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

Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

Steve

Penultimate Amazing
Steve
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
15,736
Location
Sydney Nova Scotia
Vixen said:
A bit like:

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

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


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve said:
Gets more ludicrous every time you try, doesn't it! 0.35 feet? or 0.35 minutes of time? or 0.35 minutes of arc? or 0.35 of something else that exists only inside your head?
Click to expand...

35' for feet is quite normal convention.
 
Vixen said:
35' for feet is quite normal convention.
Click to expand...


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Context answers your question.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Context answers your question.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


That’s my point. For all her huffing and puffing, she is simply incompetent, beyond using symbols for units in a questionable way. There is a deep lack of understanding whenever she tries to present a topic that’s even remotely technical.
 
The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

Vixen said:
I have no intention of 'dumbing down' as it were, even if it doesn't conform with the US ways of doing things… (actually making things more complicated than necessary IMV).
Click to expand...

No, this isn’t a U.S. problem. We use the international standard for specifying durations of time. I work all the time with scientists and engineers from the U.K. and Europe. None of them uses primes for temporal minutes and seconds. We all use SI units.

Now if you want to argue that primes are still common in lay usage, or older, traditional usage, you can. But that’s not a difference in standards or education. That’s you being a lay person instead of a scientist if any kind — and even then you can’t get the values or units right. This is a “Vixen is wrong” problem, not a “The world is varied” problem.
 
JayUtah said:
No, this isn’t a U.S. problem. We use the international standard for specifying durations of time. I work all the time with scientists and engineers from the U.K. and Europe. None of them uses primes for temporal minutes and seconds. We all use SI units.

Now if you want to argue that primes are still common in lay usage, or older, traditional usage, you can. But that’s not a difference in standards or education. That’s you being a lay person instead of a scientist if any kind — and even then you can’t get the values or units right. This is a “Vixen is wrong” problem, not a “The world is varied” problem.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I'm British. I had a science-skewed secondary education in a very good school, followed by a first degree and then a masters in electronic/comms engineering from a very good university. And I've worked in finance related to the telecoms/internet industry pretty much all my working life. And I have NEVER, EVER, IN MY ENTIRE HISTORY OF EDUCATION AND WORK, encountered anyone using prime notation for units of time.

What's more, my education and experience has given me sufficient grounding in the scientific method to enable me to assimilate and assess most scientific evidence and carry out a decent level of scientific analysis. Further, I know what I don't know, and happily defer to those who have expertise/experience/knowledge that's over & above my own. In fact, I relish learning from such people. Oh, and I am also entirely ready to hold my hand up and apologise if I ever turn out to be wrong in any given piece of analysis/opinion. I find that these qualities are not only desirable in the quest for well-reasoned scientific debate - they're actually essential.

And that's why I can be extremely highly confident that the Estonia sank because its poorly-designed, poorly-constructed and (very) poorly-maintained bow visor detached under heavy load in high seas in the midst of a storm, causing a huge influx of seawater into the open vehicle deck (with the bow taking in enormous "gulps" of water every time it dug into an oncoming wave) which in turn caused the ship to become terminally unstable and capsize in very short time. After that, the sinking was inevitable. No sabotage. No attempts to push vehicles over the side into the raging seas. No submarines. No torpedoes.
 
LondonJohn said:
. And I have NEVER, EVER, IN MY ENTIRE HISTORY OF EDUCATION AND WORK, encountered anyone using prime notation for units of time.
Click to expand...
Then you've had a pretty sheltered life. The notation is used (see my earlier reference to John Cage) by many. The salient point is that most people who do use it are actually familiar enough with it to get it right, and honest enough to admit when they get it wrong.
 
zooterkin said:
Then you've had a pretty sheltered life. The notation is used (see my earlier reference to John Cage) by many. The salient point is that most people who do use it are actually familiar enough with it to get it right, and honest enough to admit when they get it wrong.
Click to expand...


I said that in my entire history of education and work, I've never seen it used. And that is true. Of course I know of occasions when it has been used, but it's not used - to my knowledge and extensive experience - in anything related to science and engineering (including any analysis and debate which is founded on scientific principles).

Your last sentence remains entirely salient, of course.
 
By the way, has anyone ever seen, written in any publication, a sentence such as "The train was running 20' late"?

Thought not.
 
Steve said:
I think Vixen completely blind to the fact that she that she wrote 0.35". Completely unable to comprehend that fact.
Click to expand...

I was trying to put it into context to help you understand. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Vixen said:
I read that as twenty hours late.


If you mean twenty minutes, I would put 20".
Click to expand...


Then you'd be wrong. Some other wrong person might choose to put 20'''' to represent 20 minutes. They'd be wrong too. 20'' has never, in the history of time notation, been used to represent 20 minutes.
 
zooterkin said:
You’d be wrong again,then.
Click to expand...

Why base 60? The Babylonians divided the day into 24 hours, each hour into 60 minutes, each minute into 60 seconds. This has survived for 4000 years! – Notations for sexagesimal numbers, e.g., 5 hours, 25 minutes, 30 seconds include 5h 25' 30" the ‘sexagesimal fraction’ 5 25 / 60 30 / 3600 5; 25, 30. – the number 5; 25, 30 - in sexagesimal form - can be expressed as a base 10 fraction: 5 4 / 10 2 / 100 5 / 1000 – i.e. 5.425 in decimal notation.
Click to expand...

https://slideplayer.com/slide/7348086/

ETA: Obviously, the sexagesimal system can be used for anything with a base-60, so not just an hour (= 60 minutes) but also a minute (= 60 seconds).
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Then you'd be wrong. Some other wrong person might choose to put 20'''' to represent 20 minutes. They'd be wrong too. 20'' has never, in the history of time notation, been used to represent 20 minutes.
Click to expand...

From wiki:

Modern uses for the sexagesimal system include measuring angles, geographic coordinates, electronic navigation, and time.
Click to expand...

By the 17th century it became common to denote the integer part of sexagesimal numbers by a superscripted zero, and the various fractional parts by one or more accent marks.
Click to expand...
 
Here we are on this thread like tangent/mistake by Vixen number .38e(carrot)' 48"to the 87nth degree. What that number is in base 10? I dunno somewhere between a whole frickin lot and infinity.
 
And none of this has anything to do with the MS Estonia, a ship never designed for open ocean transit, sailing into a storm at flank speed resulting in large waves knocking the bow visor loose, and then off. This resulted in the ship flooding, capsizing, and sinking.

That's what happened. That is what the evidence then and now shows happened.
 
JayUtah said:
No, two primes is 20 seconds. You’re really bad at this.
Click to expand...

It can be 20 seconds. Think of it this way (hopefully, we'll get there in the end!)

Feet = '

Inches= "

Minutes = '

Seconds = "

OR, alternatively:

Hours = '

Minutes = "

As long as the context is clear I don't see the problem. We know M/S Estonia sank within 35". Hard to see how that can be seen as depth of water or seconds.

Happy Christmas, All. Keep smiling!
 
Vixen said:
It can be 20 seconds. Think of it this way (hopefully, we'll get there in the end!)

Feet = '

Inches= "

Minutes = '

Seconds = "

OR, alternatively:

Hours = '

Minutes = "

As long as the context is clear I don't see the problem. We know M/S Estonia sank within 35". Hard to see how that can be seen as depth of water or seconds.
Click to expand...


It's hard to see how it can be minutes, given that 35 minutes is expressed as 35', not 35".

Have you ever asked anyone to make a model of Sonehenge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom