Velocity Reviews > Re: Testing magnification. Am I doing something wrong?

# Re: Testing magnification. Am I doing something wrong?

Charlie D
Guest
Posts: n/a

 08-19-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Dragan Cvetkovic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation of
> 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.

You've dragged me around in circles.
I was correct in the beginning to fault siddharthgdalal
for finding fault with Mark's statement of "length OR height."

Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.

--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA

Dragan Cvetkovic
Guest
Posts: n/a

 08-19-2003
Charlie D <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Dragan Cvetkovic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation of
> > 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.

>
> You've dragged me around in circles.

Don't know what you are talking about.

[snip]

> Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
> you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
> the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.

Nobody said anything about a fixed aspect ratio, now you are just adding
constraints.

Anyway, never mind.

Bye, Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

Paul H.
Guest
Posts: n/a

 08-19-2003

"Charlie D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Dragan Cvetkovic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> > 1 or 1 = 1 or 0 = 0 or 1 = 1
> > 0 or 0 = 0.

>
> That looks like an EXclusive "or."
> If it were INclusive, there should be a "1 or 1 = 2" shouldn't there?

You're joking, right? This is Boolean logic where "1" and "0" are formal
conventions for the "true" and "false" of Aristotelian logic. There is no
"2".

OR:
false or false is false
true OR false is true
false OR true is true
true OR true is true

AND:
false and false is false
false and true is false
true and false is false
true and true is true

An exclusive OR between propositions A and B is equivalent to "(A or B) and
(not (A and B))"

P.S. or should be unless I made stupid typo or other mistake.

Mark M
Guest
Posts: n/a

 08-20-2003

"Dragan Cvetkovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charlie D <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Dragan Cvetkovic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > If you interpret 0 as false and 1 as true, what is your interpretation

of
> > > 2? The usual Boolean functions work on {0,1} domain.

> >
> > You've dragged me around in circles.

>
> Don't know what you are talking about.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Since the camera sensor has a fixed aspect ratio, if
> > you double, triple, or whatever the length OR height,
> > the other HAS to double, triple, or whatever also.

>
> Nobody said anything about a fixed aspect ratio, now you are just adding
> constraints.

Oh good gravy!!
Since when would a teleconverter change the aspect ratio!!!???
It does not...so aspect ratio remaining the same is assumed.

You guys crack me up.

Dragan Cvetkovic
Guest
Posts: n/a

 08-20-2003
"Mark M" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> "Dragan Cvetkovic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Charlie D <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >
> > > > Mark M wrote:
> > > > > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same

> thing)...you
> > > > > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.
> > >
> > >
> > > In article <bhtb9t\$cdc\$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > SD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Area = height * width
> > > > If I double the height or width then
> > > > Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
> > > > Where did the quadruple come from?
> > >
> > > You come from a .EDU account???
> > >
> > > Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
> > > Double W and H
> > > H=4, W=4 Area = 16
> > >

> >
> > Yes, but you doubled both height _and_ the width. In everydays' language,
> > 'OR' is usually exclusive (although in mathematics it is not).

>
> Ummm... Show me a tele-converter that ONLY multiplies height and not width,
> and I'll show you a pink elephant.
> Also...Since when can you make a larger square that doesn't add both height
> and width?????
>

It's OK Mark. I haven't seen your post (mentioning tele-converters), I was
answering the following post where that context was lost (article copied
and pasted below). Bye, Dragan

> Mark M wrote:
> > No.
> > You are mistaking area for field of view.
> > Two different things.
> > Example: If you double the height or width of a square (same thing)...you
> > actually QUADRUPLE the **area** of the square.

In article <bhtb9t\$cdc\$(E-Mail Removed)>,
SD <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Area = height * width
> If I double the height or width then
> Area = (2*height) * width = (2*width) * height
> Where did the quadruple come from?

You come from a .EDU account???

Example; H=2, W=2 Area =4
Double W and H
H=4, W=4 Area = 16

Let's forget about the area measurements.
They have no place in the discussion.
That's where the OP got off base in the beginning.