On Jan 7, 3:18 pm, Markw65 <[email protected]> wrote: > If you're going to pick nits, no, its not a lune, because a lune is > defined by *two* great circles, and there's only one in my example
There are two. The Prime Meridian + anti-meridian is one and the Equator is another. So, it's a lune. > I'll admit that I should have put the third point at 1,180 to avoid > that problem. Again, it doesnt change anything as far as the original > problem goes. Correct. Because 1,180 is still on the anti-meridian. :-) > > > But to be honest, Im not sure your definition is particularly > > > authoritative - simply because it *does* exclude degenerate triangles. > > > Search for other definitions until you find a site you trust and show > > us a link. > > All the definitions I can find refer to three great circles, not more > > not less. > > I'll admit that I couldnt find one. But its doesnt affect the argument > at all. Of course it does. If I can prove my claim with links to definitions and you cannot. In more general terms, this is your first thread in this forum and you're saying that both Mike and Andrew, who have been crowned as 'Gurus' by Google, are wrong. I'd suggest you use the web interface to Google Groups to check out the profiles. :-) I still think there's nothing wrong with Mike's method. If you think there is, then I think you need to provide better proof of what you're claiming. -- Marcelo - http://maps.forum.nu -- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
