
You are just not going to let it go are you, even after establishing I was willfully ignorant. The weight and mass thing is a moot point because I don't reason by false analogy. From my point of ...

Thanks. Now I know what you meant when you said, "It is incorrect to say exposure is the amount of light on the sensor, just as it is incorrect to say the engine RPMs are the speed of the car." Bei ...

This is interesting and appears to be a weakness of DPR's recently revised editing policy. Your last three paragraphs are responding to text that is not in my post. I had concluded that was I said ...

This is an unedited cut and paste of what I said: I thought exposure was very simple and straightforward. In simple terms it is the total amount of light on the sensor and that is determined by the ...


light/unit sq area of sensor X area of sensor = total light on sensor. But we are talking about the definition of exposure and Gollywop agrees with me that exposure is exactly as I said, "exposure ...

I know this is an old well "discussed" topic, but I never paid much attention, because I thought exposure was very simple and straightforward. In simple terms it is the total amount of light on ...

Yes and if someone effectively communicates an idea that is wrong the proper communication does not make it right, but it would be easier to sort it all out if communication were more effective. ...

To be clear here is what I said, "the dictionaries define equivalent to mean of equal value, so it is imperative for the sake of communication that what has equal value must be stated explicitly ...

That is my fault then for not communicating it correctly. If people don't say what they mean by equivalent then the reader has to guess or even worse assume something that is not correct. By the ...

The word equivalent comes from the Latin words for equal and value and the dictionaries define equivalent to mean of equal value, so it is imperative for the sake of communication that what has ...

Well, at least I did define the equivalence relation. "Although various notations are used throughout the literature to denote that two elements a and b of a set are equivalent with respect to an ...

Now I think you may be showing off . :D but you are correct. The same gremlin that got your text recently must be lurking around because it feasted on my text here. Either that or DPR's computer ...

Equivalence simply means that if two items each have an attribute with the same value, then that attribute in one is equivalent to the same attribute in the other. Or more commonly the two items ...

A given binary relation ~ on a set X is said to be an equivalence relation if and only if it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive. Equivalently, for all a , b and c in X :

How did GB enter the picture.? Did you just hijack my post? You broke into the middle of of a point being made. Please continue reading the next sentence. Where did you get the idea that anything I ...

I missed that post, but I did see where you posted the "Equivalence relations" from the same page though. Truth be known I posted the wrong reference by mistake. The definition in the article I ...

OK, the missing pieces caused confusion, but now I get your point. I said, "GB has not defined a relationship, he has defined the term "Equivalent photos" and your replies with, "Well, you are ...

I'm using the math definition. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

I probably overstated the lack of progress, but it might be time for a review, which you are doing, and for some tweaks to your present approach. I was thinking more specifically about the concept ...
Activity older than 12 months is not displayed.

jackdan has not added any gear yet.
Total messages 
717 
Threads started 
31 
Last post 
21 hours ago 
