Hi Mark,
From your article:
5/360 * 150°
= 2.08... ~ 2
BUT 360/150 = 2.4 which has 2 s.f. but only 1 decimal place...? I'm confused..??
Also, if 2 decimal places mean 2/100 = 0.02, and 4.1666 (not divided by 2 yet)... ~4.17 which is 4 + 0.17, then the two answers do not equal one another, so really I can't see how you linked the two together. Decimal places are there to round and make something precise, but I don't think you can use the amount of digits you round as part of the theory, rather use the digits that you round. The answer does not depend on how many you add or take away in order to round, but rather how precise you make the answer...
From your article:
Two things I don't understand. Why divide the answer by 2? What is the theory behind it? Just because it renders what looks like a convenient result is not proof enough that it's correct surely?My conclusion, resting primarily on the existence of the sesquiquadrature, is that this list is mathematically valid. This means that if this list is going to be used, then different aspects must have different orbs. In order to derive the orbs, I assigned each aspect (according to the R column) a percentage value out of 360. I also assigned each aspect a tier number (1 - 6), according to how many decimal places were necessary to reach its value in the D column. Aspects which require no decimal places are 1st tier and those requiring 5 places are 6th tier. I divided the percentage value by the tier number for each aspect, multiplied by 10 (the size of the biggest orb possible), and rounded its result to the nearest half degree. Orbs smaller than 0.5° were rounded to the nearest quarter degree. This process accounts for both the scale and tier of each aspect, and produces orbs for each that are usable and sensible. The following example illustrates the principle.
150 / 360 = 0.4166
0.4166 / 2 = 0.20833
0.20833 * 10 = ~2.0°
5/360 * 150°
= 2.08... ~ 2
BUT 360/150 = 2.4 which has 2 s.f. but only 1 decimal place...? I'm confused..??
Also, if 2 decimal places mean 2/100 = 0.02, and 4.1666 (not divided by 2 yet)... ~4.17 which is 4 + 0.17, then the two answers do not equal one another, so really I can't see how you linked the two together. Decimal places are there to round and make something precise, but I don't think you can use the amount of digits you round as part of the theory, rather use the digits that you round. The answer does not depend on how many you add or take away in order to round, but rather how precise you make the answer...
Last edited: