Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)
--
Graeme

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Graeme
wrote:

This is correct. I think :-)

It soundeth good to me.

Thank you!

--
Graeme

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Graeme
wrote:

Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft. I
want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft. The
circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1 ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

It soundeth good to me.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem -
you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's,
where bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler
in afc

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.

--
Max Demian

On 26/01/17 10:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.

It was the sinclair calculator that didn't work.

The Z80 didn't have any floating point anyway, so it was all down to
'software' and that is specific to the program running, not the hardware..



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.

I sent mine back, and Intel gave me new ones.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 26/01/2017 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/01/17 10:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.

It was the sinclair calculator that didn't work.

Do you mean the 'pregnant' [1] scientific calculator with pi and e
printed on the outside?

[1] Wikipedia says it worked on 4xAAAs but I distinctly remember a
calculator in a Cambridge sized case with a lump at the back to
accomodate a PP3 battery. They provided a little stand so you could use
it on a desk.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:54:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:


Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

Not sure I agree.

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

--
AnthonyL

On 26/01/17 11:52, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/01/2017 10:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/01/17 10:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.

It was the sinclair calculator that didn't work.

Do you mean the 'pregnant' [1] scientific calculator with pi and e
printed on the outside?

[1] Wikipedia says it worked on 4xAAAs but I distinctly remember a
calculator in a Cambridge sized case with a lump at the back to
accomodate a PP3 battery. They provided a little stand so you could use
it on a desk.

they definitely almost worked on 4 AAs. I spent many months fixing them.
They did not work on a PP3 at all.


There was a room full of 'customer returns' at the St Ives mill site.


Complete ****e really.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 26/01/17 13:16, AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:54:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:


Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

Not sure I agree.

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

the rounding from 2.07 to 2.1.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

In article ,
lid says...

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:54:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

Not sure I agree.

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

Actually you both get the same answer except that Graeme
rounded 'half of 4.14 ft' - which is, of course, 2.07ft - to
2.1ft.

--

Terry

On 26/01/2017 13:45, Bob Minchin wrote:
Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

Maybe they get 1 as the answer?

However you do the brackets first and then left to right with the
division and multiplication.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:45:20 +0000, Bob Minchin
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

What answer did you get?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:31:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/01/17 13:16, AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:54:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:


Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

Not sure I agree.

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

the rounding from 2.07 to 2.1.


Ah - you've taken the whole of the square, I just looked at the radius
length so couldn't quite see at first where your figures came from.

--
AnthonyL

In article ,
Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:45:20 +0000, Bob Minchin
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

What answer did you get?

2.071067812 here. ;-)

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message ,
Terry Casey writes
In article ,
says...

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

Actually you both get the same answer except that Graeme
rounded 'half of 4.14 ft' - which is, of course, 2.07ft - to
2.1ft.

Sorry, yes, 2.07 ft is correct, of course. Do I get 9/10 because my
calculation was correct :-)
--
Graeme

In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message ,
Terry Casey writes
In article ,
says...

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

Actually you both get the same answer except that Graeme
rounded 'half of 4.14 ft' - which is, of course, 2.07ft - to
2.1ft.

Sorry, yes, 2.07 ft is correct, of course. Do I get 9/10 because my
calculation was correct :-)

If an error of nearly 1mm is ok for your purposes, 10/10. ;-)

--
*I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 26 January 2017 14:43:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:45:20 +0000, Bob Minchin
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

What answer did you get?

2.071067812 here. ;-)

I got 9 on my iphone and 9 using google.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:35:52 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:45:20 +0000, Bob Minchin
wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)


Seems ok on my 5S with os 9.x

What problem do you see?

What answer did you get?

2.071067812 here. ;-)


That's the point : it should be 2.071067818 ;-)

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:39:24 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:31:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/01/17 13:16, AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:54:01 +0000, Graeme
wrote:


Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

Not sure I agree.

