Dear Steve,
R. Hooijenga is right. Adding 10 was a common way to proceed.
We are talking about log-to-base-10 which I imagine is rarely used these
days but when it was in common use there were all kinds of tricks. I
suspect these were different in North America from in Europe
Consider the logs of 2, 20, 200 etc, we have:
0.3010, 1.3010, 2.3010 etc
Easy. Now start going down, 0.2, 0.02, 0.002 etc. Your way sounds like a
nightmare to me. The way I was taught was (almost) to write:
-1+0.3010, -2+0.3010, -3+0.3010 etc
except we actually wrote 'one-bar...' instead of '-1+0...'.
Roger Bailey clearly thinks this is some kind of archaic religion but if
you are going to understand an ancient god like Waugh you had better study
his liturgy!!
Very best wishes
Frank
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022, 10:43 Steve Lelievre <steve.lelievre.can...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Ooof!
>
> Did the method of adjusting all the logs by +10 really make the task
> easier?
>
> Merely negating the log seems better to me.... or simply learning to do
> arithmetic on negatives.
>
> Steve
>
---------------------------------------------------
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial
