1/2²

[lawrence1]

I have read this thread from start,,,and i find watching paint dry far more interesting.I reckon coolrunnings post was spot on,yes go back and have another look at it and i think everyone will agree,,but unfortunately some people are too thick to absorb anything other than their own opinion.

[DTLarca]

I do think it comes down to how it is written, if I remember rightly, if you were calculating a fraction, the fraction was in a small font, with the comand in a larger font 1/2/1/2
The answer would then be clearly 1

Yes, the whole point is to establish a certainty of understanding with regards to the units analysis when considering say specific heat capacity kJ/kg.k or acceleration m/s² because no matter how much anyone does not like it these truly are just peculiar cases of complex fractions as in 1/2/1/2

That makes it kJ/kg/K/1 and m/s/s/1

I see no available argument to support any implied claim that a school child being introduced to fractions and ratios will be taught that 1/2/1/2 means 1 divide 2 then divide 1 and then finally divide 2. I think this is sheer nonsense. More likely the result of 30 years absence from studies than any erudition

I wholly reject the proposal that 1/2/1/2 is not a fraction having no numerator or denominator but is instead merely an instruction sequence.

There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web.

Therefore the matter is not ambiguous - there are not two or more different ways to interpret the arrangement 1/2/1/2. It can only be (1/2)/(1/2) and any other interpretation is a mistake.

[mad fridgie]

go to excell and type
=1/2/1/2
what is the answer?
Type as you have written, no f***ing with fuctions, or brackets.
whats the answer?

[mad fridgie]

It can only be (1/2)/(1/2)
CORRECT

[DTLarca]

go to excell and type
=1/2/1/2
what is the answer?
Type as you have written, no f***ing with fuctions, or brackets.
whats the answer?

That is your mistake Mad Fridgie

The convention with complex fractions taught to school kids and used in physics is that 1/2/1/2 must be read as (1/2)/(1/2) and not any other way.

A computer sees the number and function string as an instruction and so for you to get the right answer using excel you have to inform excel of the convention it is supposed to use and so with you string of instructions you also have to include convention instructions.

My question is not "What would excel do?" but rather "what is the convention?".

[DTLarca]

It can only be (1/2)/(1/2)
CORRECT

Lol, do you have an honest reason for believing so or are you just in a happy clappy keep the peace lets all just agree to agree and smile type mood?

I'm after the truth here - I don't give a **** about how unhappy or happy it makes anyone - only the truth please

[mad fridgie]

That is your mistake Mad Fridgie

The convention with complex fractions taught to school kids and used in physics is that 1/2/1/2 must be read as (1/2)/(1/2) and not any other way.

A computer sees the number and function string as an instruction and so for you to get the right answer using excel you have to inform excel of the convention it is supposed to use and so with you string of instructions you also have to include convention instructions.

My question is not "What would excel do?" but rather "what is the convention?".

You Quoted
"There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web."
Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.
Flynn verses the state, are porno mags convention, he proved it was due to how much porno films were watched.
I also clarified that Bodmas was used or that fractions were written in different fonts, to distinguish between fractions and string instructions.
What was the answer on excell, you never answered the question?

[DTLarca]

You Quoted
"There is no evidence available to me in any of my math books or any where on the web."
Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.
Flynn verses the state, are porno mags convention, he proved it was due to how much porno films were watched.
I also clarified that Bodmas was used or that fractions were written in different fonts, to distinguish between fractions and string instructions.
What was the answer on excell, you never answered the question?

I work with excel all the time - I produce little windows applications in Pascal - I do not have to do it in excel to know what excel will do.

You could say that because I am aware of what excel will do I am aware that it is not immediately obvious to everyone that 1/2/2 is the same as 1/2² and hense the thread. It has the answer but the method to go from one to the other contradicts the method excel follows.

Consider again what Frank says: 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

How on earth does Frank establish that 1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2/2?

In other words how does Frank turn a 1/2 into a 2?

Why did he turn only the bottom 1/2 into a 2 and not also the top half. If he also turned the top half into a 2 then he would have 2/2 = 1.

Also then, why did he not instead just turn the top half into a 2 which would have given 2/1/2 = 4 or by your standards = 1

I think you guys are just trolling - seriously - I can't believe this nonsense.

[mad fridgie]

Lol, do you have an honest reason for believing so or are you just in a happy clappy keep the peace lets all just agree to agree and smile type mood?

I'm after the truth here - I don't give a **** about how unhappy or happy it makes anyone - only the truth please

what is happy or unhappy to do with it, the truth is you get self satisfaction by attemting to belittle others. Your are obviouly lacking self cofidence, even though betray confidence. I bet you look in the mirror every night and tell yourself what a great dude you are, but deep down you see yourself as just a little kid, doing what he needs to do to get attention.
You are just a bully, who likes to throw his intellectual weight around (no doubt you have excellent knowledge) Why do you not use it for the common good, then people will give genuine respect, it will make you feel good, unless you are happy being a miserable barsteward.

[DTLarca]

what is happy or unhappy to do with it, the truth is you get self satisfaction by attemting to belittle others. Your are obviouly lacking self cofidence, even though betray confidence. I bet you look in the mirror every night and tell yourself what a great dude you are, but deep down you see yourself as just a little kid, doing what he needs to do to get attention.
You are just a bully, who likes to throw his intellectual weight around (no doubt you have excellent knowledge) Why do you not use it for the common good, then people will give genuine respect, it will make you feel good, unless you are happy being a miserable barsteward.

I'm only interested in the matter at hand - as you will notice - I never belittle or attack anyone unless I their focus slips from the subject at hand to some irrelevant personal matter.

I never commit the ad hominem fallacy - I never do this - I never get personal - I always stick to the subject. But as soon as someone's insecurity or lack of skepticism causes them to get personal I will put them in their place - I will remind them that they must stay focused on the matter at hand.

If you go back through all my discussions you will see that I stay true to the technical ebb and flow of the discussion.

You will remember that, for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic and there were a few other irrelevant person comments he made - but in the end - I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free

[mad fridgie]

I work with excel all the time - I produce little windows applications in Pascal - I do not have to do it in excel to know what excel will do.

You could say that because I am aware of what excel will do I am aware that it is not immediately obvious to everyone that 1/2/2 is the same as 1/2² and hense the thread. It has the answer but the method to go from one to the other contradicts the method excel follows.

Consider again what Frank says: 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

How on earth does Frank establish that 1/2/1/2 is the same as 1/2/2?

In other words how does Frank turn a 1/2 into a 2?

Why did he turn only the bottom 1/2 into a 2 and not also the top half. If he also turned the top half into a 2 then he would have 2/2 = 1.

Also then, why did he not instead just turn the top half into a 2 which would have given 2/1/2 = 4 or by your standards = 1

I think you guys are just trolling - seriously - I can't believe this nonsense.

Did you not quote there was no evidence?
simple answer "yes or no"
I proved there was. so you are wrong, accept the truth
I asked you undertake the equation, which you did not. So what is the answer, do it?
Then you can accept that yours is not the only method of achieving a result.

[mad fridgie]

I'm only interested in the matter at hand - as you will notice - I never belittle or attack anyone unless I their focus slips from the subject at hand to some irrelevant personal matter.

I never commit the ad hominem fallacy - I never do this - I never get personal - I always stick to the subject. But as soon as someone's insecurity or lack of skepticism causes them to get personal I will put them in their place - I will remind them that they must stay focused on the matter at hand.

If you go back through all my discussions you will see that I stay true to the technical ebb and flow of the discussion.

You will remember that, for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic and there were a few other irrelevant person comments he made - but in the end - I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free

If you believe what you have written, then to you it must be the truth, and for that I can not argue,
Do you not understand, that we do want to learn from you! but believe me that you come across as some one who belittles most, maybe your intention or not. Have you ever been in love? does not make any sense.

[DTLarca]

Did you not quote there was no evidence?
simple answer "yes or no"
I proved there was. so you are wrong, accept the truth
I asked you undertake the equation, which you did not. So what is the answer, do it?
Then you can accept that yours is not the only method of achieving a result.

Here's a quote:

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.

[mad fridgie]

Here's a quote:



I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.

What Iam indicating that all information should be shown with common clarity, one can not presume that all, already know your particular methods and descriptions.(and if they do not does not make them stupid or lacking in intelligence)
There is a simple saying
"presumbtion is the mother of all F***Ups.
I am sure if you had written the calc either in brackets or in different colours all would of come up with the same answer. Your argument is nothing to do with maths, but more to do with interpretation of data.

[DTLarca]

If you believe what you have written, then to you it must be the truth, and for that I can not argue,
Do you not understand, that we do want to learn from you! but believe me that you come across as some one who belittles most, maybe your intention or not. Have you ever been in love? does not make any sense.

Honestly - this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - utterly irrelevant to the matter of how truly does m/s/s become m/s²

You should never get personal in your discussions on the web unless you have something nice to say. Getting personal on the web has to be asymmetrical - it has to only be nice or supporting etc and not criticising or attacking. otherwise - as you see - you will get someone like me who is technically superior to most - by my own making - thanks to no one but myself - and you will get put in your place.

Now, if you don't mind, I really am interested to find a crack argument to establish the truth here.

I have already said so to Frank that I am willing to consider the chance that I am wrong - and I even explained that that is why I want to discuss the matter because I have my doubts. But all the evidence I find on the web and in books says your argument is nonsense - it just cannot be.

You might still be right - there could be something you say to clinch my understanding that could swing my beliefs about the matter but by the only conventions available to me 1/2/1/2 has to be 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and so I have no choice yet but to see your arguments as nonsense.

[mad fridgie]

Here's a quote:



I implicitly agreed that excel will follow the numbers and functions as an instruction sequence. But I also explained why - if I were to follow yours and Franks example I would now also get personal and ask you what is it that your personality is lacking or what particularly is the deficiency in your emotional intelligence that causes you to deny the abvious - the obvious being that I replied to your comments on excel and gave my opinion that that was your mistake because excel needs all of the instructions of the conventions. But I do not get personal - I do not start to question what insecurities you might have that causes you to miss that argument I put and its implicit message that I know what excel does with the "equation".

Maybe you are not trolling - I just feel you are.

Look at my name "Mad Fridgie", at least I know it!

[TRASH101]

Mad Fridgie has the more sound grasp on convention here that I can see.

I see the problem as 1 divided by 2 divided by etc unless there is a clear emphasis put on the "central" per (as MF mentions). That in itself if agreed by the majority of the participants on this forum, is a convention, until tried against a more popular convention that is.

[DTLarca]

What Iam indicating that all information should be shown with common clarity, one can not presume that all, already know your particular methods and descriptions.(and if they do not does not make them stupid or lacking in intelligence)
There is a simple saying
"presumbtion is the mother of all F***Ups.
I am sure if you had written the calc either in brackets or in different colours all would of come up with the same answer. Your argument is nothing to do with maths, but more to do with interpretation of data.

It's only a presumption or assumption if you actually presume or actually assume. But if you tell people what your assumptions are then they are no longer assumptions but matters brought out into the open overtly for consideration to be tested as to whether they can be assumed good.

Generally something is considered an assumption because the person did not realise it should be mentioned - it does not help to tell people they must not forget to tell certain things they see obvious because if they never did then there would never be assumptions.

If I am assuming anything then by definition I may or may not realise what I am assuming and if I do not realise something it does not help to tell me that I should realise it - maybe I also don't realise what it is I should realise I should realise.

Can you think of a reason why in physics I should drop the convention that 1/2/1/2 is 1/2 x 2/1

Is it possible that I am mistaken in seeing m/s/s as also m/s/s/1 to be treated as m/s x 1/s ??

[DTLarca]

Look at my name "Mad Fridgie", at least I know it!

Mad Fridgie - we all have some madness of some form

[mad fridgie]

Honestly - this is irrelevant to the topic at hand - utterly irrelevant to the matter of how truly does m/s/s become m/s²

You should never get personal in your discussions on the web unless you have something nice to say. Getting personal on the web has to be asymmetrical - it has to only be nice or supporting etc and not criticising or attacking. otherwise - as you see - you will get someone like me who is technically superior to most - by my own making - thanks to no one but myself - and you will get put in your place.

Now, if you don't mind, I really am interested to find a crack argument to establish the truth here.

I have already said so to Frank that I am willing to consider the chance that I am wrong - and I even explained that that is why I want to discuss the matter because I have my doubts. But all the evidence I find on the web and in books says your argument is nonsense - it just cannot be.

