Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.comp.os.windows-xp    |    Actually wasn't too bad for a M$-OS    |    17,273 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 17,140 of 17,273    |
|    R.Wieser to All    |
|    Re: Worldmap mercator projection - Latit    |
|    21 Jan 26 20:01:17    |
      XPost: alt.windows7.general, alt.comp.os.windows-10       From: address@is.invalid              Paul,              > ln(2.097283) = 0.740643 # Via the ln() button on my calculator              And that 0.740643 points to somewhere between the northpole and canada on an       ice plate. Where I'm quite sure Washington DC isn't located.              Which was why I started to doubt that "ln()" equals "log()". But if not,       what is it ?              > The plot origin must not be where we think it is.              Well, thats easy to check : Just calculate the result for a Latitude of Zero       degrees. It should point at the equator.              > Notice how in a lot of these mathematics discussions, nobody labels a damn       > thing.              Just mathematics ? A couple of weeks ago I tried to find example code for       OpenSLL. I could find some, but with zero indication which version of the       DLL it was for - and it matters a *lot*. It frustrates me to no end.              >> 0.117959 is *way* to low       >       > But it is 0.5 minus that number, so 0.382 .              In my previous message I mentioned that I multiply the result by half the       height of the map, and subtract it from the equator (again, half the height       of the map). That is the same, right ?              Actually, it isn't. :-)              Now you have shown that the log() in the formule you presented is exactly       that (and not a elog() (natural log?) ) I had some solid ground from which I       could look further.              The whole problem is that your formule multiplies by the full height of the       map, and my "simplified" one multiplied by *half* the maps height (and than       subtracts from the equator).              When I multiplied my result by two the result was the same as what came       outof your formule.              Thank you for that. :-)              mea culpa : after noticing that my implementation of the formule didn't work       I *should* have first tried to implement it as provided. :-|                     Than only one thing remains : Any idea why the first formule doesn't give       the expected result ? |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca