Subject: Re: double line bug & nautical miles<br/>
Date: Nov 25, 2001 @ 23:15<br/>
Author: Grant Hutchison (&quot;Grant Hutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="4690.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4694.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4627.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4690.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4692.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-991305147">Michael: <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; what if the neatness of the usnm standard transcended even this<br/>
 </span></blockquote>metric integrity you have found & can now also be discerned to have<br/>
originated in logarithmic algorithmic integrity as well at<br/>
5555point55555etc meters<br/>
<br/>
Yaargh. Do you think whoever set US measurement standards in 1954<br/>
would be whimsical enough to slip in a recurring decimal?  Or a spare<br/>
5/9ths of a metre? <br/>
But I&#39;d say it&#39;s ruled out by the five-decimal definition in feet,<br/>
which leaves no room for manoeuvre, assuming it is correct - it forces<br/>
the league to be 5556.00000 plus-or-minus-something-in-the-sixth-place.<br/>
<br/>
Grant</div>