From: Yash (yashk2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 03:47:59 MST
You interpret that text wrong again:
The original method for calculating this is found in the book. It is not
ASSERTING Base 50: it's rather saying that some calculation are done within
this method by using as reference some other numbers than 100 or 10.
You obviously haven't given the text more than a simple perusal (you're
doing like Hermit does). The text says "we use as our base 50' etc.. . Not
using BASE 50.
It's still base 10, but for part of the calculation, it is easier to use 50
and subtract from there rather than another number.
Yet another example of misrepresentation and distortion to fuel one's own
arguments.
Try to work out the example and see what gives, and you will see that
there's nothing about BASE 50 as opposed to BASE 10 in there.
Yash.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Steele, Kirk A
then there is the completely erroneous manner in which this charlatan tries
to assert "BASE 50"
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/math/math_7.html
Granted I will gleefully acknowledge that there quite a few ladies on this
marble that are more facile than I with math, and to wit I would ask any one
of them to refrain from laughing out loud when looking at the above page.
This nut is a demonstrable boob, clearly determined to promulgate some
manner of self generated fluffy-bunniness.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT