XPost: alt.windows7.general, alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: ellis@ellis.invalid   
      
   On 21/01/2026 19:01, R.Wieser wrote:   
   > 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 ?   
   >   
   > Regards,   
   > Rudy Wieser   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   I would expect most people would think that log(A) means log to base 10   
   of A while ln(B) is natural log of B if they were just shown without any   
   explanation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)