A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
explain why on earth some would not have them?
Thanks all,
Alex
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:00:01 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
>the 180 degree angle.
Reverse the argument. Take two arms, and swing one around, measurig
the increasing angle. Do you stop measuring when they line up? Any
measure prior to that is less than 180 degrees, and any measure past
that is greater than 180 degrees. So, the measure of that *must* be
180 degrees.
It's like an argument about zero:
What's 5 - 3 ........Ans: 2
What's 5 - 2 ........Ans: 3.
What's 5 - 5 ........Ans: "I dunno."
If there is no agreement for 180 then there could be more argument
about zero, with such nonsense as "You can't measure what doesn't
exist." Besides, we are not going to solve the problems of
mathematics in this conference. There's little enough here about
woodworking, so let's stick to something we know, like the difference
between a "tri square' and a "try square". :-)
Bill.
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
>explain why on earth some would not have them?
A square is often used to only verify 90 degrees. Think machining.
Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Rogers
<[email protected]> wrote:
> When you hear an area code "205 -..." don't you
> pronounce it "Two Oh Five - ..."?
When I pronounce my area code, I always pronounce it "three-zero-six".
But then, I'm a bit strange (or so I've been told).
djb
Not a miss at all. The OP specified both stamped and etched. In any case,
stamping does not necessarily have any detrimental effect on accuracy. It
depends on the sequence of operations.
"Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
>
> > > causes distortion in the steel and you do not end up wit a true
straight
> > > edge.
> >
> > So, that's why the Starrett squares are so inaccurate.
>
> Nice comeback, but it's a miss, I think. Isn't it the case that better
> quality ruled squares use etching for the divisions? I agree that
> stamping the divisions could have unhappy effects on the rule's
> accuracy. Viz my POS framing square...
> --
> "Keep your ass behind you."
> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
> that.
The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary an
angle as any other.
Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
and you'll see what I mean.
In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <no
adddress@spam free.com> says...
> Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
> place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
> chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't obvious.
>
And I still remember the controversy over whether we should put
a slash through the letter or the number so the keypunchers
could tell which we meant.
I finally resorted to putting a note at the top of each coding
sheet that said which was slashed - but it's been so long I
don't remember which that was :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:55:12 -0400, Bill Rogers <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:01:47 -0700, "AArDvarK" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> I'ts in the words..."Try", meaning "check", and "Square" meaning 90
>>> degrees."
>>
>>Looks like Miller's falls knew that, eBay (in the pictures): 6106079531
>>Alex
>
>I knew that. At least there is some agreement. :-)
Bugger it! I checked a little more, and Ebay is listing Tri Square,
and Try square. However, they show little difference, except in one
case they show a Combination Square set as a "Machinist's Tri Square."
I give up. But I've known all of my life a "try square" to be a
simple tool for checking if 90 degrees, period. ....and I'm a senior.
Bill.
AArDvarK wrote:
>
> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Alex
This thread is hilarious. Some one suggest that is spelled a certain
way because that's the way it is on e-bay. Ha, any using billboard to
check their spelling? English is in a constant state of change, both
in the meaning of words and the spelling of words, so anything is
possible and generally is when you look at the way people spell in
news groups and e-mails. Just saw a reference to not "paint the floor
into a closet." What the hell is that? The saying is "painting
yourself into a corner."
If you want to see a "standard spelling, or standard meaning" use a
dictionary, and if that isn't entirely satisfactory use your knowledge
of English. Anything is is just opinion which is very little value.
"Tri" is a prefix that means 3, it is not a word. So a Tri Square
(two words) is inherently substandard. A try square is simply two
legs at a right angle, there is no 3 of anything.
A machinist or combination square, may have three parts, but there
aren't 3 angles as someone suggested. The cast part with the level
does has a right angle on one side and a 45 degree angle on the other
side as measured against the slide. So you could call it a bisquare,
but what the hell would that mean. If you have the common third piece
fits on the slide, you end up with two 45 degrees from the slide or 90
degrees with itself. So now it could be call a tri-something since it
has three pieces, of if you count angles maybe a quart- or
quintsquare, but again, what the hell would that mean? Maybe that's
why the correct name makes some sense, a square used by a machinist or
a square with a combination of uses.
Discussion is great for amusement, but if you want the correct meaning
or use of something, consult a dictionary or an accepted or noted
technical manual. Still, people make mistakes, so also use your
brain. Hell, the Third International Websters, even forgot to put
Uranus in the original printing. Maybe someone didn't make a mistake
but was just trying to be being politically correct?
Whoa, abstract and practical are the same? I hated geometry in high
school because it was never clear how to get from one concept to the
next. One of the reasons was that the basic definitions were not
stated or emphasized so the student tended to start off in water where
he couldn't put his feet down. Another problem was the confusion over
abstract and practical definitions of a line. The abstract
mathematical concept of a line is that it can't be seen, has no
beginning and no end, is continuous, and has no width.
As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle." These terms
may be useful in some mathematical disciplines but 360 degrees and 0
degrees are the same and "zero angle" is another oxymoron. I suppose
it is easier to say zero angle rather than day there is no angle. If
you apply the abstract mathematical concept of a line, i.e., without
beginning and end, to these angle definitions, then there really is a
single line when two intersecting lines form a "straight angle" or
"zero angle." (note we are assuming all lines lie in the same
plane.) All of which has essentially no practical value to woodwork
but I will continue to assume that my straight edge is a single line
and does not include a straight angle.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now I don't know if you are referring to my post, or the prior one
> when you ask for a debate. I've never argued against the facts you
> state below, but against the insistence that a line is not a
> measureable angle. The arguments by others about zero are absurd.
> Without the number zero there is no solid finite arithmetic. Some
> people do stop when they get to ten though.
>
> About "practical and abstract": I see them as the same. You can draw
> an ellipse, for example, from two concentric circles. But I'd hate to
> try to describe the math here that lies behind it. A table of
> compound angles is useful. The math to get there will do any other
> angles in between as well. The math behind perspective drawing is
> awesome. The relatively simple "layout" technique that evolvesfrom it
> is even more awesome. It was once a military secret in old France
> when first invented. Incidentally, trig is based on similarity in
> geometry. They're all interconnected.
>
> Hey, I'm here to help if I can. I get a lot out of this group, once
> the OTs are ignored, and would love to put as much into it. With math
> I can help.
>
> Bill.
>
> >Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
> >talking about?
> >A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
> >just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
> >this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
> >coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
> >line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have one
> >line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want to
> >debate that? Neither do I.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Sounds like you had a really incompetent geometry teacher.
Most in highschool are incompetent, but it could have been the student
also.
>
> The thing to understand about math is that it's a game, it has rules, as
> long as you obey the rules anything goes.
>
> With geometry, you have rules that are called "postulates" and "definitions"
> and given those the game is to create "theorems" which are "proven" based
> on the logical development from "postulates" and "definitions".
I found geometry all rather a waste of time and a useless exercise,
development since Euclid made most of the theorems rather common
knowledge. Now trig was of interest because you could actually use it
for something.
>
> Going in a different direction, with compass and straight-edge you do
> "constructions" of various shapes--these, before the availability of
> accurately marked scales and protractors were of great importance in
> drafting--since constructions are necessarily done using real
> approximations of the ideal it is best to always remember this and provide
> a check of one sort or another on each construction, as for example by
> repeating it several times and taking the centerpoint of the resulting
> group of marks.
Exactly. The advancement in tools makes most of geometry rather
retrograde. I've learned how do to square roots by division several
times and then promptly forgot how, and learned to do square roots by
subtration of 9s or something like that on old electric calculators
before computers, but I certainly don't wouldn't do that anymore.
It's as quaint as building a canoe by hollowing a log.
>
> Your geometry teacher should have made that clear to you at the outset. If
> he did then you'd probably have had a lot less trouble with it.
Lots of math teachers don't make things clear. The silly word
problems were a constant problem for most students, in simple math,
algebra, chemistry, and physics. They new that you did something with
A, B, an C, but weren't sure whether it was A/B xC or A/C x B. Like
most students I hated them. It wasn't until I started teaching
chemistry and making up my own word problems that they became rather
fun, but I was always clear with my students that word problems were
puzzles that required a thought and not mechanically adding, dividing,
etc. I say silly word problems because most contained the exact
number of data to find a solution. When you introduce needed and
useless data into a problem, and tell the student that a graph or some
sort of depiction may help, the student can start understanding.
>
> > As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
> > inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
> > angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
> > angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
> > is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle." These terms
> > may be useful in some mathematical disciplines but 360 degrees and 0
> > degrees are the same and "zero angle" is another oxymoron.
>
> Sounds like you got all your math from this same teacher. "Perigon" appears
> to be one of those wonderful terms that was created during the Victorian
> era, probably in an effort to standardize terminology (if the distance
> around a circle is the "perimeter" then the angle subtended by the
> "perimeter" must be the "perigon" . . .), and its utility is that if 360
> degrees is a "perigon" then 180 degrees is a "hemiperigon" and 90 degrees
> is a "semihemiperigon" and so on. Might still be used in the UK but it's
> certainly not used in mainstream math, science, or engineering in the US.
Not hardly from the same teacher. And my point was precisely that
many terms are archaeic and inappropriate for the present day.
>
> > I suppose
> > it is easier to say zero angle rather than day there is no angle. If
> > you apply the abstract mathematical concept of a line, i.e., without
> > beginning and end, to these angle definitions, then there really is a
> > single line when two intersecting lines form a "straight angle" or
> > "zero angle." (note we are assuming all lines lie in the same
> > plane.) All of which has essentially no practical value to woodwork
> > but I will continue to assume that my straight edge is a single line
> > and does not include a straight angle.
>
> That is a perfectly reasonable assumption since a straight edge is not used
> for measuring angles unless it is attached to a protractor.
>
> >
> >
> > Bill Rogers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now I don't know if you are referring to my post, or the prior one
> >> when you ask for a debate. I've never argued against the facts you
> >> state below, but against the insistence that a line is not a
> >> measureable angle. The arguments by others about zero are absurd.
> >> Without the number zero there is no solid finite arithmetic. Some
> >> people do stop when they get to ten though.
> >>
> >> About "practical and abstract": I see them as the same. You can draw
> >> an ellipse, for example, from two concentric circles. But I'd hate to
> >> try to describe the math here that lies behind it. A table of
> >> compound angles is useful. The math to get there will do any other
> >> angles in between as well. The math behind perspective drawing is
> >> awesome. The relatively simple "layout" technique that evolvesfrom it
> >> is even more awesome. It was once a military secret in old France
> >> when first invented. Incidentally, trig is based on similarity in
> >> geometry. They're all interconnected.
> >>
> >> Hey, I'm here to help if I can. I get a lot out of this group, once
> >> the OTs are ignored, and would love to put as much into it. With math
> >> I can help.
> >>
> >> Bill.
> >>
> >> >Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
> >> >talking about?
> >> >A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
> >> >just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
> >> >this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
> >> >coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
> >> >line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have one
> >> >line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want to
> >> >debate that? Neither do I.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
> Whoa, abstract and practical are the same? I hated geometry in high
> school because it was never clear how to get from one concept to the
> next. One of the reasons was that the basic definitions were not
> stated or emphasized so the student tended to start off in water where
> he couldn't put his feet down. Another problem was the confusion over
> abstract and practical definitions of a line. The abstract
> mathematical concept of a line is that it can't be seen, has no
> beginning and no end, is continuous, and has no width.
Sounds like you had a really incompetent geometry teacher.
The thing to understand about math is that it's a game, it has rules, as
long as you obey the rules anything goes.
With geometry, you have rules that are called "postulates" and "definitions"
and given those the game is to create "theorems" which are "proven" based
on the logical development from "postulates" and "definitions".
Going in a different direction, with compass and straight-edge you do
"constructions" of various shapes--these, before the availability of
accurately marked scales and protractors were of great importance in
drafting--since constructions are necessarily done using real
approximations of the ideal it is best to always remember this and provide
a check of one sort or another on each construction, as for example by
repeating it several times and taking the centerpoint of the resulting
group of marks.
Your geometry teacher should have made that clear to you at the outset. If
he did then you'd probably have had a lot less trouble with it.
> As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
> inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
> angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
> angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
> is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle." These terms
> may be useful in some mathematical disciplines but 360 degrees and 0
> degrees are the same and "zero angle" is another oxymoron.
Sounds like you got all your math from this same teacher. "Perigon" appears
to be one of those wonderful terms that was created during the Victorian
era, probably in an effort to standardize terminology (if the distance
around a circle is the "perimeter" then the angle subtended by the
"perimeter" must be the "perigon" . . .), and its utility is that if 360
degrees is a "perigon" then 180 degrees is a "hemiperigon" and 90 degrees
is a "semihemiperigon" and so on. Might still be used in the UK but it's
certainly not used in mainstream math, science, or engineering in the US.
> I suppose
> it is easier to say zero angle rather than day there is no angle. If
> you apply the abstract mathematical concept of a line, i.e., without
> beginning and end, to these angle definitions, then there really is a
> single line when two intersecting lines form a "straight angle" or
> "zero angle." (note we are assuming all lines lie in the same
> plane.) All of which has essentially no practical value to woodwork
> but I will continue to assume that my straight edge is a single line
> and does not include a straight angle.
That is a perfectly reasonable assumption since a straight edge is not used
for measuring angles unless it is attached to a protractor.
>
>
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Now I don't know if you are referring to my post, or the prior one
>> when you ask for a debate. I've never argued against the facts you
>> state below, but against the insistence that a line is not a
>> measureable angle. The arguments by others about zero are absurd.
>> Without the number zero there is no solid finite arithmetic. Some
>> people do stop when they get to ten though.
>>
>> About "practical and abstract": I see them as the same. You can draw
>> an ellipse, for example, from two concentric circles. But I'd hate to
>> try to describe the math here that lies behind it. A table of
>> compound angles is useful. The math to get there will do any other
>> angles in between as well. The math behind perspective drawing is
>> awesome. The relatively simple "layout" technique that evolvesfrom it
>> is even more awesome. It was once a military secret in old France
>> when first invented. Incidentally, trig is based on similarity in
>> geometry. They're all interconnected.
>>
>> Hey, I'm here to help if I can. I get a lot out of this group, once
>> the OTs are ignored, and would love to put as much into it. With math
>> I can help.
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>> >Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
>> >talking about?
>> >A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
>> >just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
>> >this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
>> >coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
>> >line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have one
>> >line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want to
>> >debate that? Neither do I.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds like you had a really incompetent geometry teacher.
>
> Most in highschool are incompetent, but it could have been the student
> also.
>>
>> The thing to understand about math is that it's a game, it has rules, as
>> long as you obey the rules anything goes.
>>
>> With geometry, you have rules that are called "postulates" and
>> "definitions" and given those the game is to create "theorems" which are
>> "proven" based on the logical development from "postulates" and
>> "definitions".
>
> I found geometry all rather a waste of time and a useless exercise,
> development since Euclid made most of the theorems rather common
> knowledge. Now trig was of interest because you could actually use it
> for something.
>
>>
>> Going in a different direction, with compass and straight-edge you do
>> "constructions" of various shapes--these, before the availability of
>> accurately marked scales and protractors were of great importance in
>> drafting--since constructions are necessarily done using real
>> approximations of the ideal it is best to always remember this and
>> provide a check of one sort or another on each construction, as for
>> example by repeating it several times and taking the centerpoint of the
>> resulting group of marks.
>
> Exactly. The advancement in tools makes most of geometry rather
> retrograde. I've learned how do to square roots by division several
> times and then promptly forgot how, and learned to do square roots by
> subtration of 9s or something like that on old electric calculators
> before computers, but I certainly don't wouldn't do that anymore.
> It's as quaint as building a canoe by hollowing a log.
>>
>> Your geometry teacher should have made that clear to you at the outset.
>> If he did then you'd probably have had a lot less trouble with it.
>
> Lots of math teachers don't make things clear. The silly word
> problems were a constant problem for most students, in simple math,
> algebra, chemistry, and physics. They new that you did something with
> A, B, an C, but weren't sure whether it was A/B xC or A/C x B. Like
> most students I hated them. It wasn't until I started teaching
> chemistry and making up my own word problems that they became rather
> fun, but I was always clear with my students that word problems were
> puzzles that required a thought and not mechanically adding, dividing,
> etc. I say silly word problems because most contained the exact
> number of data to find a solution. When you introduce needed and
> useless data into a problem, and tell the student that a graph or some
> sort of depiction may help, the student can start understanding.
>
>
>>
>> > As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
>> > inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
>> > angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
>> > angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
>> > is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle." These terms
>> > may be useful in some mathematical disciplines but 360 degrees and 0
>> > degrees are the same and "zero angle" is another oxymoron.
>>
>> Sounds like you got all your math from this same teacher. "Perigon"
>> appears to be one of those wonderful terms that was created during the
>> Victorian era, probably in an effort to standardize terminology (if the
>> distance around a circle is the "perimeter" then the angle subtended by
>> the "perimeter" must be the "perigon" . . .), and its utility is that if
>> 360 degrees is a "perigon" then 180 degrees is a "hemiperigon" and 90
>> degrees
>> is a "semihemiperigon" and so on. Might still be used in the UK but it's
>> certainly not used in mainstream math, science, or engineering in the US.
>
> Not hardly from the same teacher. And my point was precisely that
> many terms are archaeic and inappropriate for the present day.
Terms like "perigon" and "straight angle" aren't taught in most math
curricula--"straight angle" I could figure out but "perigon" I needed to
look up, and I used to get paid for that sort of thing.
>> > I suppose
>> > it is easier to say zero angle rather than day there is no angle. If
>> > you apply the abstract mathematical concept of a line, i.e., without
>> > beginning and end, to these angle definitions, then there really is a
>> > single line when two intersecting lines form a "straight angle" or
>> > "zero angle." (note we are assuming all lines lie in the same
>> > plane.) All of which has essentially no practical value to woodwork
>> > but I will continue to assume that my straight edge is a single line
>> > and does not include a straight angle.
>>
>> That is a perfectly reasonable assumption since a straight edge is not
>> used for measuring angles unless it is attached to a protractor.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill Rogers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now I don't know if you are referring to my post, or the prior one
>> >> when you ask for a debate. I've never argued against the facts you
>> >> state below, but against the insistence that a line is not a
>> >> measureable angle. The arguments by others about zero are absurd.
>> >> Without the number zero there is no solid finite arithmetic. Some
>> >> people do stop when they get to ten though.
>> >>
>> >> About "practical and abstract": I see them as the same. You can draw
>> >> an ellipse, for example, from two concentric circles. But I'd hate to
>> >> try to describe the math here that lies behind it. A table of
>> >> compound angles is useful. The math to get there will do any other
>> >> angles in between as well. The math behind perspective drawing is
>> >> awesome. The relatively simple "layout" technique that evolvesfrom it
>> >> is even more awesome. It was once a military secret in old France
>> >> when first invented. Incidentally, trig is based on similarity in
>> >> geometry. They're all interconnected.
>> >>
>> >> Hey, I'm here to help if I can. I get a lot out of this group, once
>> >> the OTs are ignored, and would love to put as much into it. With math
>> >> I can help.
>> >>
>> >> Bill.
>> >>
>> >> >Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
>> >> >talking about?
>> >> >A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
>> >> >just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
>> >> >this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
>> >> >coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
>> >> >line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have
>> >> >one
>> >> >line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want
>> >> >to
>> >> >debate that? Neither do I.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:14:07 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Now I don't know if you are referring to my post, or the prior one
when you ask for a debate. I've never argued against the facts you
state below, but against the insistence that a line is not a
measureable angle. The arguments by others about zero are absurd.
Without the number zero there is no solid finite arithmetic. Some
people do stop when they get to ten though.
About "practical and abstract": I see them as the same. You can draw
an ellipse, for example, from two concentric circles. But I'd hate to
try to describe the math here that lies behind it. A table of
compound angles is useful. The math to get there will do any other
angles in between as well. The math behind perspective drawing is
awesome. The relatively simple "layout" technique that evolvesfrom it
is even more awesome. It was once a military secret in old France
when first invented. Incidentally, trig is based on similarity in
geometry. They're all interconnected.
Hey, I'm here to help if I can. I get a lot out of this group, once
the OTs are ignored, and would love to put as much into it. With math
I can help.
Bill.
>Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
>talking about?
>A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
>just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
>this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
>coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
>line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have one
>line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want to
>debate that? Neither do I.
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:34:29 -0400, "G. Lewin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StraightAngle.html
>
>Enjoy.
Seems to me that's what I said. Oh, well, thus it is written.
Bill.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> patrick conroy wrote:
>
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> FWIW, the Oxford Unabridged does not mention the existence of a
> > "tri-square"
> >> but they do define a "try-square" for which a synonym is "trial-square",
> >> and define it as "a carpenter's tool for laying off short
> >> perpendiculars". On the other hand we may be observing a linguistic shift
> >> in progress.
> >
> > Or, something more insidious - I smell the Marketing Dept at work.
> > Tri (Triple Functionality: Try, 45, ruled) Square
>
> Yep, but the Marketing Department often changes the language. See for
> example "Kleenex", "Velcro", and "Xerox", all of which have "generic"
> alternatives but all of which are often referred to in the generic by those
> brand names.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
I didn't quite understand that statement, but my interpretation is
that you are saying Marketing Departments are responsible for using
Trademark names in place of the general term, such as using Thermos to
refer to any vacuum bottle or Fridgedare for any refrigerator. If
that is correct, then your premimis is wrong. "Kleenex", "Velcro",
"Xerox" and a great many other trade names were the first of their
kind or the dominant brand. It is just people at large with their
normal sloppy language that started using the brand name for any
product of that kind. In fact, the marketing people fought against
using their "trade name" as a general term. As an example Thermos was
constantly advertising that not all vacuum bottles were not a Thermos
and indicated or infered that a Thermos was the superior product.
I think applying Occams Sword, to the "tri-square" question would
indicate that hasn't any subtle or insidious intrepretation. Rather,
it is likely due to common misunderstanding, ignorance, and laziness.
mttt wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
>
> > I think applying Occams Sword, to the "tri-square" question would
>
> I thought it was a razor. Which simply points out that it is a marketing
> gimmick.
> Give away the razor and sell the blades.
>
> Nice attempt at a diversion.
> "Look! There's Elvis!"
>
> You're a member of the Cabal aren't you?
Damn. You're right it is razor. Must have been thinking of the
Gordian knot.Giving away the razor and paying thru the nose for the
blades (same with ink printers) IS a marketing gimmick. But what we
were talking about isn't one. Cabal. Nope we don't need not stinking
cabals.
I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares in
various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their accuracy.
I now use only my Starret combination square.
I would never buy one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to
purchase.
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01...
>
> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Alex
>
>
Most places selling squares will have a flat surface somewhere close where
you can verify your desired purchase against a minimum of three others. If
you think about it, take a piece of ply with a straight edge with you and
use the line compare method or the 3,4,5 method to check for 90 degrees.
Irregularities in the edge can be fettled out, as can out of square, but why
start at the bottom when you can start at the top?
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:JLyHc.782$TT2.636@fed1read01...
>
> > I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares
in
> > various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their
accuracy.
> > I now use only my Starret combination square.
> > I would never buy one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to
> > purchase.
>
> Well, with me knowing my impulse ratings, that is a good thought and good
advice
> for me to discipline myself with. But I have nothing to check one with,
and the only
> square in town I can find is a current Stanley, sells for $17.xx, steel
rule part does
> have measurement, wood and brass. Looks cheap too.
>
> Alex
>
>
Yep, made us stroke through the zero when hand-copying.
Still say "decimal" instead of "dot" sometimes out of habit.
"Robert Galloway" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Oh" in the phone number is a bad holdover from the days when we dialed
> "Operator" for all the long distance calls. Anybody who served in the
> military should have been quickly broken of the habit because of the
> confusion it can cause.
>
Anonymous wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:21:37 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > AArDvarK wrote:
> >>
> >> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at
> >> Amazon:
> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
> >>
> >> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will
> >> someone explain why on earth some would not have them?
> >>
> >> Thanks all,
> >>
> >> Alex
> >
> > This thread is hilarious. Some one suggest that is spelled a certain way
> > because that's the way it is on e-bay.
>
> Yes, it is a try-square ... to 'try' the trueness of an edge or face.
>
> But just to keep things lively, consider that the straight edge provides
> the third angle. 45, 90, 180 ... there's your three angles.
>
> The machinist squares are not marked with distances because they are only
> used to test for squareness and even then, only on comparatively rough
> work.
>
> Bill
>
> --
> http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
> http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
> Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
> 18:22:00 up 33 days, 20:00, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.10, 0.15
> 18:11:00 up 85 days, 2:12, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
that.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 07:04:00 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >But my point is that when a line is fixed on an
> >axis and a second line is rotated on the same axis to 180 degree from
> >the fixed line, the rotated line is no longer at an angle to the
> >original because the original and the rotated line form a single line
> >with the length equal to the sum of the rotated and nonrotated lines
> >and when the rotated line reaches 360 degrees a single line is formed
> >with the dimension of the longest line.
>
> The measure of angle has nothing to do with the measure of length,
> except as inferred by ratio in trig relations. Your use of "a second
> line is rotated on the same axis to 180 degree from the fixed line" is
> inconsistent with your " the rotated line is no longer at an angle to
> the original" You can't have your cake and eat it. The measure of
> that angle is 180 degrees, period. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it
> forms a 180 degree angle, even though it becomes collinear with the
> stationary line segment. In fact, "collinearity" is the key here.
It's actually called a straight angle, which makes no sense at all. a
180 degree "angle" isn't an angle based on the basic definition of an
angle. The terminology used for 180, 360, and 0 degrees is
ridiculous. The rotated at 180 degrees and non rotated lines become
a single line.
> When you use a try-square to make your jointer table guide at 90, do
> you say you can't do it because when it lines up the space between
> disappears? Or is it that both angles [the try-square and the
> fence-to-table] are now equal, being 90, and so adding to 180?
I don't understand what you are saying. Are you talking about the
fence being set up at 90 degrees. If so, when you draw this the
vertical line indicating the fence and the vertical line of the try
square would be a single line. And the horizontal line indicating the
face of the jointer and the horizonal line indicating the horizontal
leg of the try square would be a single line. You still have an
intersection of 90 degrees between the jointer face and the fence as
well as 90 degrees between the legs of the try square. Maybe I
misunderstood you, but I don't see your point. Or are you confusing
lines on a paper and the representation of solid objects in real life.
>
> Bill.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:14:40 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Whoa, abstract and practical are the same? I hated geometry in high
> >school because it was never clear how to get from one concept to the
> >next.
>
> Sorry about that, but it *was* clear to others. I could lead you
> precisely from one to the next [**]. That's the whole point of it,
> the logical development. Part of the problem is that you could be
> "given" the properties and try to commit them all to memory
> [meaningless if there's no connection], or you need to develop them
> and see where they come from [theory], and so understand them and
> their interconnection. You might then find even better uses for them.
>
> [**] Part of that development depends exactly on defining the line as
> 180 degrees. That is; a definition of a degree is 1/180 of a
> half-rotation.
>
> >As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
> >inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
> >angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
> >angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
> >is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle."
>
> It's called "completeness". The number system was invented [not
> visible anywhere in the 'real world' people refer to.] The number
> Zero was invented. It was necessary. It does not denote "nothing",
> but is a symbol in counting just as good as is the symbol for other
> quantities. What would you do instead without it? As simple as it
> is, it's one of the great inventions of the mind. ["I saw a man upon a
> stair ..."]
>
> A "straight angle" is not an oxymoron. It is still an angle ...a
> "straight" one. It's still there; we can just now give it another
> name as well suited.
>
> By itself, a hammer is useless. It needs your skill to use it. By
> itself math is useless, just a game of the mind. It also needs your
> skill to use it. One of my favourites: IKEA designed a table, useful
> in B&Bs for example. Take the top and rotate it 90 degrees, and flip
> it on the dividing hinge, and you have a top twice the size. Where do
> you put the pivot point so that it will sit square, centered on the
> base. Second question: What shape [ratio of sides] must it be to
> keep the same rectangular shape when opened up?
>
> Hating math is like hating a hammer. Don't hate it, use it. It took
> a whole lot of people over 3000 years to develop.
>
> P.S. You can use your try-square to make sure everything in the table
> lines up. :-)
>
> Bill.
Whoa, you are infering a lot of things I never said. I didn't say I
hated math, I said I hated geometry (hate is a little strong) and
really implying that I hated the way it was taught. The terminology
in most fields becomes a little ridiculous, and simple normal words
will do just as well. Those with lots of education in the field often
use the more complex terminology just to impress the less learned.
But some of the terminology is down right bad as it implies things
that were later found to be untrue. In the practical world, zero does
mean nothing. I've got zero dollars means I have no dollars. Nothing
is and always has been a clear concept in the real world. And having
grown up while zero was a concept in math, I have a hard time
understanding how it took so long to develop.
As to a hammer being useless without skill, tell that to a stone age
man. How much skill did it take to bash another man's head with a
rock.
Math isn't a game. Math is a language that tries to describe the real
world. As man's knowledge of the real world increase, math has had to
change and develop more complex words. Geometry has it uses but it is
pretty primitive and is useless in describing the more complex
phenomenon that we consider common knowledge nowadays.
U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:35:17 GMT, George E. Cawthon
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's actually called a straight angle, which makes no sense at all. a
> > 180 degree "angle" isn't an angle based on the basic definition of an
> > angle. The terminology used for 180, 360, and 0 degrees is
> > ridiculous. The rotated at 180 degrees and non rotated lines become
> > a single line.
> >
>
> It's the kind of thing that comes up in formal proofs.
>
> "Prove that points A, B, and C are colinear"
>
> The usual approach would be to construct a few line segments, then talk
> about them using formal language. Here's the first and last lines of
> such a proof:
>
> Suppose, on the contrary, that points A, B, and C are NOT colinear, then
> angle ABC with vertex B . . .
>
> (lotsa other stuff)
>
> . . . meaning that angle ABC is a straight angle. Therefore points A,
> B, C are colinear.
>
> But I agree with you that this is something that won't come up much in
> ordinary conversation:
>
> "Hey, Fred! Pass me that straight angle. I need to cut this Sheetrock"
Now thats when Fred find that no skill is needed to effectively swing
a hammer. I wonder if there is a flat arc?
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:14:40 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Whoa, abstract and practical are the same? I hated geometry in high
>school because it was never clear how to get from one concept to the
>next.
Sorry about that, but it *was* clear to others. I could lead you
precisely from one to the next [**]. That's the whole point of it,
the logical development. Part of the problem is that you could be
"given" the properties and try to commit them all to memory
[meaningless if there's no connection], or you need to develop them
and see where they come from [theory], and so understand them and
their interconnection. You might then find even better uses for them.
[**] Part of that development depends exactly on defining the line as
180 degrees. That is; a definition of a degree is 1/180 of a
half-rotation.
>As for mathematical definitions of angles, the definition is the
>inclination of one line to another (thus two lines are required for an
>angle). When they intersect at 180 degrees it is called a "straight
>angle." Now that's a real oxymoron! If the angle is 360 degrees it
>is a "perigon" while 0 degrees is called a "zero angle."
It's called "completeness". The number system was invented [not
visible anywhere in the 'real world' people refer to.] The number
Zero was invented. It was necessary. It does not denote "nothing",
but is a symbol in counting just as good as is the symbol for other
quantities. What would you do instead without it? As simple as it
is, it's one of the great inventions of the mind. ["I saw a man upon a
stair ..."]
A "straight angle" is not an oxymoron. It is still an angle ...a
"straight" one. It's still there; we can just now give it another
name as well suited.
By itself, a hammer is useless. It needs your skill to use it. By
itself math is useless, just a game of the mind. It also needs your
skill to use it. One of my favourites: IKEA designed a table, useful
in B&Bs for example. Take the top and rotate it 90 degrees, and flip
it on the dividing hinge, and you have a top twice the size. Where do
you put the pivot point so that it will sit square, centered on the
base. Second question: What shape [ratio of sides] must it be to
keep the same rectangular shape when opened up?
Hating math is like hating a hammer. Don't hate it, use it. It took
a whole lot of people over 3000 years to develop.
P.S. You can use your try-square to make sure everything in the table
lines up. :-)
Bill.
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:35:17 GMT, George E. Cawthon
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> It's actually called a straight angle, which makes no sense at all. a
> 180 degree "angle" isn't an angle based on the basic definition of an
> angle. The terminology used for 180, 360, and 0 degrees is
> ridiculous. The rotated at 180 degrees and non rotated lines become
> a single line.
>
It's the kind of thing that comes up in formal proofs.
"Prove that points A, B, and C are colinear"
The usual approach would be to construct a few line segments, then talk
about them using formal language. Here's the first and last lines of
such a proof:
Suppose, on the contrary, that points A, B, and C are NOT colinear, then
angle ABC with vertex B . . .
(lotsa other stuff)
. . . meaning that angle ABC is a straight angle. Therefore points A,
B, C are colinear.
But I agree with you that this is something that won't come up much in
ordinary conversation:
"Hey, Fred! Pass me that straight angle. I need to cut this Sheetrock"
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 07:04:00 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>But my point is that when a line is fixed on an
>axis and a second line is rotated on the same axis to 180 degree from
>the fixed line, the rotated line is no longer at an angle to the
>original because the original and the rotated line form a single line
>with the length equal to the sum of the rotated and nonrotated lines
>and when the rotated line reaches 360 degrees a single line is formed
>with the dimension of the longest line.
The measure of angle has nothing to do with the measure of length,
except as inferred by ratio in trig relations. Your use of "a second
line is rotated on the same axis to 180 degree from the fixed line" is
inconsistent with your " the rotated line is no longer at an angle to
the original" You can't have your cake and eat it. The measure of
that angle is 180 degrees, period. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it
forms a 180 degree angle, even though it becomes collinear with the
stationary line segment. In fact, "collinearity" is the key here.
When you use a try-square to make your jointer table guide at 90, do
you say you can't do it because when it lines up the space between
disappears? Or is it that both angles [the try-square and the
fence-to-table] are now equal, being 90, and so adding to 180?
Bill.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Elwood Dowd wrote:
>
> >
> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
> >> that.
> >
> >
> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary an
> > angle as any other.
> >
> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
> > and you'll see what I mean.
>
> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that would
> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we
> are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take
> curved paths.
>
> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an angle,
> yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something that one
> needs to do.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
prepared to forfeit your reward.
Todd Fatheree wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> > of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
>
> Excellent straw man. Unfortunately, there are many mathematical concepts
> that are not easily defined. It doesn't, however, mean they aren't true.
> For example, take the concept that a circle of infinite radius can be
> represented by a line. Where is the center of a circle of infinite radius?
> I'd say a 180 degree angle has an infinite number of axes.
>
> todd
I'm no mathematician, but a line (note A line, meaning one line)
doesn't have to have a dimension so of course it can be any length.
It needs two points and then it can go off forever. As far as the
center of the circle, well the circle is twice as big as the radius
but the radius in infinite so the center has to be half of the
infinite diameter. Yeah right.
Not infinite at all, not even existent. As I understand it, an angle
requires two lines. If you take two lines and place them in same
plane and the same direction and they touch at any point, you define a
single line by definition. The only thing that has changed is the
dimension of the line, but it is A line. If you have a straight
edge, it is ideally defined by the two end points, and whatever is in
between is just a mechanical holder or a visual aid. If it is a
single line, then there is no axes and no angle formed.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
> >> >> that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary
> >> > an angle as any other.
> >> >
> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
> >> > and you'll see what I mean.
> >>
> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that
> >> would
> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we
> >> are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take
> >> curved paths.
> >>
> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an
> >> angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something
> >> that one needs to do.
> >>
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >
> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> > of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
>
> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge? Now,
> consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you have
> movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are
not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid
figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and
(actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a
single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines
that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single
line.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
> >> >> that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary
> >> > an angle as any other.
> >> >
> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
> >> > and you'll see what I mean.
> >>
> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that
> >> would
> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we
> >> are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take
> >> curved paths.
> >>
> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an
> >> angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something
> >> that one needs to do.
> >>
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >
> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> > of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
>
> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge? Now,
> consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you have
> movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
I forgot to add that a straight edge theoretically doesn't move and is
continous. Thus a single line.
Elwood Dowd wrote:
>
> Okay, okay... dig back into 2nd semester college trig....
>
> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> > the 180 degree angle.
>
> 18 inches. I made that arbitrary point up.
>
> > If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
>
> The axis point is arbitrary if you think of a 180 degree angle as a
> straight line (which it is for practical purposes). In the mathematical
> realm, however, the axis point is where the two sides of an angle meet.
> In this case it is wherever you put it along that line---a quality
> which is unique to 180-degree angles. Do I win a prize?
Nope, no prize. You defined the problem -- two sides, or another way
of saying to lines get an angle. But there is only one line. It axis
isn't arbitrary, because there is no axis point. As other you can go
off on a tangent of infinite pieces and get to calculus but that adds
nothing to the concept of a line and that a single line can not form
an angle.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:00:01 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> >the 180 degree angle.
>
> Reverse the argument. Take two arms, and swing one around, measurig
> the increasing angle. Do you stop measuring when they line up? Any
> measure prior to that is less than 180 degrees, and any measure past
> that is greater than 180 degrees. So, the measure of that *must* be
> 180 degrees.
>
> It's like an argument about zero:
> What's 5 - 3 ........Ans: 2
> What's 5 - 2 ........Ans: 3.
> What's 5 - 5 ........Ans: "I dunno."
>
> If there is no agreement for 180 then there could be more argument
> about zero, with such nonsense as "You can't measure what doesn't
> exist." Besides, we are not going to solve the problems of
> mathematics in this conference. There's little enough here about
> woodworking, so let's stick to something we know, like the difference
> between a "tri square' and a "try square". :-)
>
> Bill.
I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
Woodworkers like to eat lunch, so what time is it one minute after
11:59 a.m.?
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 06:21:56 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Stand around and listen to a technical
>discussion in a field that you know little about and soon you will be
>saying, "Why didn't he just say.......?"
Yeah. I used to have the same problem with botany. :-)
Still and all, it's been an interesting discussion. Most of all it's
interesting to see those who know a little trying to say a lot [no
personal reference there!] That's why I keep my mouth shut when
around botanists talking about botany. I thought Krebs Cycle was
something he used to ride to work.
Bill.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a
> >> >> >> straight
> >> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance
> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
> >> >> >> that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as
> >> >> > arbitrary an angle as any other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between
> >> >> > two
> >> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to
> >> >> > LA and you'll see what I mean.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that
> >> >> would
> >> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since
> >> >> we are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled
> >> >> to take curved paths.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an
> >> >> angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something
> >> >> that one needs to do.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> --John
> >> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >> >
> >> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> >> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> >> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> >> > of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> >> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> >> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> >> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
> >>
> >> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge?
> >> Now, consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you
> >> have movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
> >>
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >
> > You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are
> > not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid
> > figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and
> > (actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a
> > single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines
> > that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single
> > line.
>
> Fine. So when the wings are at 179.999 degrees then they are at an angle
> but when they extend .001 degree more then their position becomes undefined
> because 180 degrees is not an angle.
>
> As for their being "solid figures", the most complex technologies usually
> exist as lines on flat paper before they exist as "solid figures".
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Yep at 179.999 its an angle, but 179.999 degrees to what? 180 degrees
doesn't mean undefined, it means a continous line. I thing swing
wings angles are measured not against the other wing but from a line
at right angles to the body, so 180 degrees isn't possible. That is,
when the wings are straight out you would call it 90 degrees to the
body, or a swing of 0 degrees (from straight out). More than likely a
60 degree fold means the wings tips are closer to the tail than at 30
degrees; in other words, 180 degrees is never used.
By solid figures what I meant was that a door and a frame are
continuous at only two or three points (the hinges) and there is no
need to have the hinges in a straight line with the door and the
casing when the door is closed. So, except at the point of contact
(hinges) between the door and the casing when the door is closed, the
door and the casing exist as two lines. Although there are two lines,
there still does not have to be an angle. This is the same as the
swing wing, when the door is slightly open it will be open 3-4
degrees not 176-177 degrees. So when it is closed the angle is 0
degrees and 0 means none, not some, i.e., there is no angle.
When you measure swing of something you normally give the acute angle
and not the obtuse, i.e., no swing is 0 degrees not 180 degrees, and
your use of 180 degrees in these situation is neither natural nor
common practice and is entirely a straw horse constructed for the sake
of argument. OTOH the outline of a solid body that doesn't change
shape, but is complex could be measured in various ways.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
>
> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
> ...including 180.
>
> Bill.
I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
lines.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
>
> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
> ...including 180.
>
> Bill.
Oops. What I said still stands, but I just realized you may have
misinterpreted my statement about we collectives, which refered to
try-tri spelling controversy.
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
> AArDvarK wrote:
> >
> > A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
> >
> > I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> > explain why on earth some would not have them?
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Alex
>
> This thread is hilarious. Some one suggest that is spelled a certain
> way because that's the way it is on e-bay. Ha, any using billboard to
> check their spelling? English is in a constant state of change, both
> in the meaning of words and the spelling of words, so anything is
> possible and generally is when you look at the way people spell in
> news groups and e-mails. Just saw a reference to not "paint the floor
> into a closet." What the hell is that? The saying is "painting
> yourself into a corner."
>
> If you want to see a "standard spelling, or standard meaning" use a
> dictionary, and if that isn't entirely satisfactory use your knowledge
> of English. Anything is is just opinion which is very little value.
> "Tri" is a prefix that means 3, it is not a word. So a Tri Square
> (two words) is inherently substandard. A try square is simply two
> legs at a right angle, there is no 3 of anything.
>
> A machinist or combination square, may have three parts, but there
> aren't 3 angles as someone suggested. The cast part with the level
> does has a right angle on one side and a 45 degree angle on the other
> side as measured against the slide. So you could call it a bisquare,
> but what the hell would that mean. If you have the common third piece
> fits on the slide, you end up with two 45 degrees from the slide or 90
> degrees with itself. So now it could be call a tri-something since it
> has three pieces, of if you count angles maybe a quart- or
> quintsquare, but again, what the hell would that mean? Maybe that's
> why the correct name makes some sense, a square used by a machinist or
> a square with a combination of uses.
>
> Discussion is great for amusement, but if you want the correct meaning
> or use of something, consult a dictionary or an accepted or noted
> technical manual. Still, people make mistakes, so also use your
> brain. Hell, the Third International Websters, even forgot to put
> Uranus in the original printing. Maybe someone didn't make a mistake
> but was just trying to be being politically correct?
I think this " a straight line is a 180 degree angle" discussion is
well past burial time and wasting bandwidth. So enough said.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a
> >> >> >> >> straight
> >> >> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance
> >> >> >> >> between
> >> >> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right
> >> >> >> >> about that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as
> >> >> >> > arbitrary an angle as any other.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance
> >> >> >> > between two
> >> >> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York
> >> >> >> > to LA and you'll see what I mean.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but
> >> >> >> that would
> >> >> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest.
> >> >> >> Since we are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are
> >> >> >> compelled to take curved paths.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being
> >> >> >> an angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually
> >> >> >> something that one needs to do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> --John
> >> >> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> >> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> >> >> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each
> >> >> > leg of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you
> >> >> > better be prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't
> >> >> > point to the exact point that I have previously determined it to be
> >> >> > then be prepared to forfeit your reward.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge?
> >> >> Now, consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where
> >> >> you have movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> --John
> >> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >> >
> >> > You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are
> >> > not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid
> >> > figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and
> >> > (actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a
> >> > single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines
> >> > that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single
> >> > line.
> >>
> >> Fine. So when the wings are at 179.999 degrees then they are at an angle
> >> but when they extend .001 degree more then their position becomes
> >> undefined because 180 degrees is not an angle.
> >>
> >> As for their being "solid figures", the most complex technologies usually
> >> exist as lines on flat paper before they exist as "solid figures".
> >>
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >
> > Yep at 179.999 its an angle, but 179.999 degrees to what? 180 degrees
> > doesn't mean undefined, it means a continous line. I thing swing
> > wings angles are measured not against the other wing but from a line
> > at right angles to the body, so 180 degrees isn't possible. That is,
> > when the wings are straight out you would call it 90 degrees to the
> > body, or a swing of 0 degrees (from straight out). More than likely a
> > 60 degree fold means the wings tips are closer to the tail than at 30
> > degrees; in other words, 180 degrees is never used.
>
> Except when it is.
>
> > By solid figures what I meant was that a door and a frame are
> > continuous at only two or three points (the hinges) and there is no
> > need to have the hinges in a straight line with the door and the
> > casing when the door is closed. So, except at the point of contact
> > (hinges) between the door and the casing when the door is closed, the
> > door and the casing exist as two lines. Although there are two lines,
> > there still does not have to be an angle. This is the same as the
> > swing wing, when the door is slightly open it will be open 3-4
> > degrees not 176-177 degrees. So when it is closed the angle is 0
> > degrees and 0 means none, not some, i.e., there is no angle.
>
> And when it is open completely so that it is flat against the wall?
Then the lines are parallel and there is no angle! You couldn't
figure that out?
>
> > When you measure swing of something you normally give the acute angle
> > and not the obtuse, i.e., no swing is 0 degrees not 180 degrees, and
> > your use of 180 degrees in these situation is neither natural nor
> > common practice and is entirely a straw horse constructed for the sake
> > of argument. OTOH the outline of a solid body that doesn't change
> > shape, but is complex could be measured in various ways.
>
> The "straw horse for the sake of argument" is your contention that somehow
> magically there is a singularity at some point between 179 degrees and 181
> degrees in which angles cease to exist.
It is not magical, it is simply a fact by definition. If you want to
change the language of map ok, but call it Clarke's math. Your
arguement also applies to O, so you are saying when the "angle" is 0
degrees that an angle doesnt doesn't cease to exist? What the hell
does 0 mean then?
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Bill Rogers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
> >> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
> >> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
> >> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
> >>
> >> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
> >> ...including 180.
> >>
> >> Bill.
> >
> > I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
> > copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
> > line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
> > line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
> > lines.
>
> You went to high school in the US didn't you?
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Your point?
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 06:01:53 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
> >copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
> >line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
> >line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
> >lines.
>
> A good point, but wrong, I'm afraid. The bevel is also a tool. You
> are thinking of a "bevelled edge" being also called a "bevel", and a
> "bevelled cut". The word "bias" also comes to mind.
My dictionary also says bevel is an adjustable tool for drawing
angles. But if you go to a tool store and as for a "bevel" the tool
many will as "bevel what?" The dictionary also has bevel square which
is the more common (maybe the correct) term for an adjustable tool
used for drawing angles and adjusting work.
>
> I taught math for over thirty years [and it comes in *really* handy in
> woodworking]. A straight line is not only an angle, but it can be
> used as the basis for measuring angles:
>
> Pi radians = 180 degrees.
>
> That is used [constantly] to change back and forth between radian and
> degree measure of angles.
>
> Bill.
Practical or abstract, geometry or trig? Which of those are you
talking about?