The triangle has perpendicular sides of 5ft x 5ft giving the
hypotenuse as sqrt(25+25) = 7.07ft. The circle radius is 5' to 2.07ft
from nearest edge of circle to corner of square. Or have I
misunderstood something?

the rounding from 2.07 to 2.1.


Ah - you've taken the whole of the square, I just looked at the radius
length so couldn't quite see at first where your figures came from.

Well the OP did say he drew a square around the circle. So perforce the
square has sides of 10ft length, and indeed he says that. A diagonal in
the square is therefore 14.14ft long. Etc.

Who'd like to prove that the middle of that diagonal is the centre of
the circle?

A simple non-mathematical solution could be to say that the circle and square
are both symmetrical about both diagonals - so it has to be the centre of the
circle.

On 26/01/17 14:39, Tim Streater wrote:
Well the OP did say he drew a square around the circle. So perforce the
square has sides of 10ft length, and indeed he says that. A diagonal in
the square is therefore 14.14ft long. Etc.

Who'd like to prove that the middle of that diagonal is the centre of
the circle?
Its implicit in the proposition that he drew a square as small as
possible ROUND the circle and exactly in the same place AS the circle.

By symmetry, both must have their centres co-incident.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)

Well doing it in my head gives 1. Windows Calculator (Scientific mode)
gives 9 (so does my TI scientific calculator), but you have to insert a
x between the 2 and the (, as it doesn't understand that a value next to
a ( means that you have to multiply the value with the result of the
contents of the brackets, and this takes priority over the division.

--
Max Demian

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator
2. BODMAS


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/01/2017 16:57, Robin wrote:
On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect
rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator

In (written) algebra, a value before a left bracket means multiply the
result of the contents of the brackets (first).

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Graeme wrote:

Sorry, yes, 2.07 ft is correct, of course. Do I get 9/10 because my
calculation was correct :-)

If an error of nearly 1mm is ok for your purposes, 10/10. ;-)

Well, a tad over two feet was close enough :-)
--
Graeme

On 26/01/2017 17:30, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?


Do iPhones know that? I don't have one.

PS
I assumed you meant key into the phone *exactly* what you posted.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thursday, 26 January 2017 17:30:36 UTC, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 26/01/2017 10:10, Brian Gaff wrote:

Unless you do it on a zx 81 iif I recall when you get an incorrect rounding
error.

Like the first Pentiums where you had to eschew the inbuilt floating
point processor and do the calculations in software.


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

Like this you mean

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPe1aBW_YCg

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTp6RdyE1xA


-

On 27/01/17 17:19, Mark wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTp6RdyE1xA

....on operator precedence.

Just like punctuation, if you don't have rules that everybody sticks to,
language is ambiguous


-




--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 27/01/17 17:48, Huge wrote:
On 2017-01-27, Mark wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....

.... on whether you're a ****wit or not.


No, it depends on what 6/2*3 is held to be.

And whether you consider there is an implicit bracketing of 2(1+2)

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 09:56:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/01/17 17:19, Mark wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTp6RdyE1xA

...on operator precedence.

Just like punctuation, if you don't have rules that everybody sticks to,
language is ambiguous


You mean in like "Let's eat grandma?"

--
AnthonyL

On 28/01/17 10:20, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 09:56:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 27/01/17 17:19, Mark wrote:
"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 16:57:00 +0000, Robin wrote:

On 26/01/2017 13:32, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:49:56 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTp6RdyE1xA

...on operator precedence.

Just like punctuation, if you don't have rules that everybody sticks to,
language is ambiguous


You mean in like "Let's eat grandma?"

Exactly.

Or Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
If you have an Iphone - try:

6÷2(1+2)



1. There's a missing operator


Really? How about default to multiplication - is that no longer the
rule?

so 6÷2 *3 = 1

(Unless something incorrectly gives you 9 of course)

both 1 and 9 are correct depending.....

.... on whether you're a ****wit or not.


