Or check out Kip Thorne. The diameter and circumference of a circle is not always related as one might think. Similar concept...
https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue ... orne/index
Or check out Kip Thorne. The diameter and circumference of a circle is not always related as one might think. Similar concept...
OK, you'll know something strange is in space when circumference is less (or greater) than 2 pi times the radius. Circumference may shrink or radius grow or whatever. But a measured length of 1 pc (measured by us in our universe) is a measured length of 1 pc is a measured length of 1 pc per definition, even if you put your yardstick through a wormhole. Thus, 1 pc/yr stays 1 pc/yr staying greater than 1 lightyear / yr, always. YMMV but your distance must not.H2X wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:06 amOr check out Kip Thorne. The diameter and circumference of a circle is not always related as one might think. Similar concept...
https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue ... orne/index
Actually, your yardstick may vary. As may your worldline. It is really relative.Walter wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:53 amOK, you'll know something strange is in space when circumference is less (or greater) than 2 pi times the radius. Circumference may shrink or radius grow or whatever. But a measured length of 1 pc (measured by us in our universe) is a measured length of 1 pc is a measured length of 1 pc per definition, even if you put your yardstick through a wormhole. Thus, 1 pc/yr stays 1 pc/yr staying greater than 1 lightyear / yr, always. YMMV but your distance must not.H2X wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:06 amOr check out Kip Thorne. The diameter and circumference of a circle is not always related as one might think. Similar concept...
https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue ... orne/index
So how shall you be entitled to claim something shrinks or grows?H2X wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:00 amActually, your yardstick may vary. As may your worldline. It is really relative.Walter wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:53 amOK, you'll know something strange is in space when circumference is less (or greater) than 2 pi times the radius. Circumference may shrink or radius grow or whatever. But a measured length of 1 pc (measured by us in our universe) is a measured length of 1 pc is a measured length of 1 pc per definition, even if you put your yardstick through a wormhole. Thus, 1 pc/yr stays 1 pc/yr staying greater than 1 lightyear / yr, always. YMMV but your distance must not.
Whatever is true in my frame of reference, I'll claim. As should you. If that equates to "whatever environment", I am not sure...Walter wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:22 amSo how shall you be entitled to claim something shrinks or grows?H2X wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:00 amActually, your yardstick may vary. As may your worldline. It is really relative.Walter wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:53 amOK, you'll know something strange is in space when circumference is less (or greater) than 2 pi times the radius. Circumference may shrink or radius grow or whatever. But a measured length of 1 pc (measured by us in our universe) is a measured length of 1 pc is a measured length of 1 pc per definition, even if you put your yardstick through a wormhole. Thus, 1 pc/yr stays 1 pc/yr staying greater than 1 lightyear / yr, always. YMMV but your distance must not.
And I will keep claiming 1 pc/yr > 1 ly/yr in whatever environment.
Also, the sequence [+], [‒], [×], [÷] (bottom to top) appears to be by far the most common on calculators in general, or at least on those where the arithmetic keys are in a vertical arrangement. (Most current Casios and Sharps have them in a 2x2 block instead, judging from what google image search is showing me.)
While I agree the operator sequence as stated has more inherent logic when speaking about them, I think the precedent set by, and experience we all have from using, the 35/45/55/65/67/21/25/29/31/32/34/41... well you get my point, seems like a better precedent for a machine specifically intended to capture and extend the spirit of those machines.
I concur with statement 1.Thomas Okken wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:57 pmAlso, the sequence [+], [‒], [×], [÷] (bottom to top) appears to be by far the most common on calculators in general, ...
N.B. The same argument -- it being the de facto standard -- could be made for putting the arithmetic keys to the right of the number keys. I'm guessing that's why HP adopted that arrangement as well.