A line that include the points A and C and also includes B is still
just a line even if a-b and b-c are segments. My only point through
this whole thing, is that fact. When you rotate a line around a
coordinate system, when you get to 180 degrees you have just one
line. And when you continue to rotate to 360 (or 0) you just have one
line because two lines cannot exist in the same space. Do you want to
debate that? Neither do I.
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
> >>
> >> George E. Cawthon wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bill Rogers wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
> >> >> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
> >> >> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
> >> >> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
> >> >>
> >> >> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
> >> >> ...including 180.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill.
> >> >
> >> > I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
> >> > copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
> >> > line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
> >> > line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
> >> > lines.
> >>
> >> You went to high school in the US didn't you?
> >>
> >> --
> >> --John
> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> >
> > Your point?
>
> Characteristic of the US education system--nothing means anything unless the
> student "sees" it. Hence this totally ludicrous discussion of whether 180
> degrees is an angle.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Interesting. Lots of poor education practices exist in all sorts of
places, often characterized by rote memorization and lack of actual
thought.
I think you misinterpreted what I said, or I didn't explain clearly.
180 degrees is certainly useful in rotating something on an axis or on
a coordinate system. But my point is that when a line is fixed on an
axis and a second line is rotated on the same axis to 180 degree from
the fixed line, the rotated line is no longer at an angle to the
original because the original and the rotated line form a single line
with the length equal to the sum of the rotated and nonrotated lines
and when the rotated line reaches 360 degrees a single line is formed
with the dimension of the longest line. The latter, is true because
two lines cannot occupy the same space. In the abstract, lines have
no width and are continuous (no breaks). In the practical, lines do
have widths and breaks (spaces between molecules). Whether in the
abstract or in practical carpentry, a straight line or a straight edge
is not considered as having breaks, is therefore a single line, and
discussion of an angle of 180 degrees or any angle has no meaning.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> FWIW, the Oxford Unabridged does not mention the existence of a
"tri-square"
> but they do define a "try-square" for which a synonym is "trial-square",
> and define it as "a carpenter's tool for laying off short perpendiculars".
> On the other hand we may be observing a linguistic shift in progress.
Or, something more insidious - I smell the Marketing Dept at work.
Tri (Triple Functionality: Try, 45, ruled) Square
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 23:39:02 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
>>
>>"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
>>> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
>>> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
>>> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
>>> tri-square.
>>> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
>>
>>I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old one.
>
>The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
>8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
>
><http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTNUMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
>
>Never heard of a tri-square before.
>
>scott
Got to come down on Scott's side in this mini (I hope) controversy. I've known about "try" squares for a long time, but this is my
first exposure to a "tri" square.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
I guess in the States you sure have different words for things than the
rest of the world. A Tri square is the correct terminology not try square
here in Canada and in Europe for the tool we are speaking about.Here is a
link so you can see that I am not the only one who calls this tool by that
name.
http://www.shopv.co.uk/productfinder/10-ALUM-TRI-SQUARE.html
Chris
A proud Canadian Eh!
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
> >
> >"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> >> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> >> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from
the
> >> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
> >> tri-square.
> >> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
> >
> >I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old
one.
>
> The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
> 8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
>
>
<http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTN
UMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
>
> Never heard of a tri-square before.
>
> scott
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01...
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
Try squares are handy to just grab and "check for 90" (ensure things are at
right angles).
Not a couple of things about try squares - (1) many are only claimed sqaure
on one face (the side with the brass) and (2) their precision varies.
E.g. Ppl have reported their Incra try sqaures accurate; a few have said
not.
I'm not going to mail order any instrument that's supposed to be precise --
unless it's a Starrett (or similar brand I've grown to trust.)
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:06:40 GMT, "Candice Markham"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess in the States you sure have different words for things than the
>rest of the world. A Tri square is the correct terminology not try square
>here in Canada and in Europe for the tool we are speaking about.Here is a
>link so you can see that I am not the only one who calls this tool by that
>name.
>http://www.shopv.co.uk/productfinder/10-ALUM-TRI-SQUARE.html
I'm from Europe, living in Canada many years, and was one who
suggested the definition of "try" square. The difference is really an
agreement among those who posted, just looking at two only slightly
different tools. The Try square has a base at right angles to the
steel part, and the Tri square has the same, but also with a 45 degree
bevel.
Here's one site that offers **both**:
http://www.profhdwr.com/squares.htm
Bill
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> prepared to forfeit your reward.
Excellent straw man. Unfortunately, there are many mathematical concepts
that are not easily defined. It doesn't, however, mean they aren't true.
For example, take the concept that a circle of infinite radius can be
represented by a line. Where is the center of a circle of infinite radius?
I'd say a 180 degree angle has an infinite number of axes.
todd
Squares without marks are usually (but not always) more precisely
square.
I use my expensive squares without marks only for CHECKING squareness.
I use my less expensive squares with marks for layout and scribing
lines with an awl or marking knife.
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01>...
> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Alex
Fortran instructor cautioned us to AVOID using Oh for zero when
punching cards for the IBM 3600 (I think was the model). That was
almost 40 years ago. CBS radio in Los Angeles has a computer "guru"
weekends that uses Oh consistently in phone NUMBERS. Still feel it's
throwing a curve at youngsters when it comes time to work with
computers.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:34:58 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:
>Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
>place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
>chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't obvious.
>It was several days of this before we actually got to run anything. By that
>time, "O" was firmly ingrained in our minds. I, for one, was not to pleased
>when I tried to run some code that, of course, wouldn't run because the
>instructor had been sloppy.
>
>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, Oxford has a page and a half of very fine print
>> on "Zero", and at no point in that body of discussion is it suggested that
>> "zero" is synonymous with the letter "O".
>
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:23:23 -0700, "AArDvarK" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares in
>> various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their accuracy.
>> I now use only my Starret combination square.
>> I would never buy one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to
>> purchase.
>
>Well, with me knowing my impulse ratings, that is a good thought and good advice
>for me to discipline myself with. But I have nothing to check one with,
Sure you do. Remember the "perpendicular bisector" construction in
semi-formal geometry? One straightedge, one pair of compasses, one
sharp pencil, and you have all you need to draw a right angle and any
number of other angles and constructs. These are theoretically, and
if tools are good practically dead on exact. Check against that.
Bill.
Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't obvious.
It was several days of this before we actually got to run anything. By that
time, "O" was firmly ingrained in our minds. I, for one, was not to pleased
when I tried to run some code that, of course, wouldn't run because the
instructor had been sloppy.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> FWIW, Oxford has a page and a half of very fine print
> on "Zero", and at no point in that body of discussion is it suggested that
> "zero" is synonymous with the letter "O".
Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:00:01 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
>>the 180 degree angle.
>
>
> Reverse the argument. Take two arms, and swing one around, measurig
> the increasing angle. Do you stop measuring when they line up? Any
> measure prior to that is less than 180 degrees, and any measure past
> that is greater than 180 degrees. So, the measure of that *must* be
> 180 degrees.
>
> It's like an argument about zero:
> What's 5 - 3 ........Ans: 2
> What's 5 - 2 ........Ans: 3.
> What's 5 - 5 ........Ans: "I dunno."
>
> If there is no agreement for 180 then there could be more argument
> about zero, with such nonsense as "You can't measure what doesn't
> exist." Besides, we are not going to solve the problems of
> mathematics in this conference. There's little enough here about
> woodworking, so let's stick to something we know, like the difference
> between a "tri square' and a "try square". :-)
>
> Bill.
>
The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is roughly
equal to the sperm whale population of northwest Nebraska
j4
p.s. 0/0 is "indeterminate" and 1/0 is "undefined".
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:12:09 GMT, "mttt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>
>> I think applying Occams Sword, to the "tri-square" question would
>
>I thought it was a razor. Which simply points out that it is a marketing
>gimmick.
>Give away the razor and sell the blades.
>
>Nice attempt at a diversion.
>"Look! There's Elvis!"
>
>
>You're a member of the Cabal aren't you?
>
>
TINC
Tool dealers make as many nomenclature mistakes as anyone. How do you think
scroll saw and jigsaw got switched over the years? Try is correct. tri is a
misspelling. The 45 has nothing to do with it.
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DPVHc.27927$eO.20505@edtnps89...
> Take a look at the spelling in the link if you have never heard of a Tri
> square unless I need glasses it says Tri nor try.
>
> Chris
>
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
> > >
> > >"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> > >> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> > >> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from
> the
> > >> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it
name
> > >> tri-square.
> > >> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
> > >
> > >I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old
> one.
> >
> > The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
> > 8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
> >
> >
>
<http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTN
> UMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
> >
> > Never heard of a tri-square before.
> >
> > scott
>
>
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:25:21 -0700, "AArDvarK" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> Some people use the square to square things and or make square marks or
>> lines. I personally never use the markings on the square.
>> The same could be asked why anyone would use a rule to draw a straight line.
>> This may go back to the way Drafting is/was formally taught. You never use
>> a measuring tool to draw lines.
>>
>
>That all makes sense, I need a good tutorial on it, I'll get there. A drafter's T
>is for drawing lines.
Or a straightedge, although the T is [was] more commonly used.
Bill.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:06:23 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:
>As a long time radio opperator, the importance of being understood was
>ingrained in me a long time ago. No, I NEVER say O when I mean zero. It is
>just plain sloppy.
ALL of England, Canada, and so far as I know the U.S. telephone
operators say "Oh". "Zero" is for the military.
>Have you ever programed a robot in G code? If not, you have no idea what you
>are talking about. Letters and numbers are mixed and they are NOT
>interchangable.
Not "G-code", but assembler [and plain hex dumps] among several high
level languages, and I certainly realise that "alphanumeric" code
still distinguishes O and 0, and that they are not interchangeable.
That is precisely the point. You blamed your teacher for your own [at
that time] lack of understanding. The logical context should have
given you the clue, not the pronunciation.
Enough already. It's about a "try square".
Bill.
We have the Websters New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition
Copyright 1999 that was used for reference. Difficult for an engineer
to find moving "standards", but in todays' environment maybe I'll take
that back. Thanks.
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:15:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> Yabbut dictionaries now show Zero = Oh.
>
>That's why it's important to be careful about dictionaries. The ones in
>English that "count" are Merriam-Webster (note--the "Merriam" is
>important--a kid can write one in crayon and sell it as "Webster" without
>the "Merriam") for the American language and Oxford for British--there's
>one for Australian as well but I don't know if it's the Macquarie or the
>Australian Oxford. FWIW, Oxford has a page and a half of very fine print
>on "Zero", and at no point in that body of discussion is it suggested that
>"zero" is synonymous with the letter "O".
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:30:42 GMT, "Leon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>From the dictionary,
>>>
>>>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>>>
>>>try square
>>>n.
>>>A carpenter's tool consisting of a ruled metal straightedge set at right
>>>angles to a straight piece, used for measuring and marking square work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And I always thought it was tri square until I could not find it in the
>>>dictionary
>>>
Take a look at the spelling in the link if you have never heard of a Tri
square unless I need glasses it says Tri nor try.
Chris
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
> >
> >"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> >> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> >> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from
the
> >> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
> >> tri-square.
> >> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
> >
> >I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old
one.
>
> The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
> 8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
>
>
<http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTN
UMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
>
> Never heard of a tri-square before.
>
> scott
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:22:44 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Try is correct. tri is a
> >> misspelling. The 45 has nothing to do with it.
> >
> >I have now, however, added "tri" to my mental vocabulary to describe
> >those try squares which include the 45 bevel. (I hate them.)
>
> that's a combination square....
I think he may be describing a non adjustable try/tri square that has a
"short" 45 degree edge where the 2 pieces are joined. If you line that 45
degree edge up to the edge of your board, the long end of the square will be
at a 45 degree angle to the edge of the board.
> I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares in
> various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their accuracy.
> I now use only my Starret combination square.
> I would never buy one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to
> purchase.
Well, with me knowing my impulse ratings, that is a good thought and good advice
for me to discipline myself with. But I have nothing to check one with, and the only
square in town I can find is a current Stanley, sells for $17.xx, steel rule part does
have measurement, wood and brass. Looks cheap too.
