Welcome to the NavList Message Boards.


A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding

Compose Your Message

Add Images & Files
    Re: Yet another 4-place Nat-Haversine Table project?
    From: Tony Oz
    Date: 2018 Dec 8, 23:27 -0800

    Dear Brad,

    Thank you for the reply.

    In the corner of my mind I have a feeling that giving as precise values as cells allow is a Good Thing™. In the other corner there is a doubt - what digits should I consider for a rounded-off operand used with the 4-orders more precise one? Should I stuff zeroes there or should it be fives? Why? There is no information beyond the rounding border, it's lost. Is it meaningful to, say, divide a number where we are certain in eight places by a number where we are certain in only four?

    Or is your suggestion valid in the formula at hands: hv(ZD)=n+(1-(n+m))·a ? With how many places should I carry the calculations then, to all eight?

    The question remains - what should I do to the 0.9998-like values? To leave them as they are or to try to recover some precision there too? How then?

    Please comment.

    Warm regards,


    60°N 30°E

    Browse Files

    Drop Files


    What is NavList?

    Join NavList

    (please, no nicknames or handles)
    Do you want to receive all group messages by email?
    Yes No

    You can also join by posting. Your first on-topic post automatically makes you a member.

    Posting Code

    Enter the email address associated with your NavList messages. Your posting code will be emailed to you immediately.

    Email Settings

    Posting Code:

    Custom Index

    Start date: (yyyymm dd)
    End date: (yyyymm dd)

    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site
    Visit this site