No, it depends on what 6/2*3 is held to be.

And whether you consider there is an implicit bracketing of 2(1+2)

I was taught BODMAS (brackets, orders (powers), division, multiplication,
addition, subtraction) as the order in which to apply operators.

So:

- evaluate 1+2 first because it's in brackets.
- there are no orders/powers
- evaluate 6 / 2 = 3
- evaluate 6 (ie 6/2) * 3 (ie 1+2)
- there is no addition or subtraction (other that 1+2 which was evaluated
early because it's in brackets).

Therefore the answer is 9.

On the other hand, should the 2(1+2) be evaluated before the division
because a gut feeling says that an implied multiplication should have a
higher-than-normal precedence - and it *is* only gut feeling: I couldn't
explain why!

I'd have written the expression with a few more brackets to make it
abundantly clear what I meant: so either

6 / (2(1+2)

or

(6/2)(1+2) aka (6/2)*(1+2)

On 28/01/17 12:35, NY wrote:
I'd have written the expression with a few more brackets to make it
abundantly clear what I meant: so either

6 / (2(1+2)

or

(6/2)(1+2) aka (6/2)*(1+2)

Exactly.

Relying on operator precedence when it's very shaded is a bad idea.

AS is relying on implicit type conversion in a boolean operation, as I
also know to my cost.

Javascript type casting is defined for assignment, but not for comparison.


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 12:35, NY wrote:
I'd have written the expression with a few more brackets to make it
abundantly clear what I meant: so either

6 / (2(1+2)

or

(6/2)(1+2) aka (6/2)*(1+2)

Exactly.

Relying on operator precedence when it's very shaded is a bad idea.

AS is relying on implicit type conversion in a boolean operation, as I
also know to my cost.

LOL. My wife's just started learning PHP and it's very flexible about data
types. I'm used to languages such as Pascal and C where types must match,
either enforced by the compiler (Pascal) or else forced by casting (C). It's
a bit unsettling to see her doing a string input from the user and then
testing whether it's greater than 3 as if the operator was an integer. I'd
be casting or calling a conversion function to make really really sure!

On 28/01/17 13:14, NY wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/01/17 12:35, NY wrote:
I'd have written the expression with a few more brackets to make it
abundantly clear what I meant: so either

6 / (2(1+2)

or

(6/2)(1+2) aka (6/2)*(1+2)

Exactly.

Relying on operator precedence when it's very shaded is a bad idea.

AS is relying on implicit type conversion in a boolean operation, as I
also know to my cost.

LOL. My wife's just started learning PHP and it's very flexible about
data types. I'm used to languages such as Pascal and C where types must
match, either enforced by the compiler (Pascal) or else forced by
casting (C). It's a bit unsettling to see her doing a string input from
the user and then testing whether it's greater than 3 as if the operator
was an integer. I'd be casting or calling a conversion function to make
really really sure!

PHP is, like BASIC, a language that you can use very quickly to get
tangible and useful results.

Writing GOOD code in it is more tricky.

As an Engineer, I like C . There are rules, but you can explicitly break
them.

int i;
float f;
i=3;
f=(float)i;

is a classic case.

An *explicit* conversion is made...
One recols in hoorow at

$i='3';
$i++;



--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On Thursday, 26 January 2017 07:54:11 UTC, Graeme wrote:
Too early! Am I doing this correctly?

I draw a circle 10ft diameter, around which I draw a square 10 x 10ft.
I want to know the distance from any corner of the square to the nearest
point of the circle.

So, Pythagorus tells me the hypotenuse across the square is 14.14 ft.
The circle is 10 ft diameter, so the answer is half of 4.14 ft or 2.1
ft.

This is correct. I think :-)

2.07 ft seems better. You can easily check against major error by carefully drawing a diagram, scale 1 cm to 1 ft, on a piece of paper.

--
(c) Dr. S. Lartius, UK. Gmail: dr.s.lartius@