Alex
As a long time radio opperator, the importance of being understood was
ingrained in me a long time ago. No, I NEVER say O when I mean zero. It is
just plain sloppy.
Have you ever programed a robot in G code? If not, you have no idea what you
are talking about. Letters and numbers are mixed and they are NOT
interchangable.
"Bill Rogers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sloppy? It's perfectly good English; North American as well as
> European English. That's how any one I know says it when stating
> their phone number. When you hear an area code "205 -..." don't you
> pronounce it "Two Oh Five - ..."?
>
> I've also programmed and taught it, and if you used an "O" instead of
> a Zero [slash-O], it was because of your own lack of comprehension at
> the time, using alpha instead of numeric out of context. I had to
> help a person who said he'd "written a program" when in fact he'd
> simply copied it wrongly, not understanding what a DIM statement
> actually did, setting aside storage. It should have made sense at the
> time, or you would have, or should have asked at that time.
>
> Bill.
>
"Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I think the "correct" way to do it is to use your highly-accurate
> macninist's square to check the accuracy of your try square. Once you
> have verified that your try square is, indeed, square, you use the try
> square to draw lines perpendicular to the reference edge on your
> workpiece. The marking gauge (or a height gauge) would be used to
> draw lines parallel to your reference edge.
You can verify if your square is square by simply using it to draw a line
perpendicular to the edge of a board and then flipping the square over to
the other side of the line and seeing if the line is parallel to the square
with no gap.
>
> Ed
>
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01...
>
> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
Some people use the square to square things and or make square marks or
lines. I personally never use the markings on the square.
The same could be asked why anyone would use a rule to draw a straight line.
This may go back to the way Drafting is/was formally taught. You never use
a measuring tool to draw lines.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yabbut dictionaries now show Zero = Oh.
Yeah... LOL dictionaries and their definitions become obsolete as quickly as
computers do.
As you should. Just because others can't speak correctly doesn't mean you
have to fallow their lead.
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message >
> When I pronounce my area code, I always pronounce it "three-zero-six".
>
> But then, I'm a bit strange (or so I've been told).
>
> djb
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
> tri-square.
Nope. The one in the picture IS a tri square. What you have described is a
Combination square.
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I think applying Occams Sword, to the "tri-square" question would
I thought it was a razor. Which simply points out that it is a marketing
gimmick.
Give away the razor and sell the blades.
Nice attempt at a diversion.
"Look! There's Elvis!"
You're a member of the Cabal aren't you?
In article <q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89>,
Chris Melanson <[email protected]> wrote:
> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
>tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
>blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
>tri-square.
>http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm As in
>the picture. You will usually find that the higher quality squares do not
>have easement lines on them because the stamping and etching of these lines
>causes distortion in the steel and you do not end up wit a true straight
>edge. Plus I personally would not rust them to be accurate at all for any
>thing other than basic framing.
>
>Chris
>
Ha Ha! good one!
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Sorry I sent the last reply from my wifes laptop I should of sent it from my
PC so it would of showen from myself sorry once again.
Chris
"Candice Markham" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4AMHc.10871$iw3.8841@clgrps13...
> I guess in the States you sure have different words for things than
the
> rest of the world. A Tri square is the correct terminology not try square
> here in Canada and in Europe for the tool we are speaking about.Here is a
> link so you can see that I am not the only one who calls this tool by that
> name.
> http://www.shopv.co.uk/productfinder/10-ALUM-TRI-SQUARE.html
>
> Chris
> A proud Canadian Eh!
>
> "Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
> > >
> > >"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> > >> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> > >> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from
> the
> > >> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it
name
> > >> tri-square.
> > >> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
> > >
> > >I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old
> one.
> >
> > The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
> > 8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
> >
> >
>
<http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTN
> UMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
> >
> > Never heard of a tri-square before.
> >
> > scott
>
>
AArDvarK wrote:
>
>> I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares
>> in
>> various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their
>> accuracy. I now use only my Starret combination square.
>> I would never buy one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to
>> purchase.
>
> Well, with me knowing my impulse ratings, that is a good thought and good
> advice for me to discipline myself with. But I have nothing to check one
> with,
You check it against itself. Place against edge, use it as guide to draw
line perpendicular to edge. Flip square over. See if it lines up with the
line you drew. If it does then it's square, if it doesn't then it's not.
> and the only square in town I can find is a current Stanley, sells
> for $17.xx, steel rule part does have measurement, wood and brass. Looks
> cheap too.
>
> Alex
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:06:40 GMT, "Candice Markham"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I guess in the States you sure have different words for things than
>> the
>>rest of the world. A Tri square is the correct terminology not try square
>>here in Canada and in Europe for the tool we are speaking about.Here is a
>>link so you can see that I am not the only one who calls this tool by that
>>name.
>>http://www.shopv.co.uk/productfinder/10-ALUM-TRI-SQUARE.html
>
> I'm from Europe, living in Canada many years, and was one who
> suggested the definition of "try" square. The difference is really an
> agreement among those who posted, just looking at two only slightly
> different tools. The Try square has a base at right angles to the
> steel part, and the Tri square has the same, but also with a 45 degree
> bevel.
>
> Here's one site that offers **both**:
>
> http://www.profhdwr.com/squares.htm
>
> Bill
FWIW, the Oxford Unabridged does not mention the existence of a "tri-square"
but they do define a "try-square" for which a synonym is "trial-square",
and define it as "a carpenter's tool for laying off short perpendiculars".
On the other hand we may be observing a linguistic shift in progress.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:22:44 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Try is correct. tri is a
>>> misspelling. The 45 has nothing to do with it.
>>
>>I have now, however, added "tri" to my mental vocabulary to describe
>>those try squares which include the 45 bevel. (I hate them.)
>
> that's a combination square....
There are try-squares that have a short bevel as well--the ones that do also
generally have a levelling vial in the "handle".
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> Yabbut dictionaries now show Zero = Oh.
That's why it's important to be careful about dictionaries. The ones in
English that "count" are Merriam-Webster (note--the "Merriam" is
important--a kid can write one in crayon and sell it as "Webster" without
the "Merriam") for the American language and Oxford for British--there's
one for Australian as well but I don't know if it's the Macquarie or the
Australian Oxford. FWIW, Oxford has a page and a half of very fine print
on "Zero", and at no point in that body of discussion is it suggested that
"zero" is synonymous with the letter "O".
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:30:42 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>From the dictionary,
>>
>>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>>
>>try square
>>n.
>>A carpenter's tool consisting of a ruled metal straightedge set at right
>>angles to a straight piece, used for measuring and marking square work.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>And I always thought it was tri square until I could not find it in the
>>dictionary
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:06:23 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> wrote:
>
>>As a long time radio opperator, the importance of being understood was
>>ingrained in me a long time ago. No, I NEVER say O when I mean zero. It is
>>just plain sloppy.
>
> ALL of England, Canada, and so far as I know the U.S. telephone
> operators say "Oh". "Zero" is for the military.
While they may do that, it's sloppy. There is a letter "O" on the US
telephone dial and it corresponds to the "6", not the zero.
>>Have you ever programed a robot in G code? If not, you have no idea what
>>you are talking about. Letters and numbers are mixed and they are NOT
>>interchangable.
>
> Not "G-code", but assembler [and plain hex dumps] among several high
> level languages, and I certainly realise that "alphanumeric" code
> still distinguishes O and 0, and that they are not interchangeable.
> That is precisely the point. You blamed your teacher for your own [at
> that time] lack of understanding. The logical context should have
> given you the clue, not the pronunciation.
>
> Enough already. It's about a "try square".
>
> Bill.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> Fortran instructor cautioned us to AVOID using Oh for zero when
> punching cards for the IBM 3600 (I think was the model). That was
> almost 40 years ago. CBS radio in Los Angeles has a computer "guru"
> weekends that uses Oh consistently in phone NUMBERS. Still feel it's
> throwing a curve at youngsters when it comes time to work with
> computers.
Oh for zero and eye for 1 are probably the two most common errors in FORTRAN
programming. I never will forget watching a PhD computer scientist
struggling with one of her programs one time. After pounding into us "use
meaningful variable names" she wrote "DO 100, I (the letter eye)=I (the
letter I) TO 100" and then couldn't for the life of her figure out why it
wasn't behaving as expected. (note--please don't bellyache about my
syntax--it's been about 20 years since I wrote my last line of FORTRAN).
It doesn't help that I through (IIRC) N are implicit integers in FORTRAN so
the lazy programmer's instinctive reaction is to use I for the the loop
counter.
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:34:58 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
>>place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
>>chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't
>>obvious. It was several days of this before we actually got to run
>>anything. By that time, "O" was firmly ingrained in our minds. I, for one,
>>was not to pleased when I tried to run some code that, of course, wouldn't
>>run because the instructor had been sloppy.
>>
>>"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW, Oxford has a page and a half of very fine print
>>> on "Zero", and at no point in that body of discussion is it suggested
>>> that "zero" is synonymous with the letter "O".
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
patrick conroy wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> FWIW, the Oxford Unabridged does not mention the existence of a
> "tri-square"
>> but they do define a "try-square" for which a synonym is "trial-square",
>> and define it as "a carpenter's tool for laying off short
>> perpendiculars". On the other hand we may be observing a linguistic shift
>> in progress.
>
> Or, something more insidious - I smell the Marketing Dept at work.
> Tri (Triple Functionality: Try, 45, ruled) Square
Yep, but the Marketing Department often changes the language. See for
example "Kleenex", "Velcro", and "Xerox", all of which have "generic"
alternatives but all of which are often referred to in the generic by those
brand names.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> patrick conroy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >> FWIW, the Oxford Unabridged does not mention the existence of a
>> > "tri-square"
>> >> but they do define a "try-square" for which a synonym is
>> >> "trial-square", and define it as "a carpenter's tool for laying off
>> >> short perpendiculars". On the other hand we may be observing a
>> >> linguistic shift in progress.
>> >
>> > Or, something more insidious - I smell the Marketing Dept at work.
>> > Tri (Triple Functionality: Try, 45, ruled) Square
>>
>> Yep, but the Marketing Department often changes the language. See for
>> example "Kleenex", "Velcro", and "Xerox", all of which have "generic"
>> alternatives but all of which are often referred to in the generic by
>> those brand names.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> I didn't quite understand that statement, but my interpretation is
> that you are saying Marketing Departments are responsible for using
> Trademark names in place of the general term, such as using Thermos to
> refer to any vacuum bottle or Fridgedare for any refrigerator. If
> that is correct, then your premimis is wrong. "Kleenex", "Velcro",
> "Xerox" and a great many other trade names were the first of their
> kind or the dominant brand. It is just people at large with their
> normal sloppy language that started using the brand name for any
> product of that kind. In fact, the marketing people fought against
> using their "trade name" as a general term. As an example Thermos was
> constantly advertising that not all vacuum bottles were not a Thermos
> and indicated or infered that a Thermos was the superior product.
Regardless, the marketing department makes up the word that then becomes
part of the vernacular. If nobody had made up the words "Xerox",
"Kleenex", "Velcro", "Thermos", etc then they would not be part of the
language.
By the way, you want to see people get confused, mention "Nissan
Thermos"--people think you're talking about a premium that comes with a
car.
> I think applying Occams Sword, to the "tri-square" question would
> indicate that hasn't any subtle or insidious intrepretation. Rather,
> it is likely due to common misunderstanding, ignorance, and laziness.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Elwood Dowd wrote:
>
>> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
>> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
>> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
>> that.
>
>
> The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary an
> angle as any other.
>
> Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
> points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
> and you'll see what I mean.
If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that would
have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we
are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take
curved paths.
Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an angle,
yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something that one
needs to do.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 20:35:17 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Now I know I've been told in my lifetime I'm as "thick as two short
planks", but bear with me and I'll try to convince you.
