In article ,
PDQ wrote:
Guess you never pretended to be logical.

I said root(2(width*width)).


Bzzzt! Thank you for playing.

That may have been what you _intended_ to say (I'll not speculate on *that*),
but it is *not* what you actually wrote.
You wrote the English words for "root(2) * width*width"

"root" is a 'higher priority' "operator" than 'times', and the associativity
is left-to-right.

Given that what you wrote above is what you actually intended to say
originally, you omitted a critical phrase from your scrivening. The words
"the quantity" was required after 'root of"


My professors told me that, in the parlance, root equates to square
root. It is just a convenient form thereof.

No argument on _that_ point.

Did your professors bother to teach you about "reduction" to simplest form?

Did your professors not teach you how *stupid* it is to do two multiplies
and a (calculated) square-root when the exact same result can be obtained
via a single multiply of a constant

Assuming you can comprehend the above, your underscore, via a caret, is
the same. I only wish I had a proper symbol on this pig.

Tell me, just how would you express _in_words_, "root(2) * (width*width)"
then?

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
| { *VIEW IN A FIXED-PITCH FONT* e.g. 'fixedsys' on a Windows PC ]
|
| In article ,
| PDQ wrote:
| If you mean a miter cut, the length of the miter is
|
| the root of two times the square of the width of the board.
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| If you mean a bevel cut, the length of the bevel is
|
| the root of two times the square of the thickness of the board.
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| 1 inch wide = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
| 2 inch wide = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
| 3 inch wide = 4.24264068711928514640506617262909
| 4 inch wide = 5.65685424949238019520675489683879
|
| It appears the bevel/miter is proportional to the width by a factor of ~1.41.
| Or, the width/thickness is always 70.7106781186547524400844362105198% of
| the bevel/miter.
| _________________________________________________ ________
|
| Dougie, you said
|
| | You missed the point rather dramatically, I'm afraid. You wrote that
| the width
| | of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the board".
|
| I don't think so. No where in the preceding, which I include herewith
| for clarity, did I state what you saw.
|
| Actually, you *did*. And you even quoted those _exact_words_, above.
| "For clarity", the occurrences of the indicated words have been marked,
| so that the vision-impaired can locate them.
|
|
| Better get your eyes checked. Your geekiness leaves much to be desired.
|
| "Speak for yourself, John" would seem to apply.
|
| You might, however, be in line for the "Conehead" awards.
|
| You're the leading candidate for the pseudo-"Ronald McDonald" award.
| (The one named for the _original_ 'big red hair' circus entertainer, made
| Famous by Larry Harmon.)
|