This is more fun that actually applying myself to wood.

Have you never given any thought to the order of qualification inherent =
in the utilization of "of"?

The resultant of any number multiplied by itself is the square of that =
number.

ergo: miter length =3D root (two(thickness squared)) .

Amazing what is lost as a result of the "whole language" system.

--=20

PDQ
--
=20
"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message =
...
| In article ,
| PDQ wrote:
| Guess you never pretended to be logical.
|
| I said root(2(width*width)).
|=20
|=20
| Bzzzt! Thank you for playing.
|=20
| 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"
|=20
| "root" is a 'higher priority' "operator" than 'times', and the =
associativity
| is left-to-right.
|=20
| 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"
|=20
|
| My professors told me that, in the parlance, root equates to square
| root. It is just a convenient form thereof.
|=20
| No argument on _that_ point.
|=20
| Did your professors bother to teach you about "reduction" to simplest =
form?
|=20
| 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
|=20
| 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.
|=20
| Tell me, just how would you express _in_words_, "root(2) * =
(width*width)"
| then?
|=20
| "Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
| ...
| | { *VIEW IN A FIXED-PITCH FONT* e.g. 'fixedsys' on a Windows PC ]
| |=20
| | 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 =3D 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
| | 2 inch wide =3D 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
| | 3 inch wide =3D 4.24264068711928514640506617262909
| | 4 inch wide =3D 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=20
| | | of the miter was proportional to "the square of the width of the =
board".=20
| |
| | I don't think so. No where in the preceding, which I include =
herewith
| | for clarity, did I state what you saw.
| |=20
| | 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.
| |=20
| |=20
| | Better get your eyes checked. Your geekiness leaves much to be =
desired.
| |=20
| | "Speak for yourself, John" would seem to apply.
| |=20
| | You might, however, be in line for the "Conehead" awards.
| |=20
| | 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.)
| |=20
|=20
|