>It's actually called a straight angle, which makes no sense at all. a
>180 degree "angle" isn't an angle based on the basic definition of an
>angle.
Which is ..."the measure of rotation of one line [segment] to another
...which can also include 180. When the segments line up, they can be
called a single line.
Thinking backwards... every line is a set of points, and all you need
to do is to choose one to form line segments, which are then at an
angle [of 180]. You can then freely rotate one with respect to the
other forming other angles. So decrease it [from 180] to get other
angles less than 180, or increase it. But 180 fits right in there!
The finite number system, and the geometry is continuous. There is no
gap.
>> When you use a try-square to make your jointer table guide at 90, do
>> you say you can't do it because when it lines up the space between
>> disappears? Or is it that both angles [the try-square and the
>> fence-to-table] are now equal, being 90, and so adding to 180?
>
>I don't understand what you are saying.
Fence to table = 90. Fence to try-square = 90. when they meet [90 +
90], the table is the base line, the fence and try-square forming the
vertical. The 90 from the fence and the 90 from the try-square add to
the 180 for the table. I can say it only so many times. Take two
square sheets of pylwood. Assume dead-square. Place them next to
each other and there is no gap. The corner of one and the corner of
the other [90 + 90] combine to form the line at the bottom ...180.
Bill.
Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> >The terminology
> >in most fields becomes a little ridiculous, and simple normal words
> >will do just as well.
>
> What simple words for example? What do you call "normal"?
>
> I do understand, you know. I'm from a blue-collar background, and
> love working with my hands. But you shouldn't knock what others might
> find useful even if you don't. Some fairly complex geometry and
> other math is needed to produce the toys we take for granted, and what
> we call a normal part of our everyday life. It really does require
> some fairly hefty definition at times. A "chair" or a "seat", it's
> just something to sit in and relax and smell the roses.
>
> Peace.
>
> Bill.
Botanists use the term leaf "margin" whereas you could more simply say
leaf "edge." A bit more technical is to talk about a meristem, which
means nothing to most people, but you could just say the growing
point. I'm not knocking useful terms, hell, I'm a botanist and use
technical terms as appropriate and technical terms are expected among
peers, but use of technical terms to a non-technical audience when a
common word will do is silly and destructive to communication. And we
are all a non-technical audience in some field. An example that I
especially like is the use of siphon by hydraulic engineers in the
description of water ways. The fact is that the structure is just a
pipe with a curve that starts high and end at a lower elevation (like
a J). True siphons in water ways are extremely rare, both because
filling the siphon to start the water flowing is difficult or
expensive and most conveyances would collapse at the high points due
to the negative pressures. Stand around and listen to a technical
discussion in a field that you know little about and soon you will be
saying, "Why didn't he just say.......?"
>The terminology
>in most fields becomes a little ridiculous, and simple normal words
>will do just as well.
What simple words for example? What do you call "normal"?
I do understand, you know. I'm from a blue-collar background, and
love working with my hands. But you shouldn't knock what others might
find useful even if you don't. Some fairly complex geometry and
other math is needed to produce the toys we take for granted, and what
we call a normal part of our everyday life. It really does require
some fairly hefty definition at times. A "chair" or a "seat", it's
just something to sit in and relax and smell the roses.
Peace.
Bill.
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:34:53 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I found geometry all rather a waste of time and a useless exercise,
>development since Euclid made most of the theorems rather common
>knowledge. Now trig was of interest because you could actually use it
>for something.
The formal part provided a basis for understanding the informal
results. It also taught to not rely on assumption, but granted that
was an exercise in logic rather than the properties of shapes.
I use geometric constructions when I want dead-on accuracy, or want to
form a shape not doable otherwise nearly as efficiently. If I want
dead-on 90 degrees, 60 degrees or other variations I use compasses and
straightedge [the 180 kind ... :-) ]. Lots of other similar uses
also. Perhaps I should write the book using the KISS principle?
I can't tell you the number of times friends who are pro carpenters
tell me they really shoulda listened! Now they are using geometry
[including Pythagora theorem!] every day. if you want a REALLY good
book, get "the Carpenter's Square" and learn how to do things
efficiently, including building a spiral staircase.
>Lots of math teachers don't make things clear. The silly word
>problems were a constant problem for most students, in simple math,
>algebra, chemistry, and physics.
Just on that point, it's tough enough to teach youngsters what is to
them complicated algebra. Those "word problems" are the simplest
applications dreamt up. If you can make up a textbook full of simpler
applications not using "word problems" I'd have been the first to buy
it. The only other alternative is some "real world" problems, usually
well beyond the young and inexperienced. We see it better only in
retrospect.
Bill.
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> Elwood Dowd wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a straight
>> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance between
>> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
>> >> that.
>> >
>> >
>> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as arbitrary
>> > an angle as any other.
>> >
>> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between two
>> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to LA
>> > and you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that
>> would
>> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since we
>> are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled to take
>> curved paths.
>>
>> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an
>> angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something
>> that one needs to do.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
> distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
> of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> prepared to forfeit your reward.
Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge? Now,
consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you have
movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a
>> >> >> straight
>> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance
>> >> >> between
>> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right about
>> >> >> that.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as
>> >> > arbitrary an angle as any other.
>> >> >
>> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance between
>> >> > two
>> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York to
>> >> > LA and you'll see what I mean.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but that
>> >> would
>> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest. Since
>> >> we are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are compelled
>> >> to take curved paths.
>> >>
>> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being an
>> >> angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually something
>> >> that one needs to do.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --John
>> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>> >
>> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
>> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
>> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each leg
>> > of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
>> > prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
>> > exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
>> > prepared to forfeit your reward.
>>
>> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge?
>> Now, consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where you
>> have movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are
> not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid
> figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and
> (actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a
> single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines
> that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single
> line.
Fine. So when the wings are at 179.999 degrees then they are at an angle
but when they extend .001 degree more then their position becomes undefined
because 180 degrees is not an angle.
As for their being "solid figures", the most complex technologies usually
exist as lines on flat paper before they exist as "solid figures".
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "J. Clarke" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Elwood Dowd wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Yes 180 degrees is a certain amount around a circle, but a
>> >> >> >> straight
>> >> >> >> edge is an angle? Ok, how about this, "the shortest distance
>> >> >> >> between
>> >> >> >> two points is an angle?" Something just doesn't seem right
>> >> >> >> about that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The truth is stranger than fiction. 180 degrees is just as
>> >> >> > arbitrary an angle as any other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Heck, it's not even always true that the shortest distance
>> >> >> > between two
>> >> >> > points IS an angle. Try going in a straight line from New York
>> >> >> > to LA and you'll see what I mean.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you actually could do that it would be the shortest route, but
>> >> >> that would
>> >> >> have you 200 miles or so underground somewhere in the Midwest.
>> >> >> Since we are compelled to move on the surface of a sphere we are
>> >> >> compelled to take curved paths.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regardless, an angle is not a distance. As for 180 degrees being
>> >> >> an angle, yes, it is an angle, but measuring it is not usually
>> >> >> something that one needs to do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> --John
>> >> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> >> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>> >> >
>> >> > Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis
>> >> > of
>> >> > the 180 degree angle. Is it at 15 inches, 20 inches or some other
>> >> > distance from one end. Just how do you figure the length of each
>> >> > leg of the angle? If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you
>> >> > better be prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't
>> >> > point to the exact point that I have previously determined it to be
>> >> > then be prepared to forfeit your reward.
>> >>
>> >> Why would you want to measure the subtended angle of a straightedge?
>> >> Now, consider something like a door or a wing-sweep actuator, where
>> >> you have movement possible thorugh a range of angles.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --John
>> >> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>> >
>> > You wouldn't, nor could you. The door and the wing-sweep actuator are
>> > not lines, they are solid figures and you are considering two solid
>> > figures in reference to each other (door-wall) and
>> > (actuator-whatever). But if you want to visualize them as lines in a
>> > single plane, then when they are at 180 degrees you have two lines
>> > that are separated by a space, or if they touch you have a single
>> > line.
>>
>> Fine. So when the wings are at 179.999 degrees then they are at an angle
>> but when they extend .001 degree more then their position becomes
>> undefined because 180 degrees is not an angle.
>>
>> As for their being "solid figures", the most complex technologies usually
>> exist as lines on flat paper before they exist as "solid figures".
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> Yep at 179.999 its an angle, but 179.999 degrees to what? 180 degrees
> doesn't mean undefined, it means a continous line. I thing swing
> wings angles are measured not against the other wing but from a line
> at right angles to the body, so 180 degrees isn't possible. That is,
> when the wings are straight out you would call it 90 degrees to the
> body, or a swing of 0 degrees (from straight out). More than likely a
> 60 degree fold means the wings tips are closer to the tail than at 30
> degrees; in other words, 180 degrees is never used.
Except when it is.
> By solid figures what I meant was that a door and a frame are
> continuous at only two or three points (the hinges) and there is no
> need to have the hinges in a straight line with the door and the
> casing when the door is closed. So, except at the point of contact
> (hinges) between the door and the casing when the door is closed, the
> door and the casing exist as two lines. Although there are two lines,
> there still does not have to be an angle. This is the same as the
> swing wing, when the door is slightly open it will be open 3-4
> degrees not 176-177 degrees. So when it is closed the angle is 0
> degrees and 0 means none, not some, i.e., there is no angle.
And when it is open completely so that it is flat against the wall?
> When you measure swing of something you normally give the acute angle
> and not the obtuse, i.e., no swing is 0 degrees not 180 degrees, and
> your use of 180 degrees in these situation is neither natural nor
> common practice and is entirely a straw horse constructed for the sake
> of argument. OTOH the outline of a solid body that doesn't change
> shape, but is complex could be measured in various ways.
The "straw horse for the sake of argument" is your contention that somehow
magically there is a singularity at some point between 179 degrees and 181
degrees in which angles cease to exist.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
>> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
>> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
>> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
>>
>> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
>> ...including 180.
>>
>> Bill.
>
> I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
> copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
> line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
> line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
> lines.
You went to high school in the US didn't you?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill Rogers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
>> >> >why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
>> >> >would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
>> >> >Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
>> >>
>> >> "We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
>> >> ...including 180.
>> >>
>> >> Bill.
>> >
>> > I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
>> > copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
>> > line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
>> > line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
>> > lines.
>>
>> You went to high school in the US didn't you?
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> Your point?
Characteristic of the US education system--nothing means anything unless the
student "sees" it. Hence this totally ludicrous discussion of whether 180
degrees is an angle.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 06:01:53 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I thought "bevel" described a shape not the tool. There is no need to
>copy 180 degrees, since it is just a straight line. Beside if the
>line describes what you call 180 degrees, then it is just a single
>line and a single line cannot define an angle. You have to have two
>lines.
A good point, but wrong, I'm afraid. The bevel is also a tool. You
are thinking of a "bevelled edge" being also called a "bevel", and a
"bevelled cut". The word "bias" also comes to mind.
I taught math for over thirty years [and it comes in *really* handy in
woodworking]. A straight line is not only an angle, but it can be
used as the basis for measuring angles:
Pi radians = 180 degrees.
That is used [constantly] to change back and forth between radian and
degree measure of angles.
Bill.
In article <[email protected]>,
"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
> > causes distortion in the steel and you do not end up wit a true straight
> > edge.
>
> So, that's why the Starrett squares are so inaccurate.
Nice comeback, but it's a miss, I think. Isn't it the case that better
quality ruled squares use etching for the divisions? I agree that
stamping the divisions could have unhappy effects on the rule's
accuracy. Viz my POS framing square...
--
"Keep your ass behind you."
In article <[email protected]>,
"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
> Try is correct. tri is a
> misspelling. The 45 has nothing to do with it.
I have now, however, added "tri" to my mental vocabulary to describe
those try squares which include the 45 bevel. (I hate them.) "Tri
square" could be a useful, although internally inconsistent, neologism.
--
"Keep your ass behind you."
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:45:10 -0700, "AArDvarK" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
>I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
>explain why on earth some would not have them?
