IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 30th December 2022, 03:16 PM   #121
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,306
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Who?
Brilliant
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2022, 04:09 PM   #122
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Further, even very knowledgeable people make silly, inattentive mistakes. They are corrected, and they accept it graciously, and their credibility hardly suffers.
Not only does their credibility not suffer, it improves. A willingness to admit error is a sign of intellectual honesty and critical thinking.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 05:34 AM   #123
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Here's the relevant paragraph from the post to which you refer, which clearly states that I do not claim the canonical base unit must be specified in order to establish what extent is being measured.
And let's revisit the gaffe that has amused so many.


But let's restore the full context. You wroteYour objection is not that 6 ft 2′ ⅛″ is nonsensical--which it is--but that it's over-specified (yet apparently otherwise acceptable). And that opinion is driven by the apparent belief that you can willy-nilly restate the canonical base units for some extent and thereby change what the first and subsequent cuts mean.

You emphatically cannot.

Your ongoing duplicity on this point is illustrated by statements such as the following.



Establishing that "the first is in yards" is unnecessary. The base unit for length is yards--never anything else. Hence ′ is always feet, the first cut; ″ is always inches, the second cut. Yes, we habitually keep such measurements unnormalized, and therefore habitually omit naming yards as the nominal unit. But the immutability of the yard as the canonical base unit of length is the authority by which ′ and ″ keep their immutable meanings as feet and inches. We seem to properly agree on this point.

Hours, minutes, and seconds work the same way, despite your self-serving equivocation.

It's unclear whether you consider 6 ft 2′ ⅛″ to be improper because it nominates a different base unit or because it employs redundant indicators: both names and primes for feet. Both are mistakes, but unraveling your gyrations proves difficult. If you say 6 ft, you're not using primes notation for length. Why? Because it's using nominal abbreviations for what, in primes notation, would only properly be identified by a prime. Neither 6 ft 2′ nor 6 ft 2″ is meaningful because the named unit is not the right one.

If you're using primes notation and if you include a nominal unit, then the named unit must be the canonical base unit. Otherwise the notation is inconsistent and therefore incorrect. That is not a requirement to use a nominal/canonical base unit in all cases.

As we've belabored, nothing illustrates this better than the preference of feet to yards. The meanings of the primes don't change, even though we omit the nominal units and denormalize the quantity of feet.

But then you sayYou cannot do this. You can no more renominate the canonical base unit for time (hours) any more than you can renominate the base unit for length (yards) or angles (degrees). ′ is an unambiguous measurement of length because it's always the first cut of the canonical base unit, even when the base unit is omitted. ′ is an unambiguous measurement of an angle because the canonical base unit never changes, and therefore the meaning of its first cut never changes. ′ is an unambiguous measurement of time because its canonical base unit (hours) never changes.

Even still you can't get the terminology right. There is a "base unit" and there is a "first cut." There is no such thing as a "first base," except in American baseball and canoodling. The base unit of time is the hour, abbreviated nominally as h. This never changes. The first cut of time is the minute, defined as 1/60 of an hour and noted immutably in primes notation by a single prime ′. This, too, does not change. The second cut of a hour is seconds of time. That's literally why it's called "seconds."

By the same logic that lets us omit yards and write feet and inches solely with primes, we can omit hours and write minutes and seconds unambiguously using primes.

In an attempt to justify your original error, you insinuate that we can simply renominate days as the base unit for time. You suggest that doing this redefines the first cut to be hours and the second cut, notated ″, to be minutes. Therefore your usage 35″ should have been properly understood as "thirty-five minutes."

No. You cannot do this.

Not only did you give no indication whatsoever that you wanted a recontextualization to make days to be the new base unit of time, your own explanation of feet and inches belies that you know you cannot renominate a base unit without introducing the very ambiguity that the primes notation was invented to avoid. You concede that feet and inches are immutably and unambiguously identified using ′ and ″, and you even give the correct reason why. But then you abandon the whole system and claim that none of those rules should be in force while you tacitly and arbitrarily redefine what the symbols mean when measuring time instead of distance or angles.

Why? The reason is obvious. You wrote 35″ when you meant "thirty-five minutes," and refuse to concede that you didn't know that was the wrong notation.

Your first ruse was to insist that this is a perfectly ordinary convention--a bluff. Then when you compounded your error by writing 0.35″, at first you didn't even see the problem. Then when it was spelled out to you in excruciating detail, you deployed the second nonsensical explanation: that the 0. portion was somehow a cobbled-up way to express hours, and therefore to disambiguate the primes. When that fell flat you said


That's a backhanded concession. We went from an alternative convention to simply "something [you] have always done," irrespective of what others might have done. You insinuate that different education produces different convention that explains your usage, but your fellow Britons have contradicted you. You even insinuate that it's our fault we've never heard of this singular, confusing exception to the rules of a system that was in widespread usage for hundreds of years.

