- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:09:14 +0100
- To: "timbl" <timbl@w3.org>, "connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-archive+n3bugs@w3.org, "Piet Dewaele" <piet.dewaele@agfa.com>
Tim, Dan,
While doing some tests with angle measurements I found
different conclusions with cwm than I found with euler.
I simplified the case to a simpler one:
###################################################
@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#>.
@prefix math: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/math#>.
@prefix : <testP#>.
:M :ratio 1.
{:M :ratio ?R. ?R math:tanh ?A} => {:M :angle_rad ?A}.
{:M :angle_rad ?A. ?A math:degrees ?D} => {:M :angle_deg ?D}.
#############################################################
and cwm thought
:M :angle_deg 43.636130838093536;
:angle_rad 0.76159415595576485;
:ratio 1 .
but euler got
:M :angle_deg [iw:Variable "_:X_2"; = 45.0].
I experimented a bit and got a likewise result with a change
in cwm_trigo.py
__cvsid__ = '$Id: cwm_trigo.py,v 1.10 2003/10/20 17:31:54 timbl Exp $'
line 123
return tanh(numeric(subj_py))
^^^^atan
i.e. cwm then thought
:M :angle_deg 45.0;
:angle_rad 0.78539816339744828;
:ratio 1 .
This was with Python 2.2.1 - the is running quite well :)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 08:09:18 UTC