I'ts in the words..."Try", meaning "check", and "Square" meaning 90
degrees." It's use to check for dead-on 90 degrees, that is angle
measure, not for measuring length. For example, you'd check if your
blade was square to the table. It is also used for marking 90
degrees.
Linear measures are added to extend the possible use on some squares,
but the Try Square still serves its purpose.
Bill.
"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Never heard of a tri-square before.
Never heard of a tri-square before??? That was like 8th grade shop class
101... LOL
>
> scott
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:34:58 -0700, "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com>
wrote:
>Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
>place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
>chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't obvious.
>It was several days of this before we actually got to run anything. By that
>time, "O" was firmly ingrained in our minds. I, for one, was not to pleased
>when I tried to run some code that, of course, wouldn't run because the
>instructor had been sloppy.
Sloppy? It's perfectly good English; North American as well as
European English. That's how any one I know says it when stating
their phone number. When you hear an area code "205 -..." don't you
pronounce it "Two Oh Five - ..."?
I've also programmed and taught it, and if you used an "O" instead of
a Zero [slash-O], it was because of your own lack of comprehension at
the time, using alpha instead of numeric out of context. I had to
help a person who said he'd "written a program" when in fact he'd
simply copied it wrongly, not understanding what a DIM statement
actually did, setting aside storage. It should have made sense at the
time, or you would have, or should have asked at that time.
Bill.
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 06:17:48 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think this " a straight line is a 180 degree angle" discussion is
>well past burial time and wasting bandwidth. So enough said.
I think people could save a *lot* more bandwidth by making the effort
to edit text before replying. :-)
However, I agree, especially since some efforts are not really on the
mark.
Bill.
On 9 Jul 2004 12:27:24 -0700, [email protected] (Charles
Erskine) wrote:
>Squares without marks are usually (but not always) more precisely
>square.
>I use my expensive squares without marks only for CHECKING squareness.
> I use my less expensive squares with marks for layout and scribing
>lines with an awl or marking knife.
You almost lost me on this one, but I see (I think). You mean that
you'd hold the scribe or knife against the mark while dragging the two
down the length of the wood? Then it makes sense to have a cheap
square for that purpose. Myself, I'd rather use a tool designed for
that purpose: a nice rosewood/brass marking guage.
Bill.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 06:01:47 -0700, "AArDvarK" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> I'ts in the words..."Try", meaning "check", and "Square" meaning 90
>> degrees."
>
>Looks like Miller's falls knew that, eBay (in the pictures): 6106079531
>Alex
I knew that. At least there is some agreement. :-)
Bill.
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:54:51 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I've already answered that in other responses, but just to be caustic
>why would you have a pivot in a straight edge, and if you did, it
>would be a straight edge would it? it would be an angle finder.
>Ah but "we" collectively, apparently, don't know that.
"We" call it an adjustable bevel, and it can copy any angle
...including 180.
Bill.
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:28:52 -0400, Bill Rogers <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 9 Jul 2004 12:27:24 -0700, [email protected] (Charles
>Erskine) wrote:
>
>>Squares without marks are usually (but not always) more precisely
>>square.
>>I use my expensive squares without marks only for CHECKING squareness.
>> I use my less expensive squares with marks for layout and scribing
>>lines with an awl or marking knife.
>
>You almost lost me on this one, but I see (I think). You mean that
>you'd hold the scribe or knife against the mark while dragging the two
>down the length of the wood? Then it makes sense to have a cheap
>square for that purpose. Myself, I'd rather use a tool designed for
>that purpose: a nice rosewood/brass marking guage.
>
>Bill.
I think the "correct" way to do it is to use your highly-accurate
macninist's square to check the accuracy of your try square. Once you
have verified that your try square is, indeed, square, you use the try
square to draw lines perpendicular to the reference edge on your
workpiece. The marking gauge (or a height gauge) would be used to
draw lines parallel to your reference edge.
Ed
From the dictionary,
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
try square
n.
A carpenter's tool consisting of a ruled metal straightedge set at right
angles to a straight piece, used for measuring and marking square work.
And I always thought it was tri square until I could not find it in the
dictionary
Yabbut dictionaries now show Zero = Oh.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 18:30:42 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>From the dictionary,
>
>The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>
>try square
>n.
>A carpenter's tool consisting of a ruled metal straightedge set at right
>angles to a straight piece, used for measuring and marking square work.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And I always thought it was tri square until I could not find it in the
>dictionary
>
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:12:36 GMT, jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>p.s. 0/0 is "indeterminate" and 1/0 is "undefined".
P.P.S. 0/0 is "indeterminate" = "undefined". Something is well
defined, or not. "indeterminate" means not "well defined". That is;
if you can not determine it exactly, it can not be well defined, and
so is undefined.
1/0 = "not finite"; that is, not part of the finite arithmetic number
system.
Bill.
"Oh" in the phone number is a bad holdover from the days when we dialed
"Operator" for all the long distance calls. Anybody who served in the
military should have been quickly broken of the habit because of the
confusion it can cause.
rhg
Tom Veatch wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:56:15 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Rogers
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When you hear an area code "205 -..." don't you
>>>pronounce it "Two Oh Five - ..."?
>>
>>When I pronounce my area code, I always pronounce it "three-zero-six".
>>
>>But then, I'm a bit strange (or so I've been told).
>>
>>djb
>
>
> Ain't got no "Oh"s or "Zero"s in my phone number. Got several "niners" 'though.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:56:15 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Rogers
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> When you hear an area code "205 -..." don't you
>> pronounce it "Two Oh Five - ..."?
>
>When I pronounce my area code, I always pronounce it "three-zero-six".
>
>But then, I'm a bit strange (or so I've been told).
>
>djb
Ain't got no "Oh"s or "Zero"s in my phone number. Got several "niners" 'though.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
Zero has the slash.
On occassion, we'd put a dot in the middle of the "Oh" .
Renata
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:00:12 -0700, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "CW" <no
>adddress@spam free.com> says...
>> Several years ago, in a programing class, the instructor kept using "O" in
>> place of zero when addressing the class and as his examples where on a
>> chalkboard (yes, more than a few years ago), the difference wasn't obvious.
>>
>And I still remember the controversy over whether we should put
>a slash through the letter or the number so the keypunchers
>could tell which we meant.
>
>I finally resorted to putting a note at the top of each coding
>sheet that said which was slashed - but it's been so long I
>don't remember which that was :-).
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:41:00 +0000, Leon wrote:
>
> "Ed Bailen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I think the "correct" way to do it is to use your highly-accurate
>> macninist's square to check the accuracy of your try square. Once you
>> have verified that your try square is, indeed, square, you use the try
>> square to draw lines perpendicular to the reference edge on your
>> workpiece. The marking gauge (or a height gauge) would be used to draw
>> lines parallel to your reference edge.
>
> You can verify if your square is square by simply using it to draw a line
> perpendicular to the edge of a board and then flipping the square over to
> the other side of the line and seeing if the line is parallel to the
> square with no gap.
>
>
>> Ed
>>
>>
It all depends on how much error you are willing to accept.
Woodworking does not require the same level of precision
that machining does so the tools for each trade, while sometimes similar
in purpose, are different in execution.
Bill
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
18:38:00 up 33 days, 20:16, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.17, 0.17
18:27:00 up 85 days, 2:28, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 01:21:37 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>
> AArDvarK wrote:
>>
>> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at
>> Amazon:
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>>
>> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will
>> someone explain why on earth some would not have them?
>>
>> Thanks all,
>>
>> Alex
>
> This thread is hilarious. Some one suggest that is spelled a certain way
> because that's the way it is on e-bay.
Yes, it is a try-square ... to 'try' the trueness of an edge or face.
But just to keep things lively, consider that the straight edge provides
the third angle. 45, 90, 180 ... there's your three angles.
The machinist squares are not marked with distances because they are only
used to test for squareness and even then, only on comparatively rough
work.
Bill
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
18:22:00 up 33 days, 20:00, 3 users, load average: 0.06, 0.10, 0.15
18:11:00 up 85 days, 2:12, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:09:58 -0500, Lowell Holmes wrote:
> I can't comment on the Footprint square, but I have about 4 try squares in
> various sizes and except for one, I've been disappointed in their
> accuracy. I now use only my Starret combination square. I would never buy
> one that I couldn't check for squareness prior to purchase.
>
The fixed squares (try-squares ... there are different types of squares [
box and cylinder come quickly to mind]) are intended to be
calibrated / corrected by the user.
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how this is done.
Bill
--
http://cannaday.us (genealogy)
http://organic-earth.com (organic gardening)
Uptimes below for the machines that created / host these sites.
18:57:00 up 33 days, 20:35, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.08, 0.12
18:46:00 up 85 days, 2:47, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> writes:
>
>"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
>> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
>> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
>> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
>> tri-square.
>> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
>
>I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old one.
The brandnametools people have mislabeled the Stanley 46-502
8" blade plastic Try/Mitre square
<http://www.stanleytools.com/default.asp?CATEGORY=SQUARES&TYPE=PRODUCT&PARTNUMBER=46-502&SDesc=8%22+Blade+Plastic+Try%2FMitre+Square+(English)>
Never heard of a tri-square before.
scott
First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
tri-square.
http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm As in
the picture. You will usually find that the higher quality squares do not
have easement lines on them because the stamping and etching of these lines
causes distortion in the steel and you do not end up wit a true straight
edge. Plus I personally would not rust them to be accurate at all for any
thing other than basic framing.
Chris
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01...
>
> A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at Amazon:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
>
> I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will someone
> explain why on earth some would not have them?
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Alex
>
>
"Chris Melanson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:q9AHc.15958$eO.1460@edtnps89...
> First thing the picture in the link is of a regular square not a
> tri-square. A tri square will have a face that is cut 45 degrees from the
> blade enabling you to mark out 45, 90 and 135 degree lines thus it name
> tri-square.
> http://www.brandnametools.biz/hand_tools/t/Tri_Squares/_1290112.htm
I see new definitions are being invented daily. I will stik to the old one.
> You will usually find that the higher quality squares do not
> have easement lines on them because the stamping and etching of these
lines
> causes distortion in the steel and you do not end up wit a true straight
> edge.
So, that's why the Starrett squares are so inaccurate.
>
> Chris
> "AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:UbyHc.781$TT2.341@fed1read01...
> >
> > A curiosity about try or "classic" type of square like this one at
Amazon:
> >
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00020JMU2/qid=1089384034/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-9208339-5187338?v=glance&s=hi
> >
> > I notice some do and some don't have measurement markings... will
someone
> > explain why on earth some would not have them?
> >
> > Thanks all,
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
>
>
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:22:44 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote:
>
>> Try is correct. tri is a
>> misspelling. The 45 has nothing to do with it.
>
>I have now, however, added "tri" to my mental vocabulary to describe
>those try squares which include the 45 bevel. (I hate them.)
that's a combination square....
Yes, you usually are.
"AArDvarK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4yPHc.10211$ri.5699@lakeread04...
>
>
> incorrect...
> Some people use the square to square things and or make square marks or
> lines. I personally never use the markings on the square.
> The same could be asked why anyone would use a rule to draw a straight line.
> This may go back to the way Drafting is/was formally taught. You never use
> a measuring tool to draw lines.
>
That all makes sense, I need a good tutorial on it, I'll get there. A drafter's T
is for drawing lines.
Alex
Okay, okay... dig back into 2nd semester college trig....
> Well if you take a straight edge 36 inches long, where is the axis of
> the 180 degree angle.
18 inches. I made that arbitrary point up.
> If you think 180 degrees is an angle, then you better be
> prepared to point to the axis point, and if you don't point to the
> exact point that I have previously determined it to be then be
> prepared to forfeit your reward.
The axis point is arbitrary if you think of a 180 degree angle as a
straight line (which it is for practical purposes). In the mathematical
realm, however, the axis point is where the two sides of an angle meet.
In this case it is wherever you put it along that line---a quality
which is unique to 180-degree angles. Do I win a prize?