On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 11:51:50 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 14/09/2022 11.19, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:30 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> 20 years ago, I was on a newsgroup where neophyte atheists appears
>> regularly, all of them going through the same "proofs" in the same
>> order. This led me to hypothesize the existence of a "Little Grey
>> Book" that was given to neophyte atheists and which they were all
>> following.
>>
>> But that was before I reached the point in /The Story of Civilization/
>> (series title, Durant) discussing the philosophes and other earlie
>> atheists, where I found the same arguments being cited. So,
>> apparently, they were, if nothing else, a traditional part of atheism,
>> hallowed (so to speak) by their antiquity. AFAIK, there has not been a
>> /new/ argument raised since the 18th century. The level of discourse
>> has declined, and the level of vituperation has risen, but the content
>> remains very tradtional.
>
>As a Catholic, I very much approve of hallowed traditions.

Interestingly, some people have been quoted and/or have written in
/Christianity Today/ that, given that 500 years have passed,
Protestants have a fair amount of tradition of their own.

So this appears to be a characteristic of all religions ... including
atheism.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:18:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:13:33 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> > However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
>> >
>> > Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
>> > cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
>> > Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
>> > point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
>> > claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
>> 30 cubits isn't the same as 31 cubits. Now, if the Bible had said that a
>> line of 3 * 10^1 cubits did compass it round about, one *could* conclude
>> the value was provided to an accuracy of one significant digit.
>
>30 cubits wouldn't reach. 31 cubits wouldn't reach.
>
>Meanwhile, in this debate, we've been asked to believe
>that 9.5 cubits was close enough to accurate for God's
>sacred temple. I think it would go like _Raiders of
>the Lost Ark_, the first time King Solomon took out the
>15 Commandments to wash them, and they didn't fit.

The first was my mistake; I believe I mentioned before my micropower
of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Well, that applies to
more than just games.

The argument should be: the outer diameter, with a quarter-cubit rim,
was 10, but the inner diameter, 9 and a half cubits, is what matters
because that is the diameter of the part that the 30 whatevers were
attached to. Well, maybe; short of digging it up (which seems
unlikely, as, IIRC, Nubuchadnezzer had it cut up into four pieces and
hauled off to Bablyon) it is hard to be sure.

I missed the scene in /Raiders of the Lost Ark/ where Solomon takes
out the 15 Commandments to wash them.

>On the other hand, it could be oval. Some translations
>say round, some say circular, which invites the challenge.
>
>Did the ancient Hebrews know what one-tenth is (0.1)?
>Yep. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe>

But they appear to have done it by counting: run the sheep through a
fenced in passage and grab every 10th sheep. Or count them all, divide
by 10 (rounding however they did it), and grab that number. Which
would make it easier to ensure that only acceptable victims were
chosen.

IOW, they knew what one-tenth was, but that doesn't mean that "0.1"
would have meant anything to them. Positional math notations came a
bit later -- this is why we still have the non-positional Roman
Numeral system occasionally being used. Although movies seem to be
dropping it.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 05:54:44 -0700 (PDT), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:

>Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 19:13:33 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >
>> > > However, 3 is still the correct value of pi to 0 decimal places.
>> > >
>> > > Now, if it had said "10 cubits from rim to rim ... a line of 20
>> > > cubits" or "40 cubits", then those claiming that this showed that the
>> > > Bible's value of pi (being then claimed to be 2 or 4) would have a
>> > > point. But here their point fails on /mathematical/ grounds: they are
>> > > claiming a value to be wrong which is, in fact, correct.
>>
>> Meanwhile, in this debate, we've been asked to believe
>> that 9.5 cubits was close enough to accurate for God's
>> sacred temple. I think it would go like _Raiders of
>> the Lost Ark_, the first time King Solomon took out the
>> 15 Commandments to wash them, and they didn't fit.
>...
>> Did the ancient Hebrews know what one-tenth is (0.1)?
>> Yep. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe>
>
>Did they measure in fractions of their unit, though? I haven't paid attention to the original material, but my impression is that instead of saying "5.3 cubits," they'd go to a smaller unit, like, "5 cubits and a span." Like "a bushel and a peck." Additional complications when the smaller unit into the bigger unit, like months into a year, doesn't go evenly.
>
>Maybe this was back when the measurement guy was sent around the vat to measure by hand... er, arm. ("No! Don't inscribe! Circumscribe!" "What?") Before he found it was easier to send his assistant with a rope and bring it back for him to measure sitting down. Or years later, when he kept the marked-out measurements on the rope and used it to measure things smaller than it.

Or he could have had a 30-cubit rope, wrapped it around the inner rim
on the outside, and decided "close enough" because, clearly, neither
the 20-cubit rope nor the 40-cubit rope would be closer.

And if they were only interested in finding out if 30 1-cubit
whatevers would fit, that would be good enough.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 9/12/22 08:40, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
>>> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
>>> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
>> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
>> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
>> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
>> specific assumption.
>>
>> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
>> later came along and converted it to meters?
>
> It sure looked like that.
>
> pt

15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed it up.

The engineer in me just HAD to check.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:30:10 PM UTC-6, BCFD36 wrote:

> 15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed it up.

And it would have been 4,572.009... metres if the _old_ value of the U.S. foot
was used, so that isn't the explanation either.

Perhaps they used a metric conversion slide rule!

John Savard

On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 22:30:10 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote:
> On 9/12/22 08:40, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
> >>> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
> >>> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
> >> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
> >> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
> >> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
> >> specific assumption.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
> >> later came along and converted it to meters?
> >
> > It sure looked like that.
> >
> > pt
>
> 15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed it up.
>
> The engineer in me just HAD to check.

In 1977, you might do math by hand. And authors know
that the results of your publisher's math, on your checks
for instance, needs scrutiny.

I wondered if an "official" definition of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain>
would be a factor. No, and I hadn't really thought
about the figures. The height of Mount Everest is
given as 8850 meters. And that is not how /tall/
Mount Everest is. The bottom of it is already
quite high.

I see there are airships on the cover: good luck
with that?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Design>

Robert Carnegie wrote:
[on inserting a random number as a metric conversion]

> I wondered if an "official" definition of
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain>
> would be a factor. No, and I hadn't really thought
> about the figures. The height of Mount Everest is
> given as 8850 meters. And that is not how /tall/
> Mount Everest is. The bottom of it is already
> quite high.
>
> I see there are airships on the cover: good luck
> with that?
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Design>

Just move the adjective from _The Fabulous Riverboat_ over to this design.
I have a vague memory of disappointment with the amount of airship in the book, so this may not be a concern at all.

--
-Jack

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 22:30:10 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote:
> > On 9/12/22 08:40, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > >> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
> > >>> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
> > >>> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
> > >> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
> > >> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
> > >> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
> > >> specific assumption.
> > >>
> > >> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
> > >> later came along and converted it to meters?
> > >
> > > It sure looked like that.
> > >
> > > pt
> >
> > 15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed it up.
> >
> > The engineer in me just HAD to check.
> In 1977, you might do math by hand.

....or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
slide rules at college, even in exams.

pt

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> > In 1977, you might do math by hand.

> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> slide rules at college, even in exams.

Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
Instruments.

John Savard

In article <96d25073-6f16-47c6-988f-51943e68a877n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> > In 1977, you might do math by hand.
>
>> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
>> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
>> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
>> slide rules at college, even in exams.
>
>Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
>get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
>though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
>SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
>Instruments.
>
>John Savard

It's interesting that in the _Cosmos_ serial I just reviewed (from the
1930s), the term "computer" is used a number of times -- and is invariably
a guy crunching numbers on paper.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:48:49 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <96d25073-6f16-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> >> > In 1977, you might do math by hand.
> >
> >> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> >> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> >> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> >> slide rules at college, even in exams.
> >
> >Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
> >get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
> >though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
> >SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
> >Instruments.
> >
> >John Savard
> It's interesting that in the _Cosmos_ serial I just reviewed (from the
> 1930s), the term "computer" is used a number of times -- and is invariably
> a guy crunching numbers on paper.

