Print

Print


> >To continue the discussion, I have to move on to what I think about when
> >making decisions about my own diving.  This is a different question, one
I
> >have both a right and responsibility to answer.  For context, I use the
> >strictest definition of reverse profile.  I consider any dive that starts
at
> >one level and includes descent to a deeper level part way into the dive
and
> >any in a series of dives which is even an inch deeper than the previous
dive
> >to be a reverse profile.
>
> In fact, that IS the definition used by Cochran's computers checking only
> the MAX depths to decide whether two profiles are "reverse" or not.
>
> THEREIN lies the PROBLEM of a well-defined definition that is truely
> ILL-DEFINED and ILL-TARGETED for the intended meaning of a "reverse
profile"
> in the COMMONSENSE as well as scientific theory use of the that term.
 
My comment was not in the context of the Cochran computer.  Based on my
understanding of what it did, I agree completely.
 
In the context of human thinking, I find no fault with your method.  You
seem to favor a more flexible definition of reverse profile with an
corresponding adjustment in how it effects your decision to dive.  I favor a
strict definition with a different adjustment in how it effects my decision
to dive.  Within the limits of our respective risk tolerance, we'd both make
an equally valid choice.  There's really is more than one way to skin this
cat.
 
Lee