable of understanding just how lacking. don't buy an EPIRB, jeffie. Let Darwin help you sail, if you ever do decide to sail in lieu motoring. I think I gave the answer to the "math problem." As to whether this current can e |
Math Problem
donny, I don't saying your answer was wrong. it is jeffies who says every
answer given but his narrowly defined, case-specific answer is wrong. however, you still can't have an "opinion" on the sq rt of 2. opinion? how the hell can one had an **opinion** re sq rt 50???? You asked me what I thought the sq root of 50 was, didn't you? As your question is totally irrelevant to the current discussion, I have no thoughts on the matter. Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think that my mathematical skills are lacking?? ah ..... maybe see above??? That just proves that your powers of deduction are lacking. Now, can you explain why you think that my answer to the original question was wrong? Skitch asked- Say you are sailing a course of 190 and making 5 kn. An adverse current suddenly gets you and you are now making a COG of 90. Assume the new COG is at the same speed (5kn) and I answered- Current = 50*, 8kts What is your answer, Jax? Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
donny, jeffies, you guys are arguing a case-specific, tightly defined issue.
Stand back a couple feet and deal with the concept. Gotta remember that the original assumptions were nothing more than assumptions, therefore while precision can be obtained accuracy can not. Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
This was not a vague question, it was a well posed mathematical problem. You
ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, though I think his accuracy could have been better. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... donny, jeffies, you guys are arguing a case-specific, tightly defined issue. Stand back a couple feet and deal with the concept. Gotta remember that the original assumptions were nothing more than assumptions, therefore while precision can be obtained accuracy can not. Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
Your accuracy was only slightly better than jaxie's guess. I would think you'd
aspire to better than that. Actually, that would probably not be good enough to pass the USCG chartwork test. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
And Donal did it blindfolded.
SV "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... This was not a vague question, it was a well posed mathematical problem. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, though I think his accuracy could have been better. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... donny, jeffies, you guys are arguing a case-specific, tightly defined issue. Stand back a couple feet and deal with the concept. Gotta remember that the original assumptions were nothing more than assumptions, therefore while precision can be obtained accuracy can not. Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
Just back form the boat; Couple of hrs fooling around. Felt Great.
Still have a Jammed shift cable on Pitolhouse control but temp was 62*F. Sailed from cockpit. Jax, you Math is screwed up. If you're using sin and Cosin you need to be figuring on a right triangle. If a=b and you say angle sin c can't be the diameter of the circle. You're blowing smoke!!! If you maintained your heading while making a 90 degree course, your leeway wake would be obvious to any sailor. GPS be damned. This is the second time you've tried to use the Stream Eddy and it doesn't hold up. Jax, it didn't happen. It didn't happen before and it won't happen. You're only making yourself look stupid and your explaination are nothing but double talk with no real meaning. Give it up. Ole Thom |
Math Problem
it was a well posed mathematical problem.
jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
Your accuracy was only slightly better than jaxie's guess.
what guess? 5^2 + 5^2 = 50 and the square root of 50 is just a little over 7. you can do that one in your head in less than a second or two. |
Math Problem
You'd better hope mensa doesn't read this.
Hope you can recover. SV "JAXAshby" wrote I went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy |
Math Problem
Come off it Jax,
That's twice now that you've pull the eddy gambit; Both time with the same 45* angles. Find a different solution for your Math. Not all Eddies create 90 Deg course changes. Time to try something different. Take your baggage away some the Gulf Stream. By the way Jax, if you were 200 miles offshore you were most like on the East side of the stream. OT |
Math Problem
Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the classic
"set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone have no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on whether you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really looking like you just make this stuff up. You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... it was a well posed mathematical problem. jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
jeffies, you seem totally incapable of rational discussion. Everything was in
there, but displayed so that the math was in the background where it belonged. it was not a question on a CG Master's test, that needed -- to pass the test -- an answer out to 1,000 decimal places. It was a question of How rather than What. See? even now, this moment, you are so confused you are unable to understand the two paragraphs above. Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the classic "set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone have no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on whether you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really looking like you just make this stuff up. You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... it was a well posed mathematical problem. jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
Jax, you Math is screwed up. If you're using sin and Cosin you need to
be figuring on a right triangle. If a=b and you say angle sin c can't be the diameter of the circle. olde thom, you don't *have* to use sin and cosin on a right triangle. You _can_, but you don't *have* to. In fact, the math is easily done in the head if you don't. your leeway wake would be obvious there was no leeway wake, olde thom, because the water was moving. that's what an eddy is, water moving. |
Math Problem
if you were
200 miles offshore you were most like on the East side of the stream. yes, and if we were 5,000 miles offshore we would have been in eastern Europe. never said we were 200 miles offshore. |
Math Problem
What part of "math problem" do you not understand?
You don't have to be embarrassed that you don't understand "set and drift" problems; all you have to do is take a Power Squadron course - the nice folks in the blue jackets have a special version that doesn't require any "math." "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, you seem totally incapable of rational discussion. Everything was in there, but displayed so that the math was in the background where it belonged. it was not a question on a CG Master's test, that needed -- to pass the test -- an answer out to 1,000 decimal places. It was a question of How rather than What. See? even now, this moment, you are so confused you are unable to understand the two paragraphs above. Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the classic "set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone have no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on whether you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really looking like you just make this stuff up. You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... it was a well posed mathematical problem. jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:18:37 -0500, "Jeff Morris"
wrote: What part of "math problem" do you not understand? You don't have to be embarrassed that you don't understand "set and drift" problems; all you have to do is take a Power Squadron course - the nice folks in the blue jackets have a special version that doesn't require any "math." I tried to suggest that already, Jeff, but I think Jax has "issues" with people in uniform:) In all honesty, though, do you think jax being lost at sea trying to figure out where he screwed up his square roots would be a bad thing?:) "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, you seem totally incapable of rational discussion. Everything was in there, but displayed so that the math was in the background where it belonged. it was not a question on a CG Master's test, that needed -- to pass the test -- an answer out to 1,000 decimal places. It was a question of How rather than What. See? even now, this moment, you are so confused you are unable to understand the two paragraphs above. Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the classic "set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone have no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on whether you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really looking like you just make this stuff up. You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... it was a well posed mathematical problem. jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
sheesh, jeffies, are you really as dense as you are telling us? In other
words, are you so dense you don't even understand you are dense? or are you a pig of a sophist? What part of "math problem" do you not understand? You don't have to be embarrassed that you don't understand "set and drift" problems; all you have to do is take a Power Squadron course - the nice folks in the blue jackets have a special version that doesn't require any "math." "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffies, you seem totally incapable of rational discussion. Everything was in there, but displayed so that the math was in the background where it belonged. it was not a question on a CG Master's test, that needed -- to pass the test -- an answer out to 1,000 decimal places. It was a question of How rather than What. See? even now, this moment, you are so confused you are unable to understand the two paragraphs above. Sorry, Jaxie, it was a was a well posed math problem; a variant of the classic "set and drift" problem. The fact that you don't recognize it, let alone have no idea how to solve it, is pretty pathetic. The fact that you don't even appreciate Donal's approach as a solution cast considerable doubt on whether you've ever learned the rudiments of piloting or navigation. Its really looking like you just make this stuff up. You get one point for a fair guess, but in sum, still a failing grade. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... it was a well posed mathematical problem. jeffie, the assumptions were just assumptions, therefore the answer can be no more accurate than the product of the least accurate assumptions. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. There was no complicating issue. It was nothing but assumptions to start with. I dealt with the simpler case of a 90* shift in course rather than a 100* shift because while the concept was unchanged, the math became more simple and thus did not stand out from its rightful place in the background. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. there was no speed and no direction. It was just a question as to "how could it happen?". you solved precisely to arrive at a vagueness. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. I left the second part because it came to the same conclusion. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, there is no "proper navigational method", for the question was "how could it happen?" though I think his accuracy could have been better. you mean his *precision* could have been better. His accuracy could not improve because the problem started with inaccurate data. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. there is not "proper mathematical solution" to assumptions. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. beyond me? *you* were the one who didn't notice the trig was still there, but presented in a fashion to keep it in the background where it belonged. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? because, the shift to an eastward course happened quickly enough so that the "averaging" algarithm on two gps's -- each from a different manufacturer -- caught the course change at the nearly the very same instant. I looked up to say my gps went idiotic maybe a half second before the other guy looked to say the same thing of his gps. the Gulf Stream would have to very dramatically change course in a very short period of time. Eddies, on the other hand, do form quickly and are much smaller so it is easier to sail in or out of one in a short distance. Keep in mind that we did not change our heading, nor did we notice a change in cloud position relative to the mast/sails. |
Math Problem
|
Math Problem
Sorry jaxie, a math problem is a math problem. If you can't do the math, you
could just admit it. Its no shame, lots people have difficulty with math. And don't worry, you can still enjoy going out on the water. Just make sure you have someone qualified to navigate on board, and don't worry yourself too much that you don't understand what they're doing. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... sheesh, jeffies, are you really as dense as you are telling us? In other words, are you so dense you don't even understand you are dense? or are you a pig of a sophist? What part of "math problem" do you not understand? |
Math Problem
let me guess jeffies, *you* define it as a math problem because you remember
(totally unlikely) or know how to look the formula to find the third side of a non-right angle triangle if the other two sides are known --- AND YOU ARE SO PROUD OF YOURSELF FOR THAT!!!!! ---, yet ... .... you lack the intelligence to consider the question in the context in which it was asked. Well, good for you, jefffies, you are one bright mother for being able to look up a never-used-by-anyone formula, AND are are such a bright mother that you are totally beyond caring about the question, only the precision of your inaccurate answer. congrats, jeffies. you sure are one bright mother. We are so glad for your company here what with all your ability to answer a trivial part of a larger question and then to keep us all on our toes by telling us the trivial answer defines the whole. to the rest of the ng, jeffies doesn't have a clew what the paragraphs above say. don't tell him. let dumb cluck think he has solved the world. Sorry jaxie, a math problem is a math problem. If you can't do the math, you could just admit it. Its no shame, lots people have difficulty with math. And don't worry, you can still enjoy going out on the water. Just make sure you have someone qualified to navigate on board, and don't worry yourself too much that you don't understand what they're doing. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... sheesh, jeffies, are you really as dense as you are telling us? In other words, are you so dense you don't even understand you are dense? or are you a pig of a sophist? What part of "math problem" do you not understand? |
Math Problem
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ...
let me guess jeffies, *you* define it as a math problem I define it as a "Math Problem" because the subject of the thread is "Math Problem." because you remember (totally unlikely) You forget the I spent 6 years programming navigation for NASA spacecraft. High school trigonometry is not that difficult for me. or know how to look the formula to find the third side of a non-right angle triangle if the other two sides are known --- AND YOU ARE SO PROUD OF YOURSELF FOR THAT!!!!! ---, yet ... Its not that hard. Its on page 325 of the current Bowditch. That's a book, jaxie. The one you haven't read. ... you lack the intelligence to consider the question in the context in which it was asked. The context was as a "Math Problem." Look at the subject of this thead. Well, good for you, jefffies, you are one bright mother for being able to look up a never-used-by-anyone formula, AND are are such a bright mother that you are totally beyond caring about the question, only the precision of your inaccurate answer. The question was a "Math Problem." If you are unable to do a "Math Problem" why do you keep contributing to this thread? congrats, jeffies. you sure are one bright mother. We are so glad for your company here what with all your ability to answer a trivial part of a larger question and then to keep us all on our toes by telling us the trivial answer defines the whole. I'll bet there were a few people out there whose memory of trig was refreshed a bit. But most mariners would probably be better served know Donal's method, or some variant of it. Had his answer been closer to the right answer I might not have added mine. Remember Jaxie, you not only got a inaccurate answer to the first question, you didn't bother to answer the second. And making a guess that's 5 degrees off is not very good navigation. And then defending it is just plane stupid. Buts its what we expect from you, jaxie. to the rest of the ng, jeffies doesn't have a clew what the paragraphs above say. don't tell him. let dumb cluck think he has solved the world. Sorry jaxie, a math problem is a math problem. If you can't do the math, you could just admit it. Its no shame, lots people have difficulty with math. And don't worry, you can still enjoy going out on the water. Just make sure you have someone qualified to navigate on board, and don't worry yourself too much that you don't understand what they're doing. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... sheesh, jeffies, are you really as dense as you are telling us? In other words, are you so dense you don't even understand you are dense? or are you a pig of a sophist? What part of "math problem" do you not understand? |
Math Problem
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Your accuracy was only slightly better than jaxie's guess. I would think you'd aspire to better than that. Actually, that would probably not be good enough to pass the USCG chartwork test. I'd make sure that I was sober if I were taking a test. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
I define it as a "Math Problem" because the subject of the thread is "Math
Problem." and that proves my statement that you did not understand the question. It could have been called "Grapefruit" without changing the question -- and answer -- at all. You forget the I spent 6 years programming navigation for NASA spacecraft. no you didn't "spend 6 years programming navigation". you may have spent time coding nav programs, but that is not hardly "programming navigation". a good coder -- and everyone else within sight of the code -- knows the difference. Only a hack coder trying to to lay the cocktail waitress would claim to be "programming navigation". High school trigonometry is not that difficult for me. It isn't difficult for anyone. That is why it is taught in high school. Its on page 325 of the current Bowditch. so, you did look it up rather than recall it from memory. so much for "programming navigation" for NASA. The context was as a "Math Problem." Look at the subject of this thead. no, the context was "Grapefruit". Look at the subject of the thread. If you are unable to do a "Math Problem" why do you keep contributing to this thread? I solved the actual problem -- in my head without looking up any math -- within a couple minutes of the original posting, and posted an explanation that keep the math in it proper place in the background. It was not a math problem, but rather a concept problem. Lower life forms have a hard time dealing with concepts. I'll bet there were a few people out there whose memory of trig was refreshed a bit. for what purpose? To show that you could look up a math formula used by no one? Besides, you didn't need the trig to get the answer. *you* used the trig, but no one else was required to. Remember Jaxie, you not only got a inaccurate answer to the first question, you didn't bother to answer the second. you dumb cluck, jeffies. "a little over 7 knots" IS the right answer when the course shift is 90* rather than 100*. In fact, the EXACT number is Sq Rt 50. To this moment you have no idea why that is true. And making a guess that's 5 degrees off is not very good navigation. it wasn't a navigation question, jeffies. It was a concept question. |
Math Problem
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
... I define it as a "Math Problem" because the subject of the thread is "Math Problem." and that proves my statement that you did not understand the question. It could have been called "Grapefruit" without changing the question -- and answer -- at all. Its was called a "math problem" and its was posed as a "math problem." You couldn't answer it. You forget the I spent 6 years programming navigation for NASA spacecraft. no you didn't "spend 6 years programming navigation". you may have spent time coding nav programs, but that is not hardly "programming navigation". a good coder -- and everyone else within sight of the code -- knows the difference. Tell us the difference, please. Only a hack coder trying to to lay the cocktail waitress would claim to be "programming navigation". High school trigonometry is not that difficult for me. It isn't difficult for anyone. That is why it is taught in high school. If you took it you might know how to solve the problem. Its on page 325 of the current Bowditch. so, you did look it up rather than recall it from memory. so much for "programming navigation" for NASA. Actually I just looked up Bowditch for that post. For the first post I simply googled "law of cosines" and had the formula in less than a second. I certainly didn't want to post the wrong answer, like you. Frankly, I like spending a few minutes working out trig or physics problems. I did it for a living for 25 years, and now that I'm retired I miss it a bit. Had I been on the boat I