From: jzakiya <jzakiya@...>
Date: 2009-12-28T15:04:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Trig value errors

On Dec 28, 12:45 am, Walton Hoops <wal...@vyper.hopto.org> wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 10:35 PM, jzakiya wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 11:50 pm, Seebs<usenet-nos...@seebs.net>  wrote:
>
> >> On 2009-12-28, jzakiya<jzak...@mail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> All I can say is....
>
> >>> Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain. :(
>
> >> This adequately summarizes the difficulty people have had getting you to
> >> understand why it is ridiculous to try to "fix" sin(180) but not to try to
> >> "fix" sin(45).
>
> >> -s
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)<-- get educated!
>
> > No, YOU still don't seem to know the difference between
> > precision an accuracy.
>
> > If you can READ I said my method is no more precise, i.e
> > it CANNOT resolve angular differences past the inherent
> > precision of the native trig functions.
>
> > But what you, and your cohorts, don't want to deal with, is my method
> > IS MORE ACCURATE for sin|cos on the x|y axis angles, whereas the
> > native functions are INACCURATE.
>
> > So, I DON'T CARE how precise any of the other angles
> > are, because they all are ACCURATE to the precision that
> > the native functions have. I said this many times, and
> > others have tried to explain the difference too.
>
> > One thing is VERY CLEAR though.
>
> > YOU, can't SHOW that my method is inaccurate for any
> > angle value. Can YOU?
>
> Actually, he did... lets review:
>
> On 12/27/2009 8:56 PM, John W Higgins wrote:
>
>
>
> > First, to show that the standard methods show no greater precision lets test
> > 87 degrees shall we.
>
> > 1.0 - (sin(PI/180*87) ** 2 + cos(PI/180*87) ** 2)
> > =>  1.11022302462516e-16
>
> > So we fail with the standard and yours works
>
> > 1.0 - (sin1(PI/2/90*87) ** 2 + cos1(PI/2/90*87) ** 2)
> > =>  0.0
>
> > But wait shall we - lets look at 67 degrees ok?
>
> > 1.0 - (sin(PI/180*67) ** 2 + cos(PI/180*67) ** 2)
> > =>  0.0
>
> > 1.0 - (sin1(PI/180*67) ** 2 + cos1(PI/180*67) ** 2)
> > =>  2.22044604925031e-16
>
> > Oh no - we have a problem - your calculation fails when the standard works.
>
> Thus, your method is inaccurate for the angle value of 67.
>
> > Ah... A Brain is such a terrible thing to waste. :(
>
>

My methods

>sin1(67*degrees) => 0.92050485345244
>cos1(67*degrees) => 0.39073112848927

Ruby methods

>sin(67*degrees) => 0.92050485345244
>cos(67*degrees) => 0.39073112848927

Same answers.

It's clear you jokers just like to argue and spew nonsense. You make
stupid statements and provide no
data to establish your claims. But I guess well thought
out and consistent reproducible claims are just too
much for you guys to produce.

Are you guys Republicans and/or Global Climate Change deniers too?