Talk:3023: The Maritime Approximation - Revision history

172.71.114.137 at 12:01, 13 December 2024

2024-12-13T12:01:37Z

141.101.105.87 at 06:39, 13 December 2024

2024-12-13T06:39:18Z

Wowitschris at 20:56, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T20:56:36Z

Galeindfal: Minor comment about Euler forms

2024-12-12T18:38:28Z

Minor comment about Euler forms

172.70.115.102 at 15:08, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T15:08:26Z

172.70.115.102 at 15:08, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T15:08:08Z

172.69.68.4 at 12:47, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T12:47:10Z

141.101.98.242 at 10:01, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T10:01:57Z

172.71.183.174 at 06:11, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T06:11:34Z

172.68.54.64 at 04:28, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T04:28:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 13 December 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:
	--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4\|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4\|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	:The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same <b>form</b>. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else. [[User:Galeindfal\|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal\|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		:The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same <b>form</b>. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else. [[User:Galeindfal\|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal\|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	::If you don't like calling it "form" say "appearance" or "arrangement"... anyway the most common is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0 because it includes the three main operations and 5 fundamental constants, so it is usually regarded as aestetically more satisfying.
		+	::--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.114.137\|172.71.114.137]] 12:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 : How is this not a coincidence? ([[User:Wowitschris|Wowitschris]] ([[User talk:Wowitschris|talk]]) 20:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC))
+::It's actually a coincidence, but in a weird sense it almost would not be. When French revolutionaries invented the metric system, they considered defining the meter as the length of a pendulum with a period of one second. If they had done that, g would be exactly pi squared. But it was already known back then that g varies with location, so the actual definition based on earth's circumference was adopted --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.87|141.101.105.87]] 06:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
 Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).
 --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 :The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same <b>form</b>. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else.  [[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).
 --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 :The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same <b>form</b>. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else.  [[User:Galeindfal|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 12 December 2024
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).		Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).
	--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4\|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4\|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	:The form that you wrote and Randal's preferred form are identical. The equations are slightly different, but they are the same <b>form</b>. Other forms would involve using trigonometric functions, infinite series, integrals or ... something else. [[User:Galeindfal\|Galeindfal]] ([[User talk:Galeindfal\|talk]]) 18:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Another maritime approximation:  1 meter/sec nearly equals 2 knots (actual is 1.94384), perhaps there is an actual explanation for this? {{unsigned ip|162.158.155.117|01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
-:Both the nautical mile and meter derive from measurements of the Earth's circumference, and the number of seconds in an hour is related to the base-60 counting system (as is the number of degrees in a circle), but beyond that it's just how the math works out.  1 nautical mile is (well, was) 1/60 of a degree of latitude.  1 meter is (was) 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, which is 90°, so that's 9/1,000,000 of a degree of latitude.  So 1 m = 27/50,000 nmi.  Then, an hour is 3600 s.  So 1 m/s = 27∙3600/50,000 nmi/hr.  Cancelling, that's 1 m/s = 243/125 nmi/hr, and that fraction is quite close to 2.  But there's no real deeper connection.
+:Both the nautical mile and meter derive from measurements of the Earth's circumference, and the number of seconds in an hour is related to the base-60 counting system (as is the number of degrees in a circle), but beyond that it's just how the math works out.  1 nautical mile is (well, was) 1/60 of a degree of latitude.  1 meter is (was) 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, which is 90°, so that's 9/1,000,000 of a degree of latitude.  So 1 m = 27/50,000 nmi.  Then, an hour is 3600 s.  So 1 m/s = 27∙3600/50,000 nmi/hr.  Cancelling, that's 1 m/s = 243/125 nmi/hr, and that fraction is quite close to 2.  But there's no real deeper connection.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.115.102|172.70.115.102]] 15:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:08, 12 December 2024
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Another maritime approximation: 1 meter/sec nearly equals 2 knots (actual is 1.94384), perhaps there is an actual explanation for this? {{unsigned ip\|162.158.155.117\|01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}		Another maritime approximation: 1 meter/sec nearly equals 2 knots (actual is 1.94384), perhaps there is an actual explanation for this? {{unsigned ip\|162.158.155.117\|01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
		+	:Both the nautical mile and meter derive from measurements of the Earth's circumference, and the number of seconds in an hour is related to the base-60 counting system (as is the number of degrees in a circle), but beyond that it's just how the math works out. 1 nautical mile is (well, was) 1/60 of a degree of latitude. 1 meter is (was) 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, which is 90°, so that's 9/1,000,000 of a degree of latitude. So 1 m = 27/50,000 nmi. Then, an hour is 3600 s. So 1 m/s = 27∙3600/50,000 nmi/hr. Cancelling, that's 1 m/s = 243/125 nmi/hr, and that fraction is quite close to 2. But there's no real deeper connection.

	A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:47, 12 December 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:

	My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174\|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174\|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Actually the most common form of Euler's identity is e<sup>iπ</sup> + 1 = 0; I find it odd that Randall never writes it that way (see [[179]] and [[2492]] for example).
		+	--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.4\|172.69.68.4]] 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 Transcendental : relating to a spiritual realm. eg "the transcendental importance of each person's soul".  Works for me. {{unsigned ip|162.158.186.248|00:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}
+:Just as a fun fact, "transcendental" in this case is referring to {{W|Transcendental number}}, which are numbers that cannot be expressed as the root of a polynomial, which basically means they cannot be found using algebra alone. I think the two definitions are related, since these numbers "trancend" the "realm" of numbers which can be found with algebra.  [[Special:Contributions/172.68.22.82|172.68.22.82]] 01:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
 Another maritime approximation:  1 meter/sec nearly equals 2 knots (actual is 1.94384), perhaps there is an actual explanation for this? {{unsigned ip|162.158.155.117|01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:11, 12 December 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:
	A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Yes, similar to this comic the ratio of km to miles (1.6093) is very close to the golden ratio (1.6180) or (1 + sqrt(5))/2. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64\|172.68.54.64]] 04:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		: Yes, similar to this comic the ratio of km to miles (1.6093) is very close to the golden ratio (1.6180) or (1 + sqrt(5))/2. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64\|172.68.54.64]] 04:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	My favorite one is that pi squared is approximately the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2). The best part is that is NOT a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.183.174\|172.71.183.174]] 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:28, 12 December 2024
Line 17:		Line 17:

	A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		A better mnemonic, which I actually use: miles→km is Fibonacci. 2miles≈3km, 3miles≈5km, 5miles≈8km, 8miles≈13km, 13miles≈21km, 21miles≈34km, 34miles≈55km, 55miles≈89km, 89miles≈143.23km, Fibonacchi would predict 144km. But at that point, you can just remove some less significant digits anyway. For everything in between, you can estimate how far it is from the nearest Fibonacci numbers, that works pretty well, too. [[User:Fabian42\|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42\|talk]]) 01:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
		+	: Yes, similar to this comic the ratio of km to miles (1.6093) is very close to the golden ratio (1.6180) or (1 + sqrt(5))/2. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.64\|172.68.54.64]] 04:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)