probably would have done it on a chart. You probably don't know that method either, do you? The context was as a "Math Problem." Look at the subject of this thead. no, the context was "Grapefruit". Look at my head. I couldn't have said it better. If you are unable to do a "Math Problem" why do you keep contributing to this thread? I solved the actual problem -- in my head without looking up any math -- within a couple minutes of the original posting, and posted an explanation that keep the math in it proper place in the background. It was not a math problem, but rather a concept problem. Lower life forms have a hard time dealing with concepts. Then why was it called a "math problem"? I think everyone understands that it would take a current from the SW to push you E when your course is S. Obviously, anyone as slow as you could figure that much out. The question was exactly what was the current, and what happens if you change the numbers a bit? I'll bet there were a few people out there whose memory of trig was refreshed a bit. for what purpose? To show that you could look up a math formula used by no one? Besides, you didn't need the trig to get the answer. *you* used the trig, but no one else was required to. Donal was the only person besides to even attempt both problems. He did it graphically, which is appropriate. I worked it out with trig to double check Donal's work. Remember Jaxie, you not only got a inaccurate answer to the first question, you didn't bother to answer the second. you dumb cluck, jeffies. "a little over 7 knots" IS the right answer when the course shift is 90* rather than 100*. In fact, the EXACT number is Sq Rt 50. To this moment you have no idea why that is true. So the problem posted was too hard for you so you simply gave the answer to a problem that you knew. How special. You still didn't answer the second problem. And making a guess that's 5 degrees off is not very good navigation. it wasn't a navigation question, jeffies. It was a concept question. Keep telling yourself that jaxie. You don't need to know how to navigate, you just need to know the "concept." |
Math Problem
jeffie, listen to me. every last person who reads this ng and who has actually
studied physics or math KNOWS that your claim of a degree (BS, let alone BS) is bogus just by reading your nonsense below. utter nonsense, to everyone who has studied even one semestrer in what you claim to have a degree in. Your complete lack of familiarity of the underlying and overlying concepts makes a lie of your claim. Discussing concepts with you is like discussing auto mechanics with an art history major. |
Math Problem
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... donny, I don't saying your answer was wrong. it is jeffies who says every answer given but his narrowly defined, case-specific answer is wrong. however, you still can't have an "opinion" on the sq rt of 2. I *do* have an opinion about the square root of 2. Unlike the square root of 50, I think that the square root of 2 has some practical applications. Are you saying that you can quote some practical applications for the square root of 50? If not, then why would you bother forming an opinion about such a useless figure? Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... And Donal did it blindfolded. .... and pi**ed .... (on the back of an envelope!!) Regards Donal -- SV "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... This was not a vague question, it was a well posed mathematical problem. You ignored the complicating issue and solved a simpler case. You were 10% off in the speed and 5 degrees off in the current direction. You the ignored the second part because it required some actual math. Donal solved both problems using a proper navigational method, though I think his accuracy could have been better. I simply provided the proper mathematical solution. I sorry if a bit of trig is beyond you. BTW, given the numbers you provided, why do you think this was "an eddy" and not the Gulf Stream itself? "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... donny, jeffies, you guys are arguing a case-specific, tightly defined issue. Stand back a couple feet and deal with the concept. Gotta remember that the original assumptions were nothing more than assumptions, therefore while precision can be obtained accuracy can not. Since no one seems willing to do this probably, here are the answers: Excuse me??? Define "properly"! I worked it out using a Breton plotter. That *is* the proper way to do it. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Donal was the only person besides to even attempt both problems. He did it graphically, which is appropriate. I worked it out with trig to double check Donal's work. Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position. You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in your argument against Jax. I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20 minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's toolbox. I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other. Regards Donal -- |
DICLAIMER
You are finaly showing some intelligence Jax. keep it up.