Here's how we know this is bollocks.

Do you remember your idiom of the FX prefix? Remember how you claimed it was common notation in screenplays? It isn't. After pages and pages of refutation, you finally fell back to the notion that FX was just something you personally used among your girlfriends. And here we are again. After first claiming your usage was proper according to standard or convention, you've fallen back to the irrefutable, "Well, it's just what I use." Your first inclination whenever any error is pointed out to you is to double- or triple-down and insist that you are still right even when the evidence of your error is plain. Your first inclination is to lie. Only much later, if ever, do you come clean and contradict your first lies by admitting that your usage is just your personal habit. I suppose in your mind that equates to something like, "I can't be wrong if it's something I've always done and was never contradicted."

I assure you a Vixen-only "convention" can most certainly be an error. And it very much is in this case. What you propose to do is contradicted by the standard you say you are conforming to. You are simply wrong, full stop.

Why are we so focused on what are, by any metric, insignificant errors? Precisely because they are insignificant. You lose little if any face to say, "Oh, I just thought that's what FX meant," or "Oops, I wrote ″ when I meant ′," or, "I misspoke when I said 'perpendicular." People will see that you're amenable to contrary facts, and that you will adjust your beliefs accordingly. Further, even very knowledgeable people make silly, inattentive mistakes. They are corrected, and they accept it graciously, and their credibility hardly suffers. Your insufferable insistence on a mantle of infallibility is pathological.

What we learn about you in this thread is that under no circumstances will you retract a statement that is shown to be wrong. Instead, you will go to extreme lengths and tell all kinds of lies in order to maintain the illusion that you are still somehow right. And yes, we can tell that you do this. If you are legitimately believing your lies, then you have serious issues we can't address in this forum. Whatever that posture, it is clear to all of us that maintaining the illusion that you're infallible is more important to you than actually having the correct facts and arriving at well-reasoned conclusions.

This means you're neither technically nor morally qualified to question other people's expert work. You cannot be trusted to respect facts, or the people who know them better than you do. Hence until you can show some semblance of intellectual honesty, you're more likely to be mocked at this forum than debated.

I am flattered you believe I invented a system that mirrors the Ancient Babylonians and that I also made up 'FX'. However, I am not going to lie and take credit for something I followed as mere convention. The former (using " for minutes of time duration) was conventional for me. I have no recollection of having been 'taught' it but we all did it. As for the fx business, this is common internet abbreviation that came into being around about the same time as 'rofl' and the side smile : ) [I had to leave a space as the software keeps converting it into a smiley emoji], predating emojis as we know them to day.

I have found a random message in my email archives from such a discussion forum (in those early days you had to set up something like LISTSERV if you wanted a forum discussion group). The following one of many comes from year 2004 and not written by myself:

Quote:
> Jan asks:
> >Anyone know how much you can give away and still
> die soon after?
>
> I think it's a thousand pounds to each child (that's
> me and my
> brother) <FX: whisper> that's why he gives me cash.
So no, I can't be bullied into 'admitting' I 'made it all up' nor is it anything to do with 'saving face.' When I said it was conventional, I was being factual.

And BTW the Ancient Babylonians never had a zero in their counting systems so the addition of stuff like 'hr' is a modernism. Obviously, publishing houses have styles which change over time. However, that doesn't stop people from using informal shorthand.

I wonder whether anybody else ever used the following shorthand:
  1. - " -
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 05:41 AM   #124
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I wonder whether anybody else ever used the following shorthand:
  1. - " -

The top one is "therefore", and the bottom one is a slightly old-fashioned way of writing "ditto".

I don't recall seeing the middle one. Is it "Adolph Hitler"?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:08 AM   #125
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

I wonder whether anybody else ever used the following shorthand:
  1. - " -
Is '1, 1, 2' a counting sequence that is merely conventional?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:18 AM   #126
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Is '1, 1, 2' a counting sequence that is merely conventional?
Typo. I had to start a new list, didn't spot the duplication.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:22 AM   #127
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And yet, that's exactly what you did say.



If port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, they are at 90° to each other which is, as you have already conceded, perpendicular.
What happens when you take the imaginary figure and rotate it 45°?
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:30 AM   #128
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And yet, that's exactly what you did say.



