On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:04:47 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:
I suppose I could do a little (lot of?) review and calculate my own
trig function values:
egrees = pi/10
radians) to solve Burt's problem can pat themselves on the back and
disregard the remainder of this post. All of those who evaluated /pi/
with a series approximation have a surplus of brain cells and a
serious need to "get a life".]
Okay, I fold. I still like the trig table in the context I needed it
for though. Let me fill it in a little, so I'm not completely nuts to
you all. We're working these problems on the motor cover of a huge
vertical CNC bandsaw amid tons of coolant and steel swarf. The
employer provides regular four-function calculators- not scientific
versions. A calculator only lasts a couple of weeks, on average. A
trig table lasts for 6 months or better once it's laminated (if the
fraction-decimal charts are anything to go by), and it allows us to
solve the problems in question without having to buy a much more
expensive calculator every couple of weeks because some dummy knocked
it into the coolant or the keys got jammed up by tiny steel chips.
The guy I'm teaching appreciated it as well- even though he is aware
that calculators that will evaluate sin/cos/tan values exist, he's got
4 kids at home that (evidently) like to break things, so he doesn't
have one of them.
Same logic applies to calipers- Sure, it's easier to use a dial or
digital caliper when measuring, but I still use a vernier. It's not
because it's inherantly better, it's just better for the environment
I'm using it in, and lasts a heck of a lot longer!
Ah. Glad I'm not alone :-)
It's a Good Thing, IMO, to understand the math - but I don't think
it's bad to not understand the math. Mathematics *and* calculators are
both tools.
Burt has a formula and, presumably, a calculator - and can grind out
whatever chord lengths he wants. He doesn't /need/ to understand the
mathematics. It wouldn't hurt if he did, but all the understanding in
the world won't produce any better results.
I suppose there's an argument for just dropping in here again and
asking if the application changes, but to me it's one of those Give a
man a fish V. Teach a man to fish senarios. And, if the equation is
not being used properly because of some difference in the problem, it
can lead to some pretty large errors pretty quickly because he didn't
know how to double-check it. As another poster noted, you can have
any machine you want, but it won't do anything if you don't know what
to put in it.
I see your point, though.
|