Posted-Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:39:10 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199702050239.UAA05461@mail.texoma.net>
From: "Mark S. Teel" <mteel AT texoma DOT net>
To: "Ove Kaaven" <ovek AT arcticnet DOT no>
Cc: "DJGPP" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: fwd: Re: ellipses at an angle
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:41:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>One should be rigorous when one can.  Your first definition was
inaccurate,
>period. (BTW, I make a living designing algorithms, math was just my first
>love).

:Maybe you're too much into analytic geometry. If you replace the 1
:with any constant value, his first definition is exact. Not quite
:suitable for any computer algorithm, true, but still
:mathematically/geometrically exact.

If I say the area of a square is 1, is that the definition of the area of a
square?  Or just the
definition of 1 of infinitely many different squares?  He defined 1
ellipse, not all ellipses (or
is it ellipsi?).  And actually, even replacing it with a constant is not
exact since there are
no exact measures in our world... but don't get me started.