Subject: Re: double line bug & nautical miles<br/>
Date: Nov 25, 2001 @ 23:59<br/>
Author: orc@orcoast.com (orc@...)<br/>
<a href="4691.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4695.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic4627.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="4693.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="4695.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-619802154">grant you bet i think so because 1954 was also when they taught me in the usa that pi equals 22 sevenths<br/>
<br/>
which also involves distortion by the fourth digit <br/>
<br/>
& they were already routinely using 5 ninths too for converting fahrenheit to centigrade<br/>
<br/>
but i agree with your analysis of the present reality<br/>
<br/>
m<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;Grant Hutchison&quot; &lt;granthutchison@b...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<br/>
&gt; Michael: <br/>
<br/>
&gt; &gt; what if the neatness of the usnm standard transcended even this<br/>
<br/>
&gt; metric integrity you have found & can now also be discerned to have<br/>
<br/>
&gt; originated in logarithmic algorithmic integrity as well at<br/>
<br/>
&gt; 5555point55555etc meters<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; Yaargh. Do you think whoever set US measurement standards in 1954<br/>
<br/>
&gt; would be whimsical enough to slip in a recurring decimal?  Or a spare<br/>
<br/>
&gt; 5/9ths of a metre? <br/>
<br/>
&gt; But I&#39;d say it&#39;s ruled out by the five-decimal definition in feet,<br/>
<br/>
&gt; which leaves no room for manoeuvre, assuming it is correct - it forces<br/>
<br/>
&gt; the league to be 5556.00000 plus-or-minus-something-in-the-sixth-place.<br/>
<br/>
&gt; <br/>
<br/>
&gt; Grant </span></blockquote></div>