If I recall correctly the turn-of-the-century British geezer procedural "New Tricks" in one episode dealt with a very cold case involving, tangentially, Boole and a woman who was a computer.

William Hyde

On 9/16/2022 9:15 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 22:30:10 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote:
>>> On 9/12/22 08:40, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
>>>>>> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'. Some one
>>>>>> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
>>>>> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
>>>>> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
>>>>> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
>>>>> specific assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
>>>>> later came along and converted it to meters?
>>>>
>>>> It sure looked like that.
>>>>
>>>> pt
>>>
>>> 15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed it up.
>>>
>>> The engineer in me just HAD to check.
>> In 1977, you might do math by hand.
>
> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> slide rules at college, even in exams.
>
> pt

Yep, got mine in 1972, HS graduation present for college. HP with four
arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150. I'm pretty sure it's
still in a box around here somewhere.

On 9/16/2022 12:43 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:48:49 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <96d25073-6f16-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In 1977, you might do math by hand.
>>>
>>>> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
>>>> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
>>>> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
>>>> slide rules at college, even in exams.
>>>
>>> Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
>>> get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
>>> though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
>>> SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
>>> Instruments.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> It's interesting that in the _Cosmos_ serial I just reviewed (from the
>> 1930s), the term "computer" is used a number of times -- and is invariably
>> a guy crunching numbers on paper.
>
> If I recall correctly the turn-of-the-century British geezer procedural "New Tricks" in one episode dealt with a very cold case involving, tangentially, Boole and a woman who was a computer.
>
> William Hyde
>

First female computers.
https://www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa

And, of course, the probably most famous of all.
https://www.space.com/35430-real-hidden-figures.html

Origin.

The context of Browne’s use of the word ‘computer’, in Pseudodoxia
Epidemica, was a consideration of the difference in dates between the
Julian and Gregorian calendars. When Browne was writing in the 1640s,
Britain was behind much of Europe in still following the old Julian
calendar, while numerous countries on the Continent had already adopted
the Gregorian (which Britain would not do until 1752). Browne writes:

Now it is manifest, and most men likewise know, that the calendars of
these computers, and the accounts of these days are very different: the
Greeks dissenting from the Latins, and the Latins from each other: the
one observing the Julian or ancient account, as Great Britain and part
of Germany; the other adhering to the Gregorian or new account, as
Italy, France, Spain, and the United Provinces of the Netherlands.

The context of Browne’s use of the word makes it clear that the word
‘computer’ is here being used to refer to someone who makes a
calculation, specifically about dates. And this is the earliest known
meaning of the term ‘computer’, a sense that the OED now categorises as
‘chiefly historical’: ‘A person who makes calculations or computations;
a calculator, a reckoner; spec. a person employed to make calculations
in an observatory, in surveying, etc.’
https://interestingliterature.com/2020/02/origin-word-computer-etymology/

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:44:02 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:48:49 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <96d25073-6f16-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > >
> > >> > In 1977, you might do math by hand.
> > >
> > >> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> > >> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> > >> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> > >> slide rules at college, even in exams.
> > >
> > >Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
> > >get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
> > >though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
> > >SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
> > >Instruments.
> > >
> > >John Savard
> > It's interesting that in the _Cosmos_ serial I just reviewed (from the
> > 1930s), the term "computer" is used a number of times -- and is invariably
> > a guy crunching numbers on paper.
> If I recall correctly the turn-of-the-century British geezer procedural "New Tricks" in one episode dealt with a very cold case involving, tangentially, Boole and a woman who was a computer.
>
> William Hyde

It's a *lot * older than that. Try Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755.

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=computer

Compu'ter. n.s. [from compute.] Reckoner; accountant; calculator.

pt

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:18:55 PM UTC-4, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:44:02 PM UTC-4, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:48:49 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > > In article <96d25073-6f16-47c6...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > >On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 8:15:45 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > In 1977, you might do math by hand.
> > > >
> > > >> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> > > >> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> > > >> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> > > >> slide rules at college, even in exams.
> > > >
> > > >Being of more modest means, I had to wait until 1976 to
> > > >get my first scientific calculator... a Microlith 205. Later on,
> > > >though, I was able to afford a decent one, a Commodore
> > > >SR 4190R, and eventually I got an SR-56 from Texas
> > > >Instruments.
> > > >
> > > >John Savard
> > > It's interesting that in the _Cosmos_ serial I just reviewed (from the
> > > 1930s), the term "computer" is used a number of times -- and is invariably
> > > a guy crunching numbers on paper.
> > If I recall correctly the turn-of-the-century British geezer procedural "New Tricks" in one episode dealt with a very cold case involving, tangentially, Boole and a woman who was a computer.
> >
> > William Hyde
> It's a *lot * older than that. Try Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755.
>
> https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=computer
>
> Compu'ter. n.s. [from compute.] Reckoner; accountant; calculator.

..... and seconds later Jay E Morris has a citation from the 1640s....

pt

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:13 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> HP with four
> arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150.

HP made financial calculators.
And they made a four-function calculator wristwatch.

I am not aware that they made such a machine as you
describe, however.

John Savard

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:36:49 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:13 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> > HP with four
> > arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150.
> HP made financial calculators.
> And they made a four-function calculator wristwatch.
>
> I am not aware that they made such a machine as you
> describe, however.

However, Texas Instruments did make such a calculator in
that time frame. Perhaps that is what you remembered.

John Savard

On 9/16/2022 2:39 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 1:36:49 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 12:07:13 PM UTC-6, Jay E. Morris wrote:
>>> HP with four
>>> arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150.
>> HP made financial calculators.
>> And they made a four-function calculator wristwatch.
>>
>> I am not aware that they made such a machine as you
>> describe, however.
>
> However, Texas Instruments did make such a calculator in
> that time frame. Perhaps that is what you remembered.
>
> John Savard

Could be. Once we get moved I'll dig it out.

In article <tg2e0d$3t7i0$1@dont-email.me>,
"Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

> On 9/16/2022 9:15 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
(SNIP!)
> >
> > ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
> > already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
> > calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
> > slide rules at college, even in exams.
> >
> > pt
>
> Yep, got mine in 1972, HS graduation present for college. HP with four
> arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150. I'm pretty sure it's
> still in a box around here somewhere.

? I am fairly certain that the HP-35 (which came out in 1972) was HP's
first pocket calculator. It had trigonometric and exponential functions
(and 1 storage register). Price was around $400.

BTW, I had bought a good slide rule (bamboo core, both sides usable, etc
- complete with leather carrying case almost stout enough to be a blunt
instrument) the year before/

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On 9/16/22 11:07, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 9/16/2022 9:15 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:40:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 15 September 2022 at 22:30:10 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/22 08:40, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 10:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bice wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>>> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm reminded one edition of Riverworld by PJF in which the mountains
>>>>>>> on each side of the valley had heights such as '9144 meters'.
>>>>>>> Some one
>>>>>>> had decided that '30,000' feet was too parochial.
>>>>>> That must be the edition that I read. I even noted in my write-up for
>>>>>> The Dark Design that there were lines like "Jill had assumed that the
>>>>>> mountains were from 4564 to 6096 meters high". That's a pretty
>>>>>> specific assumption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying that the original book used feet and some editor
>>>>>> later came along and converted it to meters?
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure looked like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> pt
>>>>
>>>> 15000 feet is 4572 meters. So whomever made the conversion screwed
>>>> it up.
>>>>
>>>> The engineer in me just HAD to check.
>>> In 1977, you might do math by hand.
>>
>> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
>> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
>> calculator,  an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
>> slide rules at college, even in exams.
>>
>> pt
>
> Yep, got mine in 1972, HS graduation present for college. HP with four
> arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150. I'm pretty sure it's
> still in a box around here somewhere.

I bought a used TI SR-10 for $60 at Cal in about 1975 or so.
+ - / * 1/x x**1/2 x**2 and an EE.
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer - Stellar Solutions (Definitely Retired)

On 9/16/2022 11:51 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <tg2e0d$3t7i0$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2022 9:15 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> (SNIP!)
>>>
>>> ...or by sliderule, but four function calculators were
>>> already quite common by 1973. I got my first scientific
>>> calculator, an HP-21, in 1975. By 1977, we were ditching
>>> slide rules at college, even in exams.
>>>
>>> pt
>>
>> Yep, got mine in 1972, HS graduation present for college. HP with four
>> arithmetic functions and a constant key, $150. I'm pretty sure it's
>> still in a box around here somewhere.
>
> ? I am fairly certain that the HP-35 (which came out in 1972) was HP's
> first pocket calculator. It had trigonometric and exponential functions
> (and 1 storage register). Price was around $400.
>
> BTW, I had bought a good slide rule (bamboo core, both sides usable, etc
> - complete with leather carrying case almost stout enough to be a blunt
> instrument) the year before/
>

As noted elsewhere, it's probably a TI. It's just buried in a box
somewhere while we're in transition. Involved with HP tech so much that
my mind just filed it under HP.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 04:05:38 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because these
>> are close family to me and clearly the message is that if you
>> are a Catholic (however nominal) it is better to marry an
>> atheist than a Protestant since the former MIGHT convert while
>> the latter is far less likely to.
>>
>Or perhaps attitudes changed in . . . 15 years.
>
>But don't let that get in the way of your hate-on.

Fact is I DON'T have a Catholic hate on. There are lots of historical
reasons I could never be one but I do have family members who are and
we get along fine.

But no question I was surprised when they married my sister in law at
the high altar given her husband's beliefs vs mine. Surprised - not
enraged.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 21:11:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-09-09 09:03, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <qAHSK.90416$elEa.3488@fx09.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>> In article <XnsAF0C9152CF814taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Don't respond to Terry's trolling, please.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> I have mixed feelings about that as a general policy. On the one
>> hand, feeding a troll doesn't work terribly well (and if it did,
>> they wouldn't actually be a troll). On the other hand, allowing
>> obvious falsehoods to stand unchallenged allows those just
>> standing by observing to, potentially, conclude that the troll
>> must be correct because no one is objecting.
>
>Precisely.

The nature of Usenet (as any veteran poster would know) is that you
are damned if you say nothing and damned if you do.

Only the young and foolish think otherwise and it's that question of
which would do less damage....

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 08:53:40 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>Also, IIRC, the assertion involves merging two slightly different
>descriptions of the same object. IOW, it is inferential, not explicit.
>
>Now, if pi ever turns out to have a closed value, or even to be a
>repeating decimal, that would change the situation. But it hasn't so
>far. And so far is, IIRC, into the millions of digits.

It has been mathematically proven that pi (and e) are irrational
numbers - which means in decimal terms an endless fraction never
repeating. (A 'rational number' aka what most of us call a fraction
DOES repeat even though it goes on endlessly and can always be defined
as x/y where x is the numerator y the denominator)

That particular one >IS< proven. Plenty more in mathematics are not -
doesn't mean the correct answer isn't A or B that just means we
haven't figured out how to prove it yet.

There are several mathematical propositions out there that if one can
create a proof (or disprove) the proposition there's an Abel prize
(math's equivalent to a Nobel) out there for you.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 18:39:44 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>As my mathematical downfall was integral calculus, I can't give
>specifics, but I beleive there is a proof that pi is
>transcendental. So...not going to turn out to be
>rational...ever. And--FYI--so far as I know the calculation is
>into the billions, if not trillion digits.

For me the interesting part was how they proved a given series
converged to pi rather than diverging at say the 10000th decimal
place!