If port is at 45° and starboard at 135°, they are at 90° to each other which is, as you have already conceded, perpendicular.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What happens when you take the imaginary figure and rotate it 45°?
It doesn't change the fact that 135 - 45 is 90. Have another go.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:52 AM   #129
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am flattered you believe I invented a system that mirrors the Ancient Babylonians...
Straw man. I don't claim you invented the system. I claim you're misusing a well-known system out of ignorance and inventing stories of its rules, usage, and origin in order to cover up your error. I have provided the evidence for my claim, which you do not address.

Quote:
...and that I also made up 'FX'.
Straw man. I don't claim you invented the shorthand FX. I claim you erred in describing how it did originate, and stuck to that story long after evidence was shown of your error. The true origin of the shorthand is well known. You are not on the hook to explain why you stuck with your made-up origin story for so long. We know why. I refer to it merely as an additional example of what you're trying to do now. It establishes a pattern of behavior in which you stick stubbornly to your original claims rather than admit error and incorporate new information.

Quote:
The former (using " for minutes of time duration) was conventional for me. I have no recollection of having been 'taught' it but we all did it.
Who are "we all?" You have been challenged to produce evidence that anyone besides yourself has ever used ″ to indicate minutes of time. Produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.

Quote:
So no, I can't be bullied into 'admitting' I 'made it all up' nor is it anything to do with 'saving face.' When I said it was conventional, I was being factual.
You've provided no evidence of these alleged facts. Your allegations of fact are contradicted by evidence that you have not addressed.

Quote:
And BTW...
Irrelevant deflection.

Quote:
I wonder whether...
Irrelevant deflection.

Please address the evidence provided.

You have claimed the use of ″ to indicate minutes of time is a convention used by others besides you. Please show where anyone else has used it.

You have suggested that in the case of time, the canonical base unit in primes notation can be renominated as days to make your notation valid. Please reconcile how you think this can be done within the rules you yourself agreed made the system work.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:57 AM   #130
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Who are "we all?" You have been challenged to produce evidence that anyone besides yourself has ever used ″ to indicate minutes of time. Produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.

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.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 07:58 AM   #131
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
We don't teach high-schoolers (roughly equivalent to U.K. O-levels) the primes notation for time. But I (and probably others) learned it independently then, in my case because I saw historical reports of athletic events that gave times in that notation. I inferred the meanings properly because primes for angular subdivisions are taught in American high schools.

The first section of the FE exam--the first of two licensing exams for engineers--is all about measurement systems. The preparatory materials for that exam delve deeply and broadly into the history and method of measurement, including primes. Primes for time is mentioned as an historical usage, no longer much used and no part of any modern engineering or scientific standard for time. But because primes notation for other extents is part of a number of modern standards, the theory behind the system is part of the education. American engineers have to know more than just how it works; they have to know why it works. Why it works is that the primes never change meaning.



Our silent musical piece is a salient example, but it was named back in the 1950s, roughly coincident with the date of the materials I first saw using it. So we have sort of two questions. The first is whether primes notation is or was ever used to reckon time. It was, and there was a standard. Not so much anymore. The second is whether Vixen's use of primes notation for time is correct. It is not.



Agreed. That's pure invention on Vixen's part, apparently to concoct a story for why her various misuses and errors should not be considered evidence of her ineptitude.



I prefer to follow parsimony: she's making stuff up in order to appear more competent than she is, and making up more stuff to cover the mistakes in the stuff she made up previously. This has been her pattern.
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.

As for the 1950's my school was quite 'traditional' (although I wasn't there in the 1950's!). The masters and mistresses wore black gowns and the more pretentious prouder ones their mortarboards and Oxbridge colours. The school motto was based on cricket. There was a quadrangle, playing fields, tuck shop, netball courts and a belfry. As first formers, we were called 'fags'. The teachers called all pupils by their last name. French (or Latin) and German was learnt by reciting long verb lists and learning them off by heart. I can still vividly remember these today, and also silly French songs about 'my cock <> is dead', etc. This was before the more modern method of 'conversation'. For Music we had to learn all the major composers, name, date of birth, date of death, what they died of, where they were from (tricky question today!) what piece/s they were famous for. As part of the first year exams Mr. Price would play a few notes on the the piano and we were expected to 'name that tune'. We all (naturally) voted 'Conservative' in the school mock elections. All this did change with the school going comprehensive, although it didn't affect my syllabi. The workload was massive and challenging, hours of homework every night, everything in longhand so there were a lot of shorthand abbreviations. It wasn't one teacher, it was a different teacher for different subjects. So not sure where the ' and " came from for hours and minutes, or alternatively minutes and seconds. Both were considered OK. 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. When I stated 35" I assumed it was obvious what was meant but clearly not. So to illustrate it to one poster who claimed to be baffled, I inadvertently wrote it as 0.35' (since everyone insisted " would be seconds) when 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). Alas, it didn't go down well and caused more confusion and chaos on the level of world war three breaking out! Hopefully, he and others now appreciate that 35" did not refer to depth of water (which would be written 2'11" anyway) but time in minutes duration it took the vessel in question to sink. It would not credibly sink in 35 seconds. Context is all.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 31st December 2022 at 08:06 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 08:00 AM   #132
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It doesn't change the fact that 135 - 45 is 90. Have another go.
Given that the imaginary figure is 90°, what happens when it is rotated 45°?

