> To:Mr. Peter Scales > From :Shyamal Kumar Das > Sir, > Hope, you have recd my two letters dated Aug,11 and > Aug 13 on the subject. But, I have not recd any reply > from you.Pl. answer me and oblige. Tkx & Rgds
To my way of thinking the academic or intellectual merit of any procedure derives from its correctness, its inherent accuracy or its ingenuity. If the result is exact, simplicity, ingenuity or minimum and least complicated operations are factors in establishing relative merit. If the result is an approximation, then similar factors determine its usefulness, generally measured as the accuracy achieved divided by the number of operations required to achieve it.
Depending on the use envisaged for the method, one might add ease of understanding and remembering it and relative simplicity of operations if the method yields acceptable accuracy for student or artisan use.
You say: "However, my intention is to develop an easy and simple method for the students to divide an angle along with the method to divide a straight line ,the later is known to them."
When I first read your post I was unsure of the claims being made and of the target audience. In one sense I thought it was being proposed as an exact method, even though the write-up included hints on how to improve the accuracy. To my initial understanding these hints semed more directed at overcoming practical inaccuracies, rather than being an inherent part of the underlying theory. This was reinforced by the comments on 60deg approximating 1 radian.
However the above comments are now history and relate only to my initial response, which I hoped would be helpful to you.
Your more recent post clarifying that the method is proposed as a practical method for students, easy to understand and easy to implement, which gives reasonable accuracy for acute angles.
Provided the inherent flaw in the method is understood, it should be useful for student use. I did indicate this in the opening sentence of my first post.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, Sincerely, Peter Scales.