NavList:

   

Reply

Hi All,

I wonder if we are all talking about the same thing.
The St. Hilaire method solution as originally proposed
was somewhat complicated, necessitated 2- distict
operations and required more attention to signs; it
used only sines and cosines. A later method was
entitled originally the "cosine-haversine method" -
same result, however, simpler solution. When I learned
the Marc St. Hilaire solution it was actually the
cosine-haversine method.

This is obviously no big deal, but I thought it
interesting from the point of view that these solution
methods were sometimes separated in older texts, i.e.,
perhaps 1931 and earlier, in that the latter method
was not actually credited to the old boy.

Regards,

Henry

--- John Karl  wrote:

>
>
> Gary is right about everything he said - almost.
>
> The Sumner 2-point method and the St. Hilaire method
> take exactly the
> same amount of calculation, each solving two
> equations of the same
> complexity.  And Henry agrees.
>
> So all the fuss is about why we use St. Hilaire.  My
> original point,
> 19 posts ago, was that all the books that I have
> seen either don't
> explain why we use St. Hilaire, or they explain it
> incorrectly.
>
> John Karl
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply