|
Post by hplasm on Sept 15, 2007 21:01:48 GMT -4
I'm sorry, but I feel I must jump in and defend IDW here; he claims to have an IQ equal to Einstein, and looking through his many and varied posts, both here, and on other Fora, I must concur that he does, indeed, have an IQ at least equal to, or at worst, slightly less than that of the great man himself.
Einstein's current IQ, of course.
Edit: (This sounds like it should have started with..."Here, on Whicker Island...") 8)
|
|
|
Post by svector on Sept 16, 2007 5:58:38 GMT -4
I'm sorry, but I feel I must jump in and defend IDW here; he claims to have an IQ equal to Einstein, and looking through his many and varied posts, both here, and on other Fora, I must concur that he does, indeed, have an IQ at least equal to, or at worst, slightly less than that of the great man himself. Einstein's current IQ, of course. Oh, I thought maybe you meant Bob Einstein (aka Super Dave Osborne)
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Sept 17, 2007 16:41:56 GMT -4
3.3E5 does not mean 3.3 to the fifth power. It means 3.3 times ten-to-the-fifth-power. The problem is not that IDW wrongly computed 3.3 to the fifth power, but that he says 3.3E5 is equivalent to 3.3^5 -- it is not -- nor is it equivalent to 3.3*5. Exponential representation is a well-known, well-used construct in science and engineering, and for IDW not to be algebraically conversant in the concept or familiar with its various notations displays his gross ignorance on the topics he seems most to value. It is slightly more complicated than that. IDW has finally accepted (it seems) that 3.3E5 = 3.3 x 10 5But he still thinks 3.3e5 = 3.3 5The difference (to him) is the "E" and "e" (caps). Apparently this "e for exponent" thing is something he was taught to use on a typewriter. (The joy came when he claimed that this was less confusing than using "^" for exponent!) I'm active on that thread and challenged him to show that was correct, but all he has is some (claimed) personal memory of what he did at school. (Has anyone here ever seen that?) Of course, all the scientific notation kerfuffle started with him loudly complaining about what was "proper" in a scientific discussion (he was trying to distract from his mistake) - so using some odd notation that he (claims to have) learned in typing class 30 years ago seems a bit ironic!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 17, 2007 17:16:40 GMT -4
I guess no-one better introduce him to (3.3e)5
eta: which, if anyone is curious and can't be bothered locating a calculator, is around 58,082.0732
eta2: fix quote
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 17, 2007 17:57:08 GMT -4
Apparently this "e for exponent" thing is something he was taught to use on a typewriter.
Absolute total hogwash, crap, rubbish, and codswollop. You can do true superscription and subscription on any typewriter by rolling the platen half a line and typing the character. The better typewriters even had detents at the half-line so you could consistently register the superscripts. Otherwise your sequence of superscripted characters might lack a good visual baseline. The cheaper ones at least had a lever that relaxed the detents and let the platen roll freely.
I wrote countless scientific and engineering papers on manual and electric typewriters early in college and there was never any other method used besides the half-click of the platen. I have collected literally tens of thousands of documents written 30 years ago and more on typewriters and I have never seen any other method used, nor has the supposed "e" convention appeared.
Prior to about 1985, all publishers of scientific and technical issued guidelines for the typewriting of manuscripts which included how properly to render mathematical formulas and technical notation on a standard text-only typewriter. Those conventions rarely changed. And none of them I saw mentioned "e" as an exponentiation operator. There were two standards: the half-click method mentioned above, and the single-space method where the line above the principal baseline of the formula was nothing but exponents (if any) and the line below was nothing but superscripts. (This was primarily to make the intended position abundantly clear to the typesetter, to correct for typewriters whose lines were naturally wobbly.)
Using "e" as an exponentiation operator in physical science formulae runs afoul of "e" as the base of the natural logarithms. Raising that "e" to a power is a term that occurs very frequently in scientific literature. Not only is IDW's suggestion completely unsupported by evidence, it immediately presents a serious ambiguity.
...all he has is some (claimed) personal memory of what he did at school.
In other words, he's rewiring the universe again to make it appear as if he never made a mistake. Of course I can't vouch for what he may actually have been taught (and it's obviously his intent to hide behind that), but his insinuation that "e for exponent" represented some sort of convention is utter hogwash.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 17, 2007 19:47:01 GMT -4
As one of the older members of this forum (49) and as a member of probably the last generation to use typewriters extensively, I must concur with what Jay just posted. The following notations, as I have always seen them used, are equivalent:
3.3E5 = 3.3E+5 = 3.3e5 = 3.3e+5 = 3.3 x 10^5 = 3.3 x 105
I have no recollection of 3.3e5 being used to mean 3.3^5 or 3.35 under any circumstances. IDW is just searching for excuses to keep from having to admit a stupid mistake.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Sept 17, 2007 20:44:03 GMT -4
Jay and Bob: Yep. That's all what made it so funny that he claimed his way more "clearer" and that using "^" was a deliberate attempt to confuse him and trick him into making a mistake. (He has sort of "admitted" his mistake - but does a lot of wiggling to try to take no responsibility).
Phantom Wolf: you misquoted my quote of IDW. He really does mean 3.3e5 not 3.3e5.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 17, 2007 21:18:54 GMT -4
Fixed, the hazzards of c&p quoting.
Jay/Bob, I seem to recall that at least one of our later typewritters actually had a lever that you could press that raised or lowered the platen that half line. Could make things really interesting if you locvked it into place, then forgot to take it off......
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 17, 2007 22:04:53 GMT -4
...he claimed his way more "clearer"
It isn't. And it's not supported by a claim to have been taught that way 30 years ago in a typing class. Frankly I'd be surprised if a typing teacher had told him any such thing. But in the unlikely even that's what happened, it's still not a clearer notation.
...using "^" was a deliberate attempt to confuse him and trick him into making a mistake.
As if he needs our help making a mistake.
I can understand how ^ might be confusing if you've never used one of the programming languages that express exponentiation that way. I still see ** occasionally, but it has almost completely disappeared.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 18, 2007 2:08:06 GMT -4
Absolute total hogwash, crap, rubbish, and codswollop. Holy guacamole! Jay unloaded his entire "nonsense euphemism" arsenal... this must be bad.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Sept 18, 2007 2:46:08 GMT -4
Absolute total hogwash, crap, rubbish, and codswollop. Holy guacamole! Jay unloaded his entire "nonsense euphemism" arsenal... this must be bad. Yes and he clearly used them in order of preference, the trusty "hogwash" retaining its firm grip on first place.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 18, 2007 4:24:36 GMT -4
Them hogs are getting mighty clean.
(Now I'm off to mix a fresh bucket of propwash...)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 18, 2007 11:28:59 GMT -4
As one of the older members of this forum (49) and as a member of probably the last generation to use typewriters extensively, I must concur with what Jay just posted. I learned to type on typewriters in my High School years and agree with Jay.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 18, 2007 12:03:39 GMT -4
They still taught typing on typewriters at my high school when I was in grade 9 (1989-90). The next year the typing room was turned into a computer lab.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 18, 2007 12:12:16 GMT -4
At one time I had a large collection of manual typewriters. This last year I sold them all to my theater for a production of Thoroughly Modern Millie, and they have them in their prop warehouse now. A number of them were historical relics even among typewriters. But most of them were the 1920s Underwood-style ones that I picked up in thrift shops, usually to use as props. Sadly only a few were in suitable working condition.
In the cataloguing department of the University of Michigan library they have a framed memo from the late 1880s written from one cataloguer to another arguing in favor for the department purchasing a typewriter, extolling the virtues of typewritten catalogue cards over the handwritten ones. I also have a few of those old handwritten catalogue cards as well as some early typed ones. I don't remember when the Hatcher Library finally retired its card catalogue, but up until the late 1980s they still had it, with cards printed by computer from the MARC records stored on the IBM 3084 in the basement.
|
|