You might still be right - there could be something you say to clinch my understanding that could swing my beliefs about the matter but by the only conventions available to me 1/2/1/2 has to be 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and so I have no choice yet but to see your arguments as nonsense.

Can you see you have changed without know it, how you written each calculation
Option 1
1/2/1/2
1/2X2/1
option 2
1/2 / 1/2
1/2 X 2/1
can you see the confussion
option2 calc one is very clear (but not the way you have written it), option two is how you have written calc two.
This where confussion lies, need for clarity

[DTLarca]

Mad Fridgie has the more sound grasp on convention here that I can see.

I see the problem as 1 divided by 2 divided by etc unless there is a clear emphasis put on the "central" per (as MF mentions). That in itself if agreed by the majority of the participants on this forum, is a convention, until tried against a more popular convention that is.

Your position could be a correct position - but at the moment if it is it would only be a coincidence because so far it has no convincing argument or evidence - it so far only has the vote.

[TRASH101]

If it is all about convention then the truth is what the majority deem it to be, for your postulation to become convention here you would need more a compelling argument than MF's. I wish you luck as the format was set in your original post.

[mad fridgie]

Excell has made many us lazy when it comes to maths, and is a common convention, I have forgotton most of what i learnt during my schooling years.
Marc in many ways is correct, I do wish he would however, start his threads with some sort of inclinging in where the thread is going, instead of looking through his criptic clues. all done!

[DTLarca]

Are both methods correct? Surely not? Maybe? Hmmm, I can't see it.

How does Frank go from 1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2

His explanation might be a clue.

Consider this example

I travel 4680mile per 3 days which is 4680/3

I wan to know how many miles per hour this is.

There are 24 hrs per day which is 24/1

So I go

4680/3/24/1

Following Frank's method I get 65 miles per hour

Following mine 4680/3 x 1/24 = 65 miles per hour

But if I use franks method with 1/2/1/2 I get 1/4

When I use my method with 1/2/1/2 I multiply both the bottom fraction and the top fraction by 2/1 which cancels out to give 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

So when the bottom fractions denominator is 1 both methods work but when it is other than one then they differ.

So which is correct - where am I going wrong with my method?

[TRASH101]

When I use my method with 1/2/1/2 I multiply both the bottom fraction and the top fraction by 2/1 which cancels out to give 1/2 x 2/1 = 1

So when the bottom fractions denominator is 1 both methods work but when it is other than one then they differ.

So which is correct - where am I going wrong with my method?

Wether it is wrong or not is not what your looking for is it?

The point of breaking with convention is what seems to be the problem you are addressing and that is a very ambitious task.

The original format is what sets it in stone for me and the methodolgy for the interpretation, labelled by yourself as a sequential instructions, is the default analytical view in the absence of individual emphasis put on any of the operation.

I see no reason why your analysis should not take the sequential route.

Please explain why?

[DTLarca]

Excell has made many us lazy when it comes to maths, and is a common convention, I have forgotton most of what i learnt during my schooling years.
Marc in many ways is correct, I do wish he would however, start his threads with some sort of inclinging in where the thread is going, instead of looking through his criptic clues. all done!

I have always followed the philosophers approach to acquiring knowledge.

Continuous probing and guessing and challenging and argument after argument and polemic after polemic and the longer there is doubt and disagreement the longer and deeper one's mind is probing and exploring and so the more intense and clear one's understanding becomes. I do this on my own with everything I read.

In other words I try to encourage people to discuss issues with one another - to test their beliefs. This is very very different from what the vast majority of people do - the vast majority of people "present their case" to each other. I present mine to you and you present yours to mine and that concludes that - end of story - no thinking - just presentation and receiving. I prefer discussion - debate - argument - polemic - I want to discuss each position presented not just "receive" it.

[DTLarca]

Wether it is wrong or not is not what your looking for is it?

The point of breaking with convention is what seems to be the problem you are addressing and that is a very ambitious task.

The original format is what sets it in stone for me and the methodolgy for the interpretation, labelled by yourself as a sequential instructions, is the default analytical view in the absence of individual emphasis put on any of the operation.

I see no reason why your analysis should not take the sequential route.

Please explain why?

I just did - I thought it was good - but obviously not good enough - I need to improve on my argument.

I have been fighting arrogance for much of my life so the last thing I want to do is do the arrogant thing and just walk off with the last word "I am right you are wrong - I'm out of here."

If I travel 4680 miles in three days and I want to know what that is in miles per hour when I know there are 48 hours in 2 days I can write

4680/3/48/2

Now by Franks method this gives 16.25 miles per hour

By my method it gives 4680/3 x 2/48 = 65

So my method works for every possible fraction but Franks works only if in the bottom fraction either the numerator or the denominator, or both, are 1.

I say this is a very strong argument for saying that I am right and the majority are wrong - which is often how it works out but just because it often works out that way it does not mean we can decide the truth by just picking the least common beliefs.

I am glad i have persevered with this now - it is becoming very clear to me that my method is correct and that I should emphasis it when teaching physics because I think people misunderstanding this has a lot to people not understanding physics.

[DTLarca]

Again - in summary

If I traveled 100miles in 2 days and I wanted to know how many miles per hour that was when I knew there were 48 hours in those 2 days then by the "popular" method my miles per hour were:

100/2/48/2 = 0.521

But by my method

100/2/48/2 = 100/2 x 2/48 = 2.08

The "popular" method goes miles divided by days divided by hours divided by days

My method goes miles per day multiplied by days per hour and the days cancel out to give miles per hour.

I think I have cracked it.

I will definitely be writing an article about this.

[TRASH101]

LOL I just tried to post and failed.

The notation will always lead to confusion Marc but good luck though.

[DTLarca]

Those who can see they are wrong should now admit they are wrong - not that it matters to me - I am only after the truth - but there seems to be a fetish about this discussion board to do with admitting error and also apologies.

Now if there is anyone who was arguing for the erroneous side of the matter deliberately when all along they knew very well they were not right - they should now both admit they were arguing on the wrong side, deliberately, and they should apologies for doing so - the latest discussion board fetish requires this.

Those who have sufficiently strong mental constitution to not have been swept in by all this "admitting fault" and "aplogising" and all other irrelevancies do not have to do anything - they were only interested in the truth and I believe I have labored the truth to the surface.

I have been battling with this problem on and off for two years now since I started lecturing and while I knew I was right I was never certain. It mattered to me so much that I even invited the college math lecturer in to discuss the matter. Trust me - he is no idiot - yet still I was not happy with the matter.

It has been bugging me on and off still recently - haunting my mind while I drive in and out of London - keeping me quiet at the dinner table not listening to others talk because I was immersed in this problem.

I think thanks to Mad Fridge for edging my thoughts on and on squeezing eventually the final convincing argument out of me.

As Richard Feynman said when they asked him why does he bother with all this stuff no one else cares about - he replied "It's the kick in the discovery".

Two bloody years of agony are over

Now for the next problem...

[DTLarca]

LOL I just tried to post and failed.

The notation will always lead to confusion Marc but good luck though.

So far it has lead to confusion - indeed - I recognised that when I started lecturing. I saw that what I took for granted was not even considered an option by others - even the HND students and even the Math Lecturer - as has been witnessed here too in this thread.

But I have had an inner conviction all along that I was right and they wrong. Now that I know for sure that I am right and they - well, they weren't wrong - they just didn't have any opinion at all on the matter of my approach.

So now I can work towards eliminating the confusion.

Using my miles per 2 days example converted to miles per hour with 48 hours in the 2 days does the trick - it is the winning argument.

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty ( At least as certain as I know the sun will rise again tomorrow )

[mikeref]

Anything divided by 1 remains as is.

245/1 = 245

1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25

One half of one half = one quarter. One half divided by one half = one. (.5/.5=1), and(1/2 of 1/2= 1/4). Now problem solved Marc, didn't need to waste two years stressing out on this. Its the way it is said that counts. Yep, i'm right. Never been to a lecture where the teacher never spoke. So, both you and Frank are right!

[mikeref]

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty. LOL, good luck at explaining this in a lecture.

[DTLarca]

From now on 1/2/1/2 can mean nothing other than 1/2 x 2/1 = 1 and I can know this with certainty. LOL, good luck at explaining this in a lecture.

Thanks to my miles per 2 days and then hours per 2 days example students will see that the correct convention is as I say.

However, as a short cut, as long as there is a 1 in either the numerator or the denominator in the bottom fraction then the "popular" method will work. But it is only a coincidence that it works - it does not work because it is the right way - it will not guarantee a right answer every time.

If your clock on your wall is stuck on 6 O'Clock because the battery is flat it is only right twice a day and if you come downstairs in the morning at 6am and check the clock you will by coincidence see the right time and if you come home at exactly 6pm and look at the clock again you by coincidence see the right time. But it is only by coincidence. The popular method works the same - it is correct by coincidence so long as either the lower fractions numerator or denominator are 1 but at all other times it will be wrong.

[TRASH101]

But your notation needs to be modified for you to be right (by convention)

[DTLarca]

But your notation needs to be modified for you to be right (by convention)

There developed a secondary question along the way in the discussion which was "should we use brackets to make explicit the demarcation of numerators and denominators?"

1/2/1/2 could be (1)/((2)/1/2) for instance. Well, by convention if that is what the fraction actually was then it should be made clear with the use of brackets.

But if what is meant by 1/2/1/2 is (1/2)/(1/2) then the brackets are actually not needed - because the conventions in place already for complex fractions are good enough - the brackets then would be superfluous.

[DTLarca]

I typed 1/2/1/2 =1 into my Facebook status and a friend who has a physics degree from the Netherlands replied thus:

‎1/n/1/n = 1, where n is any real number unequal to zero, or complex number as long as its real or imaginary part is unequal to zero.

That, however, would not clinch it for me - it sounds too tautological - it sounds like dogma - it sounds too much like "It is because it is" - I want real argument and evidence which I have already anyway provided

[chilliwilly]

Chilli, neither as you would be dead, but.. thats just an opinion. Cartoons come to mind,whistle.... followed by splat and a cloud of dust. Coyote lives to recalculate why both condensing units fell at different speeds.

Coyote or black bear sat at the table waiting for its tea.

[nevgee]

. . . for instance, it was Nevgee's insecurity that brought him to complain that my discussions on the Iraqi guys AHU were off topic ... I was right - I had been steering the discussion in the right direction from the outset and anyone following would have learned from me - learned a lot and for free

1 - I did not have any form of insecurity. ... had that been the case I wouldn't have entered the Lion's den. My point was aimed at you redirecting a poster's call for assistance into a self serving resurgent commentary from your good self. no more no less

2- I don't know in the end what it was that you were right about ...but I do believe the one thing you didn't do was to steer the discussion in the "right direction". Had that been the case, then the OP would have probably thanked you for the help and assistance he received ... which clearly was not evident. Steering the discussion you clearly did .. in the right direction? for the op? I don't think that was true. You steered the discussion in your own direction to make your own point over and above that of the original request. I know you don't believe in democracy .... that is self evident.

[nevgee]

Well excell is one of the most commonly used pieces of software, so by nature is convention.

Sorry can't agree with this. Since when did Exel have the right to define what convention is or is not.....
there are so many mistakes made now because tech's have drifted away from the idea of standard formats and convention.
I get annoyed when I see tech manuals written with kw instead of kW and kWhr when they mean kW.

DTLarca may have a very annoying approach to his lectures with his hidden meanings and criptic questions but I have to agree with him that there are standards and technical formats that need to be adhered to if we're to understand what it is that others are trying to explain.

Taking a stance that Exel is a format that is accepted is nonsense. My calculator will give me all sorts of ridiculous answers if I punch in the numbers without following the rules (BODMAS) etc. That' why those rules are there so we all can work on an apparently level playing field.

I'm off to the pub.

[DTLarca]

1 - I did not have any form of insecurity. ... had that been the case I wouldn't have entered the Lion's den. My point was aimed at you redirecting a poster's call for assistance into a self serving resurgent commentary from your good self. no more no less

2- I don't know in the end what it was that you were right about ...but I do believe the one thing you didn't do was to steer the discussion in the "right direction". Had that been the case, then the OP would have probably thanked you for the help and assistance he received ... which clearly was not evident. Steering the discussion you clearly did .. in the right direction? for the op? I don't think that was true. You steered the discussion in your own direction to make your own point over and above that of the original request. I know you don't believe in democracy .... that is self evident.

Ask the original poster and Gary Lloyd whether they think any of my claims were off target.

