sexagesimal

[Alberto Micol]

On Sep 17, 2006, at 02:35, Roy Williams wrote:

>
> It would have the advantage of placating the IRAF contingent, but  
> perhaps it is a little brittle, depending as it does on the  
> presence of a tiny decimal point?
>
> 1h 2.m 3d 4m 5.s --> RA=1h 2m 0s, Dec = 3d 4m 0s
> is different from
> 1h 2m 3.d 4m 5.s --> RA=1h 2m 3s, Dec = 4d 5m 0s

1h 2m 3.d 4m 5.s

Would you trust the letters more than the decimal point?
To me 3.d 4m 5.s means that the writer was drunk, hence
I would not trust the number anyway!

3.d 4m 5.s is clearly a typo.

And given that I know that there is a typo, the question is
which typo?

Was it really 1h 2m 3d 4m 5.s
or was it  1h 2m 3s 4d 5.m ?

Yes, the first one is more likely what the writer meant,
but typos are typos...

Al