From: Yash (yashk2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2002 - 06:47:30 MST
I agree that if the author of the text had used anything other thatn the
word "base" there would have been no ambiguity at all.
Still, if you read the text, it's easy to see that it's unambiguously about
calculation in Base 10.
However, if one gives it just a quick persual as you did, then one can get
the wrong impression that the text is about Base 50, as you have all along.
In any case it would have been written something like "we calcualte in Base
50", or "we convert our values into Base 50".
As it is it is written "we use as our base 50", meaning he subtracts from 50
instead of from a higher number necause the 'deficiency' (read difference)
is smaller, making the calculation more efficient and more suitable to be
done on sight. That's the point of these calculations, to make them
efficient and doable on sight or mentally.
Here is what you wrote all along:
<Various qoutes from Kirk Steele follow>
___
Swami Nitwit, is the one ASSERTING BASE 50! FEWL, he used it,
catastrophically wrong!
I admitteded to reading it, twice! but as others have pointed out, you
intentionally misrepresent; among other things.
____
Ok EVERYBODY loves YASH. He is the center of his universe. BLAH BLAH BLAH
Get over your fool self and this complete idiot swami.
____
And then, AND THEN, we have here some nitwit who claims to be a SYSTEMS
ENGINEER, idolizing this boob.
____
Look at "BASE 50" TOTAL BULLSHIT!
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
This guy doen't know shiite from shinola
____
then there is the completely erroneous manner in which this charlatan tries
to assert "BASE 50"
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
___
<Quotes from Kirk Steele end here>
You tried to deviate from the argument, bringing into how it's about "Ok,
everybody loves Yash. He is the center of the universe", etc...
You have been wrong all along. There was nothing about Base 50 in the usual
mathematical notion there as you claimed there was.
But you're too stupid to admit where you went so obviously wrong.
BTW, I don't idolise anybody.
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Steele, Kirk A
If he is not using a RADIX of 50 then he shouldn't use the phrase BASE 50.
In math, when one use the word "BASE" in DIRECT conjunction with a number
(the convention is that this number be in BASE 10) then in common, AND
TECHNICAL USAGE, the person using this phrase is talking about a RADIX. If
not, then the person is either innocently ignorant of a common convention in
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT