Math Problem
 

jeff, the problem was solved within minutes of the original posting. It is now
several days later and you STILL are chasing your tail trying to tell us that
you understood the solution but you didn't understand the solution but you did
understand but you didn't but you did but you didn't but but but.

Math Problem
 

jeffie, the problem was solved days ago. Everyone else understood that, how
come you are so slow to catch on. didn't you say you had an arts degree in
physics from Potatoe State of some such? keep up Forrest.

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
...
donny, sq rt 50 is easy to do in one's head.

Yeah, you're right!

7.071067811865475244008443



Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

"7" is a philosophical contruct, therefore it cannot be considered in the
context of "luck" without leaving its construct behind.

To ask if "7" is a lucky number is to ask if a rock has shaktipa.

but still you can't have an opinion of a number.

7 is a lucky number. Do you agree?

Math Problem
 

doonyy, the context was boating so your calculation was needlessly precise
without gaining utility. but I am glad you can calculate square roots in your
head accurately to 21 decimal places.

The rest of us find that "a little over 7 knots" gives us more than enough
precision AND accuracy in the context of boating.

donny, sq rt 50 is easy to do in one's head.

Yeah, you're right!

7.071067811865475244008443



Regards


Donal
--

Math Problem
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
donny, sq rt 50 is easy to do in one's head.

Yeah, you're right!

7.071067811865475244008443

You stopped just when it was getting interesting.

Math Problem
 

Jaxie, saying there must have been a current from the southwest is NOT "solving
the problem." You can repeat it over and over, but its is NOT solving the
problem. And you didn't even try the second problem.

The fact that you don't even know that this is a navigational problem that can
be solved by a variety of methods is truly pathetic.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, the problem was solved within minutes of the original posting. It is
now
several days later and you STILL are chasing your tail trying to tell us that
you understood the solution but you didn't understand the solution but you did
understand but you didn't but you did but you didn't but but but.

Math Problem
 

jeffie, knock it off. I said a current of a little over 7 knots towards 045
against a speed of 5 knots south would give an easting 5 knots.

I also said to make 2.5 easting would require a current component from 180 at 5
knots and a current component of 2.5 east.

I also said that with a heading of 190 one would make *some* directly easting
with a current of 5 knots at 011.

I said that in the very first posting. jeffies, the very first posting.

Let me guess, *you* with your claimed arts degree in physics from Potatoe
State STILL don't under that that completely and totally identifies the
solution.

Can *you* implement the solution? Hell, no. You don't even understand the
solution. but the solution was there and the rest of the world understood it.

Jaxie, saying there must have been a current from the southwest is NOT
"solving
the problem." You can repeat it over and over, but its is NOT solving the
problem. And you didn't even try the second problem.

The fact that you don't even know that this is a navigational problem that
can
be solved by a variety of methods is truly pathetic.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, the problem was solved within minutes of the original posting. It is
now
several days later and you STILL are chasing your tail trying to tell us
that
you understood the solution but you didn't understand the solution but you
did
understand but you didn't but you did but you didn't but but but.

Math Problem
 

Saying the current is the sum of various "components" is the start of the
problem. The "math problem" is knowing how to compute the sum of the
components. If the captain asks the navigator to give a course, given a
current, the answer is not, "it has a component from the south and another from
the west." Ask someone at the Power Squadron, they'll show you how to do it.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffie, knock it off. I said a current of a little over 7 knots towards 045
against a speed of 5 knots south would give an easting 5 knots.

I also said to make 2.5 easting would require a current component from 180 at
5
knots and a current component of 2.5 east.

I also said that with a heading of 190 one would make *some* directly easting
with a current of 5 knots at 011.

I said that in the very first posting. jeffies, the very first posting.

Let me guess, *you* with your claimed arts degree in physics from Potatoe
State STILL don't under that that completely and totally identifies the
solution.

Can *you* implement the solution? Hell, no. You don't even understand the
solution. but the solution was there and the rest of the world understood it.

Jaxie, saying there must have been a current from the southwest is NOT
"solving
the problem." You can repeat it over and over, but its is NOT solving the
problem. And you didn't even try the second problem.

The fact that you don't even know that this is a navigational problem that
can
be solved by a variety of methods is truly pathetic.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, the problem was solved within minutes of the original posting. It is
now
several days later and you STILL are chasing your tail trying to tell us
that
you understood the solution but you didn't understand the solution but you
did
understand but you didn't but you did but you didn't but but but.

Math Problem
 

not "various" components. *two* componants.

AND I did add them for you (not *you* personally, jeffies, for you couldn't
understand the answer).

jeffies, just where did you say you got you arts degree in physics? Mind
sharing with us you SAT Math score? Was it above 325?

Saying the current is the sum of various "components" is the start of the
problem. The "math problem" is knowing how to compute the sum of the
components. If the captain asks the navigator to give a course, given a
current, the answer is not, "it has a component from the south and another
from
the west." Ask someone at the Power Squadron, they'll show you how to do it.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffie, knock it off. I said a current of a little over 7 knots towards
045
against a speed of 5 knots south would give an easting 5 knots.

I also said to make 2.5 easting would require a current component from 180
at
5
knots and a current component of 2.5 east.

I also said that with a heading of 190 one would make *some* directly
easting
with a current of 5 knots at 011.

I said that in the very first posting. jeffies, the very first posting.

Let me guess, *you* with your claimed arts degree in physics from Potatoe
State STILL don't under that that completely and totally identifies the
solution.

Can *you* implement the solution? Hell, no. You don't even understand
the
solution. but the solution was there and the rest of the world understood
it.

Jaxie, saying there must have been a current from the southwest is NOT
"solving
the problem." You can repeat it over and over, but its is NOT solving the
problem. And you didn't even try the second problem.

The fact that you don't even know that this is a navigational problem that
can
be solved by a variety of methods is truly pathetic.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeff, the problem was solved within minutes of the original posting. It
is
now
several days later and you STILL are chasing your tail trying to tell us
that
you understood the solution but you didn't understand the solution but
you
did
understand but you didn't but you did but you didn't but but but.