You may refer to the metacentric diagrams.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 08:16 AM   #133
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Angry

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Careful with that straw now! Everyone in this thread knows that the prime notation system can be used to represent units of time. But 1) prime notation is effectively never used for time units when it comes to scientific discourse; and 2) when prime notation is used for time, minutes of time are always notated with the single prime (') (with seconds of time being notated with the double prime ('') - the clue is in the name there...).


Quote:
As for the 1950's my school was quite 'traditional' (although I wasn't there in the 1950's!). The masters and mistresses wore black gowns and the more pretentious prouder ones their mortarboards and Oxbridge colours. The school motto was based on cricket. There was a quadrangle, playing fields, tuck shop, netball courts and a belfry. As first formers, we were called 'fags'. The teachers called all pupils by their last name. French (or Latin) and German was learnt by reciting long verb lists and learning them off by heart. I can still vividly remember these today, and also silly French songs about 'my cock <> is dead', etc. This was before the more modern method of 'conversation'. For Music we had to learn all the major composers, name, date of birth, date of death, what they died of, where they were from (tricky question today!) what piece/s they were famous for. As part of the first year exams Mr. Price would play a few notes on the the piano and we were expected to 'name that tune'. We all (naturally) voted 'Conservative' in the school mock elections. All this did change with the school going comprehensive, although it didn't effect my syllabi. The workload was massive and challenging, hours of homework every night, everything in longhand so there were a lot of shorthand abbreviations. It wasn't one teacher, it was a different teacher for different subjects.

O. M. G.

Was all of the above irrelevant ramble some sort of attempt to impress??

Wow.


Quote:
So not sure where the ' and " came from for hours and minutes, or alternatively minutes and seconds. Both were considered OK.

If this is true (which it is not), then your school was substandard in its teaching. Because ' has never been used to represent hours, and '' has never been used to represent minutes. Never. Ever.


Quote:
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.

I guarantee you - just as I can guarantee every non-UK participant in this thread - that you'd lose marks in any exam if you used ' for hours and/or '' for minutes. And once again, this nonsense about "...if it was clear to the examiner what you meant" is a clear giveaway wrt your scientific illiteracy: one cannot just use any notation one likes, just so long as one "makes it clear what you meant". There's correct notation and there's incorrect notation. And - unequivocally and inviolably - using '' for minutes is incorrect notation.



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

When you wrote 35'', there were only three viable correct interpretations as to "what was meant". Either you meant 35 seconds of time, or 35 seconds of arc, or 35 inches. There are no other possibilities.

But then....



Quote:
So to illustrate it to one poster who claimed to be baffled, I inadvertently wrote it as 0.35' (since everyone insisted " would be seconds) when 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). Alas, it didn't go down well and caused more confusion and chaos on the level of world war three breaking out! Hopefully, he and others now appreciate that 35" did not refer to depth of water (which would be written 2'11" anyway) but time in minutes duration it took the vessel in question to sink. It would not credibly sink in 35 seconds. Context is all.

....you dug yourself in deeper and deeper, as you recount above. You don't know what you're talking about, and every "explanatory" post of yours merely serves to make that clearer and clearer.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 08:22 AM   #134
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Given that the imaginary figure is 90°, what happens when it is rotated 45°?

You may refer to the metacentric diagrams.