Regards Donal "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... kates, I didn't even see "joe's" post, probably because I blocked the id address of the clown who has been posting as everyone else. Cut the number of posts I do see by half. |
Math Problem
sure. sq rt 50 = sq rt 25 * sq rt 2
Unlike the square root of 50, I think that the square root of 2 has some practical applications. but still you can't have an opinion of a number. |
Math Problem
donny, sq rt 50 is easy to do in one's head.
besides, it was not a navigational problem. Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position. You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in your argument against Jax. I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20 minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's toolbox. I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
"Donal" wrote ...
... and pi**ed .... (on the back of an envelope!!) and then mailed it to jax? SV |
Math Problem
Hey, I thought you'd be happy that I endorsed your approach as being appropriate
while onboard. I'm certainly not "desperate," since its pretty clear to everyone that jaxie is just doing his typical jackass thing. BTW, I tried my graphical method this morning - dividers on the compass rose - and with a clear head and two cups of coffee, had no trouble getting a very accurate result. Of course, in practice one usually doesn't need to know the strength of a current to 1%, but it isn't impossible to calculate it. I'd certainly agree that all navigators must know how to do "set and drift" problems graphically. But there are also a large number of navigators that use computers or calculators, so using tools like this are not out of the question. And the trig involved is really quite simple. I see nothing wrong with keeping in practice by solving a few problems a year with this method. BTW, I didn't use "log tables," its been a very long time since I've done that! However, the tables, along with trig tables, have been published in Bowditch and other navigation texts for over 200 years. They certainly ARE part of the traditional navigator's toolbox. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Donal was the only person besides to even attempt both problems. He did it graphically, which is appropriate. I worked it out with trig to double check Donal's work. Hey! I'd be grateful if you would stop using me to back up your position. You wrote off my initial answer as being little better than Jax's. I think that you must be feeling a bit desperate if you are now trying to use me in your argument against Jax. I worked out my answer using a Breton plotter, and a bit of paper, at 20 minutes to midnight, on a Saturday, after a meal and a bottle of wine. You used log tables, at 9:30 am. I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't consider log tables to be part of the traditional navivator's toolbox. I've done this sort of nav for real, at sea.. .... many times. I do it to within 1* of accuracy. If you need to use log tables, *or* if you need to be able to calculate square roots, then you shouldn't consider yourself to be capable of doing navigation. You are both as bad as each other. Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
Right, jaxie, and everyone thinks you're the "definitive reference" for
navigation, mathematics, and science. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... jeffie, listen to me. every last person who reads this ng and who has actually studied physics or math KNOWS that your claim of a degree (BS, let alone BS) is bogus just by reading your nonsense below. utter nonsense, to everyone who has studied even one semestrer in what you claim to have a degree in. Your complete lack of familiarity of the underlying and overlying concepts makes a lie of your claim. Discussing concepts with you is like discussing auto mechanics with an art history major. |
Math Problem
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... sure. sq rt 50 = sq rt 25 * sq rt 2 Unlike the square root of 50, I think that the square root of 2 has some practical applications. but still you can't have an opinion of a number. 7 is a lucky number. Do you agree? Regards Donal -- |
Math Problem
see what you did donny? give'd jeffies hiss chance ta told uses jest how
smarts he bees. but dens the dods says sumpin stew ped likes: Of course, in practice one usually doesn't need to know the strength of a current to 1%, but it isn't impossible to calculate it. in fact, soooooo stupid jeffies doesn't even know how stupid. geesh that boy is dumb. 1% of a guessed-at current of 5 (yup, five!) knot current is a **calculated** guessed-at 0.05 knots. great precision, but no accuracy. It started with a guess, so it can't get better. but it does show that jeffies is one bight boy. no wonder he carries a 200 year old copy of Bowditch and "other navigation texts" to motor from one anchorage to the next. However, the tables, along with trig tables, have been published in Bowditch and other navigation texts for over 200 years. They certainly ARE part of the traditional navigator's toolbox. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com