Kevrumbo
Banned
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 1,363
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
The brevity, wisdom and honesty of my inductive opinions speaks for itself . . .you may claim naivety on my part by your analysis which is fine. That's your own subjective deduction & analysis, and I choose not to comment on your interpretation any further.Still waiting on straight forward responses to my questions to try and figure out what your issues actually are. How about just some 'yes' or 'no' answers. Then maybe expound on that with a few points about what your issues are.
Again, can you try to drop the rhetoric. Just for one post could you use "tables" and "PDCs" or "computers" without cluttering up the discussion with whatever it is you mean by 'analog' since we clearly are too stupid to understand, and tell us what your issues with not teaching from tables are?
You can do it if you try.
If you, for example, say:
"Tables are necessary to understand the basics of decompression theory." Then you've made a specific, concise claim that we can discuss.
But without actually knowing what your issue is other than whatever tables being analog has to do with it (again, we're just too dumb) then we're going no where.
Thanks.
But even without that, let's try and pick apart your claims as I understand them:
This is a poor analogy that is not applicable here. Neither the PDC nor the Table are building the model by hand. They are both representative of deeper items that require a lot of pre-calculations and research to provide -- the details of which are not relevant to understanding the output.
The Dive table is far more comparable to a logarithmic table than learning basic arithmetic. What is comparable to basic mathematical operations would be the underlying decompression theory and understanding of nitrogen loading and off-gassing as related to depth and time.
Do you believe that decompression theory can not be taught without tables? (A simple answer please, it really is a yes or no question).
There are two issues here, but both are wrapped up into somehow making "fundamental knowledge" directly tied to tables. Tables are not necessary to teach fundamental knowledge about decompression. Indeed, tables themselves come from the same sort of calculations that the PDC is dynamically doing.
Do you believe that decompression theory can not be taught without tables? (A simple answer please, it really is a yes or no question).
I'd agree with that point. But all analogies have their limits. Because this is a relatively sound analogy does not make the analogy of how basic mathematical functions are to calculators correctly comparable with how dive tables are to dive computers.
Do you believe that decompression theory can not be taught without tables? (A simple answer please, it really is a yes or no question).
This is a false analogy. A correct analogy would be that foundation and greater utility is first learning and comprehending basic decompression theory and dive planning, while the simplified approximation of the results of the model (either a table or a PDC) is a tool to make dive planning feasible for someone unable to work out the calculations of the underlying model (which is most of us).
Do you believe that decompression theory can not be taught without tables? (A simple answer please, it really is a yes or no question).
With the exception of losing it, or damaging it so that it is unreadable, sure. But you still have to rely on a bottom timer and depth gage, both of which have failure rates. The timer will also have a battery that could die at a most inconvenient time if you are not being a responsible diver and checking your gear and caring for it appropriately.
I agree on both claims about the properties of dive computers.
Just like your bottom timer. Or if your depth gage fails. How are those intrinsically different?
Yes, the method of calculating the model can be different (though most all tables have been produced using computers for many years now, so the claim really isn't entirely true). But so what? Do you have any evidence at all that the underlying model being calculated is different in any way that effects divers?
I can calculate the the value of Pi using exceedingly precise measurements of a circle's properties, and do a whole lot of long division by hand.
I can use various logarithmic tables and solve Euler's identity for Pi.
I can calculate the value of pi by throwing food
I can calculate the value of pi using some elementary calculus and the formula
or
I can use particle physics and Heisenberg's uncertinty principle
I can use any number of discrete functions to calculate PI to any arbitrary number of digits, such as:
or
Would you like to explain how one of these methods is inherently superior to another?
I can look up a pre-printed value of pi, to say, 10,000 digits
Do you believe that one of those methods to be superior to another? Are the continuous functions going to provide you a better value for pi than the discrete functions?
(Good Diving & Karma to all this Weekend. . .:cool2