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.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 08:31 AM   #135
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,267
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

As for the 1950's my school was quite 'traditional' (although I wasn't there in the 1950's!). The masters and mistresses wore black gowns and the more pretentious prouder ones their mortarboards and Oxbridge colours. The school motto was based on cricket. There was a quadrangle, playing fields, tuck shop, netball courts and a belfry. As first formers, we were called 'fags'. The teachers called all pupils by their last name. French (or Latin) and German was learnt by reciting long verb lists and learning them off by heart. I can still vividly remember these today, and also silly French songs about 'my cock <> is dead', etc. This was before the more modern method of 'conversation'. For Music we had to learn all the major composers, name, date of birth, date of death, what they died of, where they were from (tricky question today!) what piece/s they were famous for. As part of the first year exams Mr. Price would play a few notes on the the piano and we were expected to 'name that tune'. We all (naturally) voted 'Conservative' in the school mock elections. All this did change with the school going comprehensive, although it didn't affect my syllabi. The workload was massive and challenging, hours of homework every night, everything in longhand so there were a lot of shorthand abbreviations. It wasn't one teacher, it was a different teacher for different subjects. So not sure where the ' and " came from for hours and minutes, or alternatively minutes and seconds. Both were considered OK. 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. When I stated 35" I assumed it was obvious what was meant but clearly not. So to illustrate it to one poster who claimed to be baffled, I inadvertently wrote it as 0.35' (since everyone insisted " would be seconds) when 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). Alas, it didn't go down well and caused more confusion and chaos on the level of world war three breaking out! Hopefully, he and others now appreciate that 35" did not refer to depth of water (which would be written 2'11" anyway) but time in minutes duration it took the vessel in question to sink. It would not credibly sink in 35 seconds. Context is all.
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."
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

Last edited by wollery; 31st December 2022 at 08:36 AM. Reason: Removed snark
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 09:09 AM   #136
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I don't 'admit' I 'made a mistake' because I know I am right.
That is your fundamental mistake. Most of your other mistakes are consequences of that sentence.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 10:07 AM   #137
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As for the 1950's my school was quite 'traditional' (although I wasn't there in the 1950's!). The masters and mistresses wore black gowns and the more pretentious prouder ones their mortarboards and Oxbridge colours. The school motto was based on cricket. There was a quadrangle, playing fields, tuck shop, netball courts and a belfry. As first formers, we were called 'fags'. The teachers called all pupils by their last name. French (or Latin) and German was learnt by reciting long verb lists and learning them off by heart. I can still vividly remember these today, and also silly French songs about 'my cock <> is dead', etc. This was before the more modern method of 'conversation'. For Music we had to learn all the major composers, name, date of birth, date of death, what they died of, where they were from (tricky question today!) what piece/s they were famous for. As part of the first year exams Mr. Price would play a few notes on the the piano and we were expected to 'name that tune'. We all (naturally) voted 'Conservative' in the school mock elections. All this did change with the school going comprehensive, although it didn't affect my syllabi. The workload was massive and challenging, hours of homework every night, everything in longhand so there were a lot of shorthand abbreviations. <snip>
Cool story bro.

I've no idea what you learning a bunch of boring details about dead composers has to do with anything on this thread though.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 10:08 AM   #138
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Given that the imaginary figure is 90°, what happens when it is rotated 45°?
An angle of 90° remains an angle of 90° no matter what way you rotate it.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 10:12 AM   #139
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
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.

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.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 12:10 PM   #140
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Cool story bro.

I've no idea what you learning a bunch of boring details about dead composers has to do with anything on this thread though.
It's just a distraction, a smokescreen. Seen it many times in these Estonia discussions.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 12:33 PM   #141
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 01:09 PM   #142
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Quote:
As for the 1950's...
Irrelevant rambling ignored.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Quote:
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
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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. :—
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
35' for feet is quite normal convention.
Back then your explanation was certainly not

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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,
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Quote:
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
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Last edited by JayUtah; 31st December 2022 at 01:19 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 02:35 PM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
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).

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2022, 03:05 PM   #144
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 6,799
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Brilliant
Outfield.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 04:11 PM   #145
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 04:15 PM   #146
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by wollery View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 04:16 PM   #147
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 04:23 PM   #148
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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 hadThis 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 askedThere 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 wasBack 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 claimedBut 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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 2nd January 2023 at 04:29 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 05:13 PM   #149
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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...1#post13681911
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 05:55 PM   #150
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 06:10 PM   #151
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2023, 06:24 PM   #152
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 01:35 AM   #153
erwinl
Illuminator
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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?
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 02:48 AM   #154
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig


Last edited by Vixen; 3rd January 2023 at 02:49 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 02:57 AM   #155
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
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.go...se-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 ".
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 03:00 AM   #156
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 03:04 AM   #157
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.
__________________
who claims the soulless
Who speaks for the forgotten dead

~ Danzig

Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 03:14 AM   #158
erwinl
Illuminator
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Here is the Sheen Report:

https://assets.publishing.service.go...se-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.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 03:55 AM   #159
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2023, 04:04 AM   #160
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
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.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.