PDQ, to be consistent with your first post, you should use:
ergo: miter length = root (two(width squared))
OR
ergo: bevel length = root (two(thickness squared))

Sorry, given how the thread was going I couldn't help myself.

BadgerDog


"PDQ" wrote in message
.. .
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 = root (two(thickness squared)) .

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

--

PDQ
--

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...
| 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.)
| |
|
|