On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 11:17:38 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 11/09/2021 09:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:10:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
>>> the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
>>> of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
>>> acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
>>> you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
>>> of the wedge cut
>>
>> Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
>> splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
>> direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
>> structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
>> inertia, then nature will remind you.
>
>Yes, that can happen. Forestry has always been hazardous work. ISTR

Says Mr Expert.

>Yes, but the method I described above is I believe the standard way of
>doing it manually, or at least was when I was taught it. As I said up

Did you get your lumberjack qualifications before or after your maths and
abacus usage degree?

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq3ahgFhegmU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
>>>> would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
>>>> However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
>>>> bits (such as the main aerials)?
>>>
>>> Yes, but how ?
>>
>> Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
>> unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes.
>
> I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
> their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

Fred would have gone up it - and then done a risk-assessment after it was
all over, but only because he was told he had to.

"Dave" <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> wrote in message
news:shhvo7$no$1@dont-email.me...
> This is how they felled the masts at Rugby in 2004:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq_4klJl5Ak
>
> Cutting charges on the supports for one set of guys on each mast. Their
> only problem was that rabbits were eating through the detonation cords, so
> it took several attempts to fell all of them.

.... and lots of local rabbits exploded for no apparent reason ;-)

On 11/09/2021 16:48, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 11:17:38 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/09/2021 09:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:10:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
>>>> the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
>>>> of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
>>>> acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
>>>> you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
>>>> of the wedge cut
>>>
>>> Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
>>> splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
>>> direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
>>> structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
>>> inertia, then nature will remind you.
>>
>> Yes, that can happen. Forestry has always been hazardous work. ISTR

Certainly more expert than you in this respect, I studied Forestry as
part of my Agricultural Diploma, which I hold in addition to a 1st Class
Honours in Maths & Computing, while your qualifications are what
exactly? None that anybody knows of, which fits well with your general
ignorance.

>> Yes, but the method I described above is I believe the standard way of
>> doing it manually, or at least was when I was taught it. As I said up
>
> Did you get your lumberjack qualifications before or after your maths and
> abacus usage degree?

I got my Dip Agriculture before I got my BSc.

And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
for being a shitty arsehole?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 18:36:49 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 11/09/2021 16:48, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>> Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
>>>> splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
>>>> direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
>>>> structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
>>>> inertia, then nature will remind you.
>>>
>>> Yes, that can happen. Forestry has always been hazardous work. ISTR
>
>Certainly more expert than you in this respect, I studied Forestry as
>part of my Agricultural Diploma, which I hold in addition to a 1st Class
>Honours in Maths & Computing, while your qualifications are what
>exactly? None that anybody knows of, which fits well with your general
>ignorance.

Of course you did. No doubt you were sitting in the DB normalisation classes
chewing on a piece of grass with a magpie sitting in your straw hat.

>> Did you get your lumberjack qualifications before or after your maths and
>> abacus usage degree?
>
>I got my Dip Agriculture before I got my BSc.

Dipstick grade A?

>And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>for being a shitty arsehole?

None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this group.
End of.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 18:36:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> Did you get your lumberjack qualifications before or after your maths and
>> abacus usage degree?
>
>I got my Dip Agriculture before I got my BSc.

Is the Monty Python lumberjack song included in the course?

Rod.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 10:18:54 +0100
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 18:36:49 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>> Did you get your lumberjack qualifications before or after your maths and
>>> abacus usage degree?
>>
>>I got my Dip Agriculture before I got my BSc.
>
>Is the Monty Python lumberjack song included in the course?
>
>Rod.

LOL! :)

+1

On 12/09/2021 10:16, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 18:36:49 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Certainly more expert than you in this respect, I studied Forestry as
>> part of my Agricultural Diploma, which I hold in addition to a 1st Class
>> Honours in Maths & Computing, while your qualifications are what
>> exactly? None that anybody knows of, which fits well with your general
>> ignorance.

[Childish abuse snipped]

>> I got my Dip Agriculture before I got my BSc.

[Childish abuse snipped]

>> And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>> for being a shitty arsehole?
>
> None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this group.

You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
challenged, so obviously you haven't got any qualifications worth claiming.

> End of.

Put your grubby end away, no-one wants to see it here.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 13:18:47 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 12/09/2021 10:16, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>> And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>>> for being a shitty arsehole?
>>
>> None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this group.
>
>You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when

No, you decided to boast about your qualifications. Thats from the standard
playbook of someone who feels intellectually inferior. Its the equivalent of
saying "I did karate" when someone feels physically threatened and just as
pathetic.

>challenged, so obviously you haven't got any qualifications worth claiming.

Believe what you like, makes no difference to me. I'm not insecure like you.

On 12/09/2021 17:17, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 13:18:47 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/09/2021 10:16, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [broken quoting fixed] Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>>>> for being a shitty arsehole?
>>>
>>> None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this group.
>>
>> You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>> people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
>
> No, you decided to boast about your qualifications.

So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...

> Thats from the standard
> playbook of someone who feels intellectually inferior. Its the equivalent of
> saying "I did karate" when someone feels physically threatened and just as
> pathetic.

Which description fits *YOUR* behaviour *EXACTLY* in the exchange where
it happened as follows:

On 20/03/2021 16:41, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 20/03/2021 16:24, MrSpook_2dk71Kl8zr@7e6uyk8fm.gov.uk wrote:
>>
>> ROTFL!! :) You never did maths did you. No, thats not a question.
>> Someone
>> should tell Marcus Du Sautoy and his colleagues that 100K is an
order >> of
>> magnitude greater than 99,999! Quick - do a Phd thesis on it and
>> become famous
>> in the mathematical world!
>>
>> Or learn the difference between order of magnitude and place value
>> position,
>> s'up to you.
>
> ROTFL!! As it happens, I have a First Class Honours Degree in Maths &
> Computing.

And of course I was then able to point to a link that proved that I was
right and you were wrong:

On 23/03/2021 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
>
> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
> the value."
>
> So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.

So it's obviously you in this ng that's trying to claim qualifications
that you don't have, because otherwise you wouldn't've needed to be
corrected on such a simple point of common scientific knowledge.

>> challenged, so obviously you haven't got any qualifications worth claiming.
>
> Believe what you like, makes no difference to me. I'm not insecure like you.

Your behaviour here belies that, in that, as shown above, you are doing
all the the things that you falsely claim others are doing.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <iq3ahgFhegmU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
>>>> would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
>>>> However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
>>>> undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?
>>>
>>> Yes, but how ?
>>
>> Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
>> becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
>> guy ropes.
>
>I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
>their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

Very much doubt they could Mark as we understand it now ones going up
there they would take a hell of a risk using a helicopter so ..

New set of UHF panels and a VHF Band 2 and 3 set anyone ?...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shlkof$16eg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 12/09/2021 17:17, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 13:18:47 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/09/2021 10:16, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [broken quoting fixed] Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>>>>> for being a shitty arsehole?
>>>>
>>>> None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this
>>>> group.
>>>
>>> You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>>> people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
>>
>> No, you decided to boast about your qualifications.
>
> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...

Yes, it takes a certain sort of stupid to question the validity of someone's
qualifications and experience, be told what the qualifications and
experience are (nice one, JJ!), and then complain about boasting.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 20:34:36 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 12/09/2021 17:17, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>> You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>>> people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
>>
>> No, you decided to boast about your qualifications.
>
>So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...

Ok, humble bragging then. Its still lame boasting.

>Which description fits *YOUR* behaviour *EXACTLY* in the exchange where
>it happened as follows:

It does?

> > ROTFL!! As it happens, I have a First Class Honours Degree in Maths &
> > Computing.

Err, you do realise YOU wrote the above? LOL! you dumb muppet :)

> > So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.
>
>So it's obviously you in this ng that's trying to claim qualifications
>that you don't have, because otherwise you wouldn't've needed to be
>corrected on such a simple point of common scientific knowledge.

Still not admitting you can't get the basics right? I suppose you think 10
is an order of magnitude larger than 9 just because it uses 2 digits instead
of 1? You fucking pratt.

>> Believe what you like, makes no difference to me. I'm not insecure like you.
>
>Your behaviour here belies that, in that, as shown above, you are doing
>all the the things that you falsely claim others are doing.

Stop looking in that mirror.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:39:28 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:shlkof$16eg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 12/09/2021 17:17, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 13:18:47 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/09/2021 10:16, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> [broken quoting fixed] Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what are your qualifications exactly, apart from winning no prizes
>>>>>> for being a shitty arsehole?
>>>>>
>>>>> None of your business. I have a degree in a relevant subject for this
>>>>> group.
>>>>
>>>> You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>>>> people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
>>>
>>> No, you decided to boast about your qualifications.
>>
>> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...
>
>Yes, it takes a certain sort of stupid to question the validity of someone's
>qualifications and experience, be told what the qualifications and
>experience are (nice one, JJ!), and then complain about boasting.

Right, because nobody ever makes anything up on usenet. He doesn't even know
what order of magnitude means yet claims he has a first class maths degree?
Pull the other one.

On 13/09/2021 12:02, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> Right, because nobody ever makes anything up on usenet. He doesn't even know
> what order of magnitude means yet claims he has a first class maths degree?
> Pull the other one.

To stoop to your style of refutation: Oh diddums, baby-baby talky-talky
horsey worsey can't admit to being wrong.

Here is the proof again:

On 23/03/2021 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
>
> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
> the value."
>
> So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.

QED.

Stay in after kindergarten and write out 1000 times: "I know SFA about
anything and must not keep shooting my mouth off!"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:30:14 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 13/09/2021 12:02, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>
>> Right, because nobody ever makes anything up on usenet. He doesn't even know
>> what order of magnitude means yet claims he has a first class maths degree?
>> Pull the other one.
>
>To stoop to your style of refutation: Oh diddums, baby-baby talky-talky
>horsey worsey can't admit to being wrong.
>
>Here is the proof again:
>
>On 23/03/2021 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
> >
> > "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
> > understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
> > the value."
> >
> > So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.
>
>QED.
>
>Stay in after kindergarten and write out 1000 times: "I know SFA about
>anything and must not keep shooting my mouth off!"

Awwwww, poor ickle sausage can't even understand simple english that he
cut and pastes. "THE order of magnitude can be understood" is not the same
as stating one number IS an order of magnitude larger than another just because
it has 1 more digit. 10 is NOT an order of magnitude larger than 9 you div.

That you're a senile old pillock is beyond doubt but do keep on proving it, its
most amusing.

Sorry, 1st class maths degree was it? LOL :)

On 13/09/2021 12:01, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2021 20:34:36 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/09/2021 17:17, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>
>>> [Broken quoting fixed again] Jave Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You have made it everyone else's business here by questioning other
>>>> people's, yet seem strangely reluctant to reveal your own when
>>>
>>> No, you decided to boast about your qualifications.
>>
>> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...
>
> Ok, humble bragging then. Its still lame boasting.

Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand
the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

[A presumably deliberate attempt to obscure the truth by mangling the
quoting fixed:]

>>> Thats from the standard
>>> playbook of someone who feels intellectually inferior. Its the
>>> equivalent of
>>> saying "I did karate" when someone feels physically threatened and
>>> just as
>>> pathetic.
>>
>> Which description fits *YOUR* behaviour *EXACTLY* in the exchange
>> where it happened as follows:
>
> It does?

Certainly it does ...

>> On 20/03/2021 16:41, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/03/2021 16:24, MrSpook_2dk71Kl8zr@7e6uyk8fm.gov.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ROTFL!! :) You never did maths did you. No, thats not a question.
>>>> Someone
>>>> should tell Marcus Du Sautoy and his colleagues that 100K is an
>>>> order
>>>> of
>>>> magnitude greater than 99,999! Quick - do a Phd thesis on it and
>>>> become famous
>>>> in the mathematical world!
>>>>
>>>> Or learn the difference between order of magnitude and place value
>>>> position,
>>>> s'up to you.
>>>
>>> ROTFL!! As it happens, I have a First Class Honours Degree in
Maths >>> & Computing.
>
> Err, you do realise YOU wrote the above? LOL! you dumb muppet :)

Of course, it certainly couldn't've been you, because, as your general
scientific ignorance has proven many times throughout your history of
trolling here, you know SFA about maths in particular and science in
general.