Ask teh OP why he gave me rep points and what his comment was with the rep points

Also - I recall him coming back and saying "And the winner is - Hot Gas bypass"

[nevgee]

Big rasberry to you too ....

[Quality]

I do not doubt the knowledge you DTLarca have expressed but I do doubt your acceptance of other peoples opinion.
Weather you have your way or say and the next man has another then if mine is different for my own understanding then so be it.
If your any good at lecturing that your knowledge suggests your are then you will know full well that people do not understand / learn the same way.
I could go on to express the different ways of learning and understanding but if I did you would tell me I am wrong anyway so I will not bother

[DTLarca]

I do not doubt the knowledge you DTLarca have expressed but I do doubt your acceptance of other peoples opinion.
Weather you have your way or say and the next man has another then if mine is different for my own understanding then so be it.
If your any good at lecturing that your knowledge suggests your are then you will know full well that people do not understand / learn the same way.
I could go on to express the different ways of learning and understanding but if I did you would tell me I am wrong anyway so I will not bother

I have never behaved as you suggest I have, never, so you have no reason whatsoever to imagine I might do as you say.

[Quality]

So I am obviously wrong

Thought some how

[nevgee]

Ask the original poster and Gary Lloyd whether they think any of my claims were off target.



Also - I recall him coming back and saying "And the winner is - Hot Gas bypass"

Gary did query your SHR motives quite frequently ... because everyone thought you were off target !


Yeah you did suggest that HGBP might be a solution.

You said ...... "If you are right (Nevgee )..... it seems the TEV and compressor are over sized for the evaporator.... and during these conditions some sort of compressor/evaporator capacity control is required".

Well I was right.

huh? can you admit it? huh? can you?

So, DTLarca, I guess in a very round about indirect way you have actually agreed that I was right about the problem before you decided to hijack my statement and come up with the idea of HGBP. The diagnostics were not wholly yours you just concurred and applied the bandaid.

This being so and all things etc .... you can have your ego boost, I don't live for those things.

[DTLarca]

So I am obviously wrong

Thought some how

You may be and you may not be - I have not yet received your argument. Perhaps you should lay your case out for me with clearly demarcated arguments from premises to conclusions with evidence so that I can consider their value - at the moment I am hearing mere assertions - vague assertions at that which are even being presented as pseudo generalisations and so I have nothing to go on.

I can only say that you have made judgments based on your own projections rather than on the actual context.

As I say, you may be right and you may not - until you make your case neither of us will know.

[DTLarca]

Gary did query your SHR motives quite frequently ... because everyone thought you were off target !


Yeah you did suggest that HGBP might be a solution.

You said ...... "If you are right (Nevgee )..... it seems the TEV and compressor are over sized for the evaporator.... and during these conditions some sort of compressor/evaporator capacity control is required".

Well I was right.

huh? can you admit it? huh? can you?

So, DTLarca, I guess in a very round about indirect way you have actually agreed that I was right about the problem before you decided to hijack my statement and come up with the idea of HGBP. The diagnostics were not wholly yours you just concurred and applied the bandaid.

This being so and all things etc .... you can have your ego boost, I don't live for those things.

Rasberries to you

[mad fridgie]

Sorry can't agree with this. Since when did Exel have the right to define what convention is or is not.....
there are so many mistakes made now because tech's have drifted away from the idea of standard formats and convention.
I get annoyed when I see tech manuals written with kw instead of kW and kWhr when they mean kW.

DTLarca may have a very annoying approach to his lectures with his hidden meanings and criptic questions but I have to agree with him that there are standards and technical formats that need to be adhered to if we're to understand what it is that others are trying to explain.

Taking a stance that Exel is a format that is accepted is nonsense. My calculator will give me all sorts of ridiculous answers if I punch in the numbers without following the rules (BODMAS) etc. That' why those rules are there so we all can work on an apparently level playing field.

I'm off to the pub.

Excel, does not have the right to be used as convention, but because it is used heavily it has become by nature a convention. (I am not say this is right or wrong,)
very early on i did bring up BODMAS.
The point of my arguments is to make you think,
All information has to clear and in context with the data around it. (while agree that we should be using a common method, practically we do not)
Marc has given examples of travelling, the context has determined the method of calculation.

[nevgee]

Rasberries to you

Touche