JT
Posts:
1,041
Registered:
4/7/12
|
|
Re: quantum spin 1/2 explained as circumnavigation of a triangle
instead of the enclosed square; why we need 120 system not 360
Posted:
Jul 22, 2013 2:30 PM
|
|
Den måndagen den 22:e juli 2013 kl. 20:07:02 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Monday, July 22, 2013 5:58:33 AM UTC-5, jonas.t...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think you have to learn your AI recognize the difference between the sum of internal and external angles of a polygon.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The external angles always add up to 360 degrees or 1 revolution for any polygon.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The internal angles use the formula in revolutions
>
> >
>
> > n/2-1
>
> >
>
> > or in degrees
>
> >
>
> > 360(n/2-1)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > and each inner angle in revolutions
>
> >
>
> > (n/2-1)/n
>
> >
>
> > or in degrees
>
> >
>
> > 360(n/2-1)/n
>
>
>
> Get out of math. You are not cut out for it. You are a philosopher, where opinion waxs the day. In science, evidence waxs the days.
>
>
>
> You asked me why I wrote 135 degrees rather than 0.375 revolutions.
>
>
>
> I told you why, because your birdbrain fruitcake suggestion cannot distinguish between 0.375 internal revolution or between 0.375 external revolution.
>
>
>
> If math education were left up to you, a teenager would have to say "teacher, it is 0.375 internal revolution" whereas the teenager of today simply says "135 degrees.
>
>
>
> So get on over there to alt.philosophy for your lack of math abilities and science understanding is a waste of time here in sci.math.
>
>
>
> AP
By the way AP can you tell me how many degress 1/11 revolution is?
|
|