>>> So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.
>>
>> So it's obviously you in this ng that's trying to claim qualifications
>> that you don't have, because otherwise you wouldn't've needed to be
>> corrected on such a simple point of common scientific knowledge.
>
> Still not admitting you can't get the basics right? I suppose you think 10
> is an order of magnitude larger than 9 just because it uses 2 digits instead
> of 1? You fucking pratt.

However much you may dislike it and be determined not to admit it, in
common scientific parlance, it is, and you're the fucking pratt for not
being able to admit when you've been proved wrong. I note that yet
again you've tried to obscure the truth by mangling the quoting and
snipping the link that proved it, so here it is again:

On 23/03/2021 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
>
> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
> the value."
>
> So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.

>>> Believe what you like, makes no difference to me. I'm not insecure like you.
>>
>> Your behaviour here belies that, in that, as shown above, you are doing
>> all the the things that you falsely claim others are doing.
>
> Stop looking in that mirror.

At least when I do, I don't see shit like you.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/09/2021 16:37, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:30:14 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/09/2021 12:02, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, because nobody ever makes anything up on usenet. He doesn't even know
>>> what order of magnitude means yet claims he has a first class maths degree?
>>> Pull the other one.
>>
>> To stoop to your style of refutation: Oh diddums, baby-baby talky-talky
>> horsey worsey can't admit to being wrong.
>>
>> Here is the proof again:
>>
>> On 23/03/2021 09:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
>>>
>>> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
>>> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
>>> the value."
>>>
>>> So 135K is in fact an order of magnitude larger than 43K.
>>
>> QED.
>>
>> Stay in after kindergarten and write out 1000 times: "I know SFA about
>> anything and must not keep shooting my mouth off!"
>
> Awwwww, poor ickle sausage can't even understand simple english that he
> cut and pastes. "THE order of magnitude can be understood" is not the same
> as stating one number IS an order of magnitude larger than another just because
> it has 1 more digit. 10 is NOT an order of magnitude larger than 9 you div.

>>> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
>>> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
>>> the value."

It's an extreme case, but in common scientific parlance as described
above, 10, having two digits, is an order of magnitude greater than 9,
having one. That's the way it works. The rest of the world doesn't
care however much it galls you to admit that you're wrong, and your
failure to admit that you're wrong won't change that accepted
nomenclature for the rest of the world. If you want to discuss things
with the rest of the world, you have to use the rest of the world's
terminology, which is as I've described above.

> That you're a senile old pillock is beyond doubt but do keep on proving it, its
> most amusing.
>
> Sorry, 1st class maths degree was it? LOL :)

More childish abuse to cover up losing yet another argument. Stay in
after kindergarten and write out 1000 times: "When I abuse people to
cover up losing an argument, nobody is fooled!"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

J
>>>> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
>>>> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
>>>> the value."
>
> It's an extreme case, but in common scientific parlance as described
> above, 10, having two digits, is an order of magnitude greater than 9,
> having one. That's the way it works. The rest of the world doesn't
> care however much it galls you to admit that you're wrong, and your
> failure to admit that you're wrong won't change that accepted
> nomenclature for the rest of the world. If you want to discuss things
> with the rest of the world, you have to use the rest of the world's
> terminology, which is as I've described above.
>
I’m not sure I agree with you. This tallies with my understanding:

In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase of one
order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An increase
of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by 100, or 102.
In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the equivalent of
multiplying a quantity by 10n. Thus, 2315 is one order of magnitude larger
than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of magnitude larger than 23.15.

So 10 is not an order of magnitude greater than 9. But 90 is.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>I’m not sure I agree with you. This tallies with my understanding:
>
>In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase of one
>order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An increase
>of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by 100, or 102.
>In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the equivalent of
>multiplying a quantity by 10n. Thus, 2315 is one order of magnitude larger
>than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of magnitude larger than 23.15.
>
>So 10 is not an order of magnitude greater than 9. But 90 is.

+1

On 13/09/2021 20:09, Figaro wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I’m not sure I agree with you. This tallies with my understanding:
>>
>> In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase of one
>> order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An increase
>> of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by 100, or 102.
>> In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the equivalent of
>> multiplying a quantity by 10n. Thus, 2315 is one order of magnitude larger
>> than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of magnitude larger than 23.15.
>>
>> So 10 is not an order of magnitude greater than 9. But 90 is.
>
> +1
>

+1 dex

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 13/09/2021 20:39, Robin wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 20:09, Figaro wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m not sure I agree with you. This tallies with my understanding:
>>>
>>> In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase
>>> of one
>>> order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An
>>> increase
>>> of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by 100,
>>> or 102.
>>> In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the equivalent of
>>> multiplying a quantity by 10n. Thus, 2315 is one order of magnitude
>>> larger
>>> than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of magnitude larger than
>>> 23.15.
>>>
>>> So 10 is not an order of magnitude greater than 9. But 90 is.
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 dex

Doesn't agree with my understanding, which is as the Wikipedia article
states. The phrase 'order of magnitude' when applied to differences
between numbers is usually used when the figures are rather approximate
anyway, and given this approximation it wouldn't make too much sense to
say that A is 10^n times (implies some exactitude) greater than B. If
you know with some meaningful exactitude that A is 10^n times greater
than B, then that's what you'd say, if you only know that A is in the
range of a factor 10^n times greater than B, then you'd probably say
that A is n orders of magnitude greater than B.

So, according to common scientific parlance, strictly speaking 10 is an
order of magnitude greater than 9, it's just that the expression
wouldn't usually be used in that context, partly because the numbers are
known exactly, mainly because it would create a misleading expression to
use that expression for two numbers so close together.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shntpl$40p$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 13/09/2021 16:37, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>> Awwwww, poor ickle sausage can't even understand simple english that he
>> cut and pastes. "THE order of magnitude can be understood" is not the
>> same
>> as stating one number IS an order of magnitude larger than another just
>> because
>> it has 1 more digit. 10 is NOT an order of magnitude larger than 9 you
>> div.
>
> >>> "When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be
> >>> understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of
> >>> the value."
>
> It's an extreme case, but in common scientific parlance as described
> above, 10, having two digits, is an order of magnitude greater than 9,
> having one. That's the way it works. The rest of the world doesn't care
> however much it galls you to admit that you're wrong, and your failure to
> admit that you're wrong won't change that accepted nomenclature for the
> rest of the world. If you want to discuss things with the rest of the
> world, you have to use the rest of the world's terminology, which is as
> I've described above.

I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is regarded
as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official definition,
I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1 for
an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a bit
out of step with common sense.

(*) Though I'm not disputing it, if that's what the official definition is
;-)

On 13/09/2021 21:01, Java Jive wrote:
>
> misleading expression

misleading impression

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shoamp$oag$1@gioia.aioe.org...

> So, according to common scientific parlance, strictly speaking 10 is an
> order of magnitude greater than 9, it's just that the expression wouldn't
> usually be used in that context, partly because the numbers are known
> exactly, mainly because it would create a misleading expression to use
> that expression for two numbers so close together.

I think it's stretching a point to regard 10 as an order of magnitude
greater than 9 - while it may technically be correct according to the
definition, it is inviting lots of criticism from people who don't know
about a definition which sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me. I'd regard an
order of magnitude as implying a ratio of between 5:1 and 50:1 (ie 10:1 with
some latitude either way).

I'd say that the official definition is flawed because it is related to
number of digits and therefore uses fixed boundaries of 10, 100, 1000 etc
rather than ratios. 2 and 20, 3 and 30 ..., 9 and 90 are all equally valid
order-of-magnitude comparisons. I'm very surprised that the definition is
framed the way it is, and that it allows 10 or 20 and being regarded as an
order of magnitude greater than 8 or 9. I'd make a good case for 1 and 9
being an order of magnitude apart because "order of magnitude" is a rough
comparison and does not mean "exactly 10:1 ratio".

I regard "an order of magnitude" as meaning "around 10x give or take some
latitude". Evidently I've been wrong all these years, and no-one in my
science and engineering training (A level, degree) has ever corrected me.