27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, I read what the OP wrote. It is completely accurate. For a sine wave, 0° is zero, 90° is +1, 180° is zero,  270° is -1. These are 90° apart. (Obviously, they are not "all" 90° apart, but that bit is your invention).

So who wrote  (invented)  this ?

16 hours ago, mt3209 said:

....(OP lists three items).................just 90 degrees apart. 

I said

15 hours ago, studiot said:

They can't all be 90^o apart from each other

Which is true : 3 items cannot all be 90^o apart unless they are on three separate cartesian axes, which the intems listed are not.

 

 

If, of course, the OP is talking about "like for like", he is still not correct.

Yes zero points are 90^o apart in angular distance along the angular axis.
But what angle are they part form either positive or negative zones?

Yes positive zones are 90^o apart from negative zones.

But positive zones are 180^o apart for the next positive zone.

 

So I maintain that only two out of three are possible.

Edited February 26, 20205 yr by studiot

30 minutes ago, studiot said:

So who wrote  (invented)  this ?

I said

Which is true : 3 items cannot all be 90^o apart unless they are on three separate cartesian axes, which the intems listed are not.

 

 

If, of course, the OP is talking about "like for like", he is still not correct.

Yes zero points are 90^o apart in angular distance along the angular axis.
But what angle are they part form either positive or negative zones?

Yes positive zones are 90^o apart from negative zones.

But positive zones are 180^o apart for the next positive zone.

 

So I maintain that only two out of three are possible.

It interesting how we seem to interpret the same words quite differently.

Consider this line (from an imaginary Sherlock Holmes story):

"Holmes pointed out the faint footsteps in the dust, just under 1 yard apart leading to the door"

Now, from that you would appear to deduce that the person who left the footsteps must have been walking in a small circle (or doing an odd dance). Whereas, I see it as quite reasonable for the footsteps to be in a line and spaced by 1 yard (even though there are increasingly large distances from the first footprint.

You seem to think that "N things X distance apart" must all be X distance from all the others. Or does this interpretation only apply to angular measures?

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

If, of course, the OP is talking about "like for like", he is still not correct.

Yes zero points are 90^o apart in angular distance along the angular axis.
But what angle are they part form either positive or negative zones?

Yes positive zones are 90^o apart from negative zones.

But positive zones are 180^o apart for the next positive zone.

Oh dear, now I am getting confused.

Of course zero points are 180^o apart, as are positive and negative zones.

Positive and positive or negative and negative zones are 360^o apart.

 

All this argument is rather silly and besides the point.
Sine waves are not fractal so why did the OP raise them (I didn't) ?

In fact I fail to see any connection between the title of this thread and anything else the OP has said so far.

Edited February 26, 20205 yr by studiot

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

Oh dear, now I am getting confused.

Of course zero points are 180^o apart, as are positive and negative zones.

Positive and positive or negative and negative zones are 360^o apart.

Exactly. But each of the "steps" (0 to +1, +1 to 0, 0 to -1, -1 to 0, etc) are 90° apart. Which is what the OP said.

50 minutes ago, studiot said:

All this argument is rather silly and besides the point.

I just wanted to understand your point (and this discussion was off topic in the original thread).

50 minutes ago, studiot said:

Sine waves are not fractal so why did the OP raise them (I didn't) ?

Quite.There is so much that is actually wrong in the original thread, which is why I picked you up for arguing about an interpretation of the word "apart".