Donna Richoux = Mathematician?
D. Spencer Hines
Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, does not understand simple
two-dimensional graphing ---- using the Cartesian Grid and the elements
of Analytic Geometry.
This is what transpired, Gentle Readers:
"The term is used in the psychology of learning. The amount learned is
plotted on the Y-axis, and time spent learning is plotted on the X-axis.
A steep learning curve, therefore, represents something which is learned
quickly. In that, you are correct."
"Padraig Breathnach" ---- 17 June 2000
Yes, that is correct and coherent.
Donna Richoux then posted this rampant, unadulterated gibberish:
"I made up [sic] some data to fit the model you describe, and plotted
it. It made a completely flat line. (Besides, it felt like [sic] a
very unlikely graph for people to have made.)"
Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, 18 June 2000
It appears to be Donna Richoux who is flat-lined ---- on the EEG. "[I]t
felt like...."
Is it any wonder that American school-children come in 13th in the world
in mathematics competitions, when they have teachers who are this
bollixed and incompetent?
I am simply appalled, Gentle Readers. We should all be appalled.
----
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
Garry J. Vass
news:#8okfwW2$GA.281@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Donna Richoux is/was reportedly a teacher of mathematics.
>
Stop it.
I'm asking you nicely. Stop it. Just find some happy ending for this
thread and stop it.
Kind regards,
GJV
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Garry J. Vass" <g...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:8ijgd2$39e$1...@apple.news.easynet.net...
Robert Lieblich
>
> Donna Richoux is/was reportedly a teacher of mathematics.
> two-dimensional graphing ---- using the Cartesian Grid and the elements
> of Analytic Geometry.
> This is what transpired, Gentle Readers:
Ever look up "transpire" in your dictionary, DSH? Surely a classicist
like yourself would not use a word whose etymology yields the definition
"leak through" or "osmose" to mean "happen" or "occur." Or would he?
> "The term is used in the psychology of learning. The amount learned is
> plotted on the Y-axis, and time spent learning is plotted on the X-axis.
> A steep learning curve, therefore, represents something which is learned
> quickly. In that, you are correct."
> "Padraig Breathnach" ---- 17 June 2000
> Yes, that is correct and coherent.
No, actually it is not. What is plotted on the Y axis is time spent in
the performance of one unit of whatever is being performed, e.g.,
assembling one widget. What is plotted on the X axis is units, 0 to n.
The curve descends left to right -- as a J curve on a standard graph, as
a straight line on log paper. The steeper the curve, the greater the
pace at which the person or group performing the work reduces the time
needed to perform one unit of work, the pace slackening logarithmically
as the number of units increases. Although called a "learning curve,"
the curve actually measures *improvement*.
>
> Donna Richoux then posted this rampant, unadulterated gibberish:
> "I made up [sic] some data to fit the model you describe, and plotted
> it. It made a completely flat line. (Besides, it felt like [sic] a
> very unlikely graph for people to have made.)"
Not at all surprising -- PB's recipe for the curve was incorrect, so
Donna's result was not at all tasty. Fortunately, PB tends to be right
about the important matters, e.g., things Hibernian and things Hinesian.
> Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, 18 June 2000
> It appears to be Donna Richoux who is flat-lined ---- on the EEG.
It appears to be D. S. Hines who should be delivered to the potter's
field.
"[I]t
> felt like...."
What is wrong with this informal locution in a medium of casual
communication like Usenet? If you don't like the way we communicate
here at AUE, David, I'm sure you can find the exit.
> > Is it any wonder that American school-children come in 13th in the world
> in mathematics competitions, when they have teachers who are this
> bollixed and incompetent?
Is it any wonder that DSH no longer teaches at Hawaii Pacific or any
other institution of learning -- at any level?
>
> I am simply appalled, Gentle Readers. We should all be appalled.
I, too, am appalled. But not at Donna.
And I subway to work.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Vide infra pro interscriptibus.
>
> Liberal trimming throughout of Lieblich II's excessive Pecksniffian
> detritus and twaddle.
<similar trimming of Hines blather>
One thing I didn't have to delete, David, was your response to my
definition of "learning curve." You deleted my explanation without
comment of any kind. Are you afraid of showing your ignorance, or is it
simply that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that I was correct
on the essential point?
Perhaps you will now treat us to another upside-down teletype or another
exegesis on "sit" and "set." Or perhaps you will for once realize that
you have disgraced yourself and go sit in the corner without making an
even greater fool of yourself.
As to your animadversions against Donna -- at any gathering place where
people are present in the actual protoplasm, what you said about Donna
would have sufficed to have you hurled out the nearest window, ass over
teakettle. Those present would be vying for the honor of participating.
The foregoing is a thoroughly unsubtle hint. But you won't take it.
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> Assume two straightforward learning tasks. An example might be to recite
> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first target,
> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope. If the time
> taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
> perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
> second curve has a steeper slope.
I doubt any of us will get out of this alive, but PB and I don't seem to
be talking about the same thing. The slope of a learning curve
represents a *rate* -- the rate of improvement in the performance of a
given task. It compares input to the number of antedecent episodes of
performance of the task. You can't have a curve without more than one
point, so comparing the input required by any one instance of task A to
the input required by the comparable instance of task B tells you
nothing about the learning curve of either task. Indeed, the sonnet
that takes two hours to learn and recite may have a steeper learning
curve -- meaning that improvement occurs faster in the repetition of the
learning and reciting task -- than the sonnet that takes one hour to
learn.[1]
Learning curves *can* compare the rate of improvement in the performance
of one task with the rate of improvement in the performance of some
other task. They are not intended to compare individual instances of
performance of differing tasks.
"Learning curve" as commonly used in general usage is what Fowler called
a "popularized technicality," and like many such it is often used in
ways not in conformity with its technical meaning.
PB and I may both be right (or both wrong, or some other permutation).
[1] To give the example some connection to reality, imagine the passage
of some time, say a day, between instances of learning and reciting.
Robert Lieblich
<snip a bunch of stuff about learning curves>
> Both right.
Thank you, sir. I bow (with no sarcasm) to your superior knowledge.
Now if only we could teach DSH something. Anything!
Frances Kemmish
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> "The term is used in the psychology of learning. The amount learned is
> >> plotted on the Y-axis, and time spent learning is plotted on the X-axis.
> >> A steep learning curve, therefore, represents something which is learned
> >> quickly. In that, you are correct."
> >
> >> "Padraig Breathnach" ---- 17 June 2000
> >
> >> Yes, that is correct and coherent.
> >
> >No, actually it is not. What is plotted on the Y axis is time spent in
> >the performance of one unit of whatever is being performed, e.g.,
> >assembling one widget. What is plotted on the X axis is units, 0 to n.
> >The curve descends left to right -- as a J curve on a standard graph, as
> >a straight line on log paper. The steeper the curve, the greater the
> >pace at which the person or group performing the work reduces the time
> >needed to perform one unit of work, the pace slackening logarithmically
> >as the number of units increases. Although called a "learning curve,"
> >the curve actually measures *improvement*.
> >>
> earlier from memory is correct. I checked further, and found something
> similar to Robert's description in a work on industrial psychology --
> alongside the model I described.
>
> Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
>
> Assume two straightforward learning tasks. An example might be to recite
> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first target,
> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope. If the time
> taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
> perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
> second curve has a steeper slope.
>
> presume her data-set was not appropriate to the task she was attempting.
>
That's interesting, Padraig, but I have not seen "learning curve"
used to refer to what you are describing. It doesn't seem to be to
be terribly useful either, but I first encountered learning curves
in industrial psychology, so perhaps I'm biased.
I only know 'learning curve' as showing how people improve their
performance as they gain experience, but at a decreasing rate. That
isn't a very elegant way of putting it, and that is why I relied on
other people's descriptions to explain to Donna what I thought was
meant.
Fran
John O'Flaherty
Now that everything has settled down, here come I. If you plot things
learned on the horizontal axis, and time spent on the vertical axis,
things that are harder to learn will show a steeper line. And if you
make a logarithmic curve starting at 0,0 with a high rate of change in
y/x, changing as x increases to a higher rate of change in x/y, then
that would correspond with what I think of as the usual meaning of 'a
steep learning curve'.
john
Padraig Breathnach
PB
D. Spencer Hines
Liberal trimming throughout of Lieblich II's excessive Pecksniffian
detritus and twaddle.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:394D47...@erols.com...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| >
| > Donna Richoux is/was reportedly a teacher of mathematics.
|
| > Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, does not understand simple
| > two-dimensional graphing ---- using the Cartesian Grid and the
elements
| > of Analytic Geometry.
|
| > This is what transpired, Gentle Readers:
|
| Ever look up "transpire" in your dictionary, DSH? Surely a classicist
| like yourself would not use a word whose etymology yields the
definition
| "leak through" or "osmose" to mean "happen" or "occur." Or would he?
As usual, Lieblich II, the cocker spaniel, has his puppy blinders on.
"Develop" or "occur" are standard synonyms for "transpire." If
'transpire' was good enough for Abigail Adams [1744-1818] (bright,
courageous wife of John Adams, 2nd President of the United States) it's
certainly good enough for me.
| > "The term is used in the psychology of learning. The amount learned
is
| > plotted on the Y-axis, and time spent learning is plotted on the
X-axis.
| > A steep learning curve, therefore, represents something which is
learned
| > quickly. In that, you are correct."
|
| > "Padraig Breathnach" ---- 17 June 2000
|
| > Yes, that is correct and coherent.
We often say, "She has a very high-slope learning curve." [e.g., Dr.
Camille Paglia]
We often say, "He has a very shallow-slope learning curve." [e.g., Mr.
West]
| > Donna Richoux then posted this rampant, unadulterated gibberish:
|
| > "I made up [sic] some data to fit the model you describe, and
plotted
| > it. It made a completely flat line. (Besides, it felt like [sic] a
| > very unlikely graph for people to have made.)"
|
| > Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, 18 June 2000
|
| > It appears to be Donna Richoux who is flat-lined ---- on the EEG.
| "[I]t felt like...."
| > > Is it any wonder that American school-children come in 13th in the
world
| > in mathematics competitions, when they have teachers who are this
| > bollixed and incompetent?
| > I am simply appalled, Gentle Readers. We should all be appalled.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Exitus Acta Probat
Ex Scientia Tridens
D. Spencer Hines
Defense of "The Lady In Distress"?
Apparently, Donna Richoux is incapable of defending herself ---- and
needs these two "big-strong-men" [heh-heh] to bail her out of her
egregious gaffe on "learning curve" -- which she is furiously trying to
distance herself from ---- currently.
Pitiful. The strong, bright, good-looking women I love and respect can
all carry their own water in an argument and don't need scruffy-ruffian
surrogates, such as these two, making physical threats to their
opponents.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:394D6A...@erols.com...
[...]
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>
>[ . . . ]
>
>> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first
target,
>> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope. If the
time
>> taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
>> perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
>> second curve has a steeper slope.
>
>be talking about the same thing. The slope of a learning curve
>represents a *rate* -- the rate of improvement in the performance of a
>given task. It compares input to the number of antedecent episodes of
>performance of the task. You can't have a curve without more than one
>point, so comparing the input required by any one instance of task A to
>the input required by the comparable instance of task B tells you
>nothing about the learning curve of either task. Indeed, the sonnet
>that takes two hours to learn and recite may have a steeper learning
>curve -- meaning that improvement occurs faster in the repetition of the
>learning and reciting task -- than the sonnet that takes one hour to
>learn.[1]
>
thing. I understand the variant which you instance; you seem to believe that
it is the only application.
True, you cannot have a curve with only one point. I did not mention 0,0 --
no time elapsed, nothing learned.
>Learning curves ... are not intended to compare individual instances of
>performance of differing tasks.
>
Who says so? It might not often be useful to draw up a set of learning
curves for one person over a range of tasks. It can be very useful to
establish learning curves for groups. It is a means of measuring the
difficulty of a learning assignment. This can be useful in planning courses
of study. And it is such an understanding of learning curves which has been
taken up by the ill-informed and incorrectly used.
>"Learning curve" as commonly used in general usage is what Fowler called
>a "popularized technicality," and like many such it is often used in
>ways not in conformity with its technical meaning.
>
True, Which is why I avoid using the term.
>PB and I may both be right (or both wrong, or some other permutation).
>
Both right.
>[1] To give the example some connection to reality, imagine the passage
>of some time, say a day, between instances of learning and reciting.
>
Sure. And we could also devise a scheme for scoring out of 100 to allow for
the fact that people do not always attain targets. And if we had a very
large number of learners, each of whom decided how long to spend at the
task, then we could generate enough data points to keep Donna occupied for a
little time.
PB
candl...@my-deja.com
> Read the Tea Leaves.
thank you
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Murray Arnow
>Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>No, actually it is not. What is plotted on the Y axis is time spent in
>>the performance of one unit of whatever is being performed, e.g.,
>>assembling one widget. What is plotted on the X axis is units, 0 to n.
>>The curve descends left to right -- as a J curve on a standard graph, as
>>a straight line on log paper. The steeper the curve, the greater the
>>pace at which the person or group performing the work reduces the time
>>needed to perform one unit of work, the pace slackening logarithmically
>>as the number of units increases. Although called a "learning curve,"
>>the curve actually measures *improvement*.
>>>
>I don't want to be caught in the crossfire. I checked, and what I wrote
>earlier from memory is correct. I checked further, and found something
>similar to Robert's description in a work on industrial psychology --
>alongside the model I described.
>
>Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
>
>with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first target,
>the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope. If the time
>taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
>perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
>second curve has a steeper slope.
>
>presume her data-set was not appropriate to the task she was attempting.
>
I am having a bit of problem with the axes of these graphs. Typically, time is
plotted along the x-axis (abscissa) because it is the independent variable. The
rate of learning is the amount of information, n, acquired per unit time,
where n, the dependent variable, is plotted along the y-axis (ordinate). The
slope of the learning curve is dn/dt.
The longer it takes to learn n, the slower the slope of the curve. This
implies that easy material is learned quickly and gives a steep slope, while
difficult stuff takes longer and gives a slow slope.
If I recall correctly (too much Iron Chef watching), this is the way Donna had
interpreted the meaning of learning curve. And indeed, there is a conflicting
usage of the term if psychologists don't know their ordinates from their
abscissas.
Donna Richoux
> Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I'm afraid I'm still going to
cause trouble here.
>
> Assume two straightforward learning tasks. An example might be to recite
> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first target,
> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope.
What curve? You have given me two numbers -- one sonnet, one hour. Plot
(1,1) on a graph and you get one point. One point does not determine any
curve.
>If the time
> taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
> perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
> second curve has a steeper slope.
You're not thinking of putting this second point on the same graph and
connecting the two points, are you? At least then we'd have a curve, but
that's not what you said.
There are also other things that could theoretically be plotted, but
again, you didn't say them and I don't see why I should speculate.
Everyone can see the risk I have run by saying "the emperor has no
clothes," but say it I do. So far no one has shown me any convincing
evidence of plotting time against *material learned* that is plausible
for producing the phrase "a steep learning curve."
I am actually totally satisfied with the answer Fran gave about
*industry* plotting amount-produced against cost-per-unit, the shape of
the result showing the effect of "learning." It is elegant, it is
documented, it make sense, and I really doubt that anyone is going to
produce as good evidence from the field of education.
However, I'm always willing to be wrong. Just don't make me do all the
work, please.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
James Follett
D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>Pitiful. The strong, bright, good-looking women I love and respect can
>all carry their own water in an argument and don't need scruffy-ruffian
>surrogates, such as these two, making physical threats to their
>opponents.
Damn. In the scruffy-ruffian stakes, I've always regarded Bob and
Paddy as the genuine articles.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
tiglath
Hapless Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote
> Donna Richoux is/was reportedly a teacher of mathematics.
>
> Donna Richoux, alias Nurse Ratched, does not understand simple
> two-dimensional graphing ---- using the Cartesian Grid and the
elements
> of Analytic Geometry.
Mr. Hines likes to use big words to dazzle the savages.
Unfortunately, each time he borrows an important sounding term he
comes up a cropper. Neither a Cartesian grid nor Analytic Geometry
are needed to plot a two-dimensional graph on a Cartesian coordinate
system.
The cells in a Cartesian grid use the THREE Cartesian directions (x,
y, and z).
Mr. Hines should see what Cartesian Grids are and are used for at
http://george.arc.nasa.gov/~jmelton/cart_whatis.html
Not the right tool for "simple two-dimensional graphing."
tiglath
Hapless Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote
> Will you look at these simple pogues come running Gallantly to the
> Defense of "The Lady In Distress"?
>
> Apparently, Donna Richoux is incapable of defending herself ---- and
> needs these two "big-strong-men" [heh-heh] to bail her out of her
> egregious gaffe on "learning curve" -- which she is furiously trying
to
> distance herself from ---- currently.
>
> Pitiful. The strong, bright, good-looking women I love and respect
can
> all carry their own water in an argument and don't need
scruffy-ruffian
> surrogates, such as these two, making physical threats to their
> opponents.
> | teakettle. Those present would be vying for the honor of
> participating.
> |
> | The foregoing is a thoroughly unsubtle hint. But you won't take
it.
Trying to pick a fight with Donna, THINKING it might be easier than
the usual course his threads take in a.u.e...
If Donna is indeed a mathematician, she'll find Mr. Hines to be no
problem, for, he comes to this battle unarmed. Borrowing a phrase
from Winston Churchill... to Mr. Hines mathematics are "an Alice in
Wonderland world, at the portals of which stood the 'Quadratic
Equation' followed by the dim chambers inhabited by the Differential
Calculus and then a strange corridor of Sines, Cosines, and Tangents
in a highly square-rooted condition."
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
>
>I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I'm afraid I'm still going to
>cause trouble here.
>>
>> Assume two straightforward learning tasks. An example might be to recite
>> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first
target,
>> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope.
>
>What curve? You have given me two numbers -- one sonnet, one hour. Plot
>(1,1) on a graph and you get one point. One point does not determine any
>curve.
>
instance; zero time, zero amount learned.
>I am actually totally satisfied with the answer Fran gave about
>*industry* plotting amount-produced against cost-per-unit, the shape of
>the result showing the effect of "learning." It is elegant, it is
>documented, it make sense, and I really doubt that anyone is going to
>produce as good evidence from the field of education.
>
Nothing wrong with Fran's answer. I think that there is nothing wrong with
mine either, except for the clarity of explanation. There is more than one
model of learning curve. It seems to be common to all that steepness
represents facility of learning.
PB
tiglath
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:30t35.2966$QT5....@news.iol.ie...
> Donna Richoux wrote:
> >Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> >> Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
> >
In the end, "curve" loses its technical sense in non-technical speech.
Then, it seems logic to call "steep" something hard to learn.
Technically correct, by some definition, but a bit non-sensical would
be to say, "It is not easy to understand Quantum Mechanics, it has a
very flat learning curve."
Mike Dana
> Trying to pick a fight with Donna, THINKING it might be easier than
> the usual course his threads take in a.u.e...
>
> If Donna is indeed a mathematician, she'll find Mr. Hines to be no
> problem, for, he comes to this battle unarmed. Borrowing a phrase
> from Winston Churchill... to Mr. Hines mathematics are "an Alice in
> Wonderland world, at the portals of which stood the 'Quadratic
> Equation' followed by the dim chambers inhabited by the Differential
> Calculus and then a strange corridor of Sines, Cosines, and Tangents
> in a highly square-rooted condition."
Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
"Professional" Mathematician...
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"Charity cannot be coerced: if it isn't voluntary, it isn't charity."
--Mike Dana, 7 February, 1997
John O'Flaherty
Until suddenly you catch on, and then the curve takes a ...
john
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, Jabba does have a point here. Genuine articles indeed.
A woman who must needs depend on those two for defence must be in Dire
Straits indeed.
However Garry Vass was actually the first knight into the lists ----
with his toothpick of a lance ---- on that three-legged destrier he
favours.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"James Follett" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20000619.1...@marage.demon.co.uk...
| On Monday, in article <#yM36jY2$GA.318@cpmsnbbsa08>
| D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
|
| >Pitiful. The strong, bright, good-looking women I love and respect
can
| >all carry their own water in an argument and don't need
scruffy-ruffian
| >surrogates, such as these two, making physical threats to their
| >opponents.
|
Garry J. Vass
> Hmmmmm.
>
> Yes, Jabba does have a point here. Genuine articles indeed.
>
> A woman who must needs depend on those two for defence must be in Dire
> Straits indeed.
>
> However Garry Vass was actually the first knight into the lists ----
> with his toothpick of a lance ---- on that three-legged destrier he
> favours.
> --
Har! The major consideration being that the reference line in the other
thread was so long that Ukonline rejected it!
So I have to root around for a shorter thread, otherwise my three-legged
destrier wouldn't have a part to pace in...
James Follett
g...@totally-official.com "Garry J. Vass" wrote:
>D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
>news:#ejooZi2$GA.280@cpmsnbbsa09...
>> Hmmmmm.
>>
>> Yes, Jabba does have a point here. Genuine articles indeed.
>>
>> A woman who must needs depend on those two for defence must be in Dire
>> Straits indeed.
Right behind you on this one, David. A pair of Telegraph Roadies
if ever there was. Suitable candidates for Private Investigations.
Love over Gold from
Jabba
D. Spencer Hines
Need some help from Dexterpondians on this one, s'il vous plait.
_Telegraph Roadies_ ---- would Holmes and Watson have known that one?
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"James Follett" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20000619.2...@marage.demon.co.uk...
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Let me give Donna some simple data to illustrate the point.
>
>I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but I'm afraid I'm still going to
>cause trouble here.
>>
>> Assume two straightforward learning tasks. An example might be to recite
>> with 100% accuracy two sonnets. If in order to accomplish the first target,
>> the learner spends one hour, then the curve has a certain slope.
>
>What curve? You have given me two numbers -- one sonnet, one hour. Plot
>(1,1) on a graph and you get one point. One point does not determine any
>curve.
Two points; you're forgetting the origin -- the point in time when you
didn't know the sonnet at all. In the example, the slope is 1 of
course.
>>If the time
>> taken to learn the second sonnet is two hours (for whatever reason --
>> perhaps more obscure language and complex grammatical structure) then the
>> second curve has a steeper slope.
He meant shallower slope, I believe. The second sonnet takes longer to
learn.
>You're not thinking of putting this second point on the same graph and
>connecting the two points, are you? At least then we'd have a curve, but
>that's not what you said.
Two curves on the same graph with both curves originating from the
origin (0,0).
Charles Riggs
David McMurray
> Everyone can see the risk I have run by saying "the emperor has no
> clothes," but say it I do. So far no one has shown me any convincing
> evidence of plotting time against *material learned* that is plausible
> for producing the phrase "a steep learning curve."
Take a group of students learning to type. At the end of each hour of
training and practice, administer a typing test to each student. Plot
the scores for each student (vertical axis) against hours of practice
(horizontal axis). For each student, this process generates a learning
curve. Compare the curves of any two students; the "steeper" curve will
belong to the "better" student.
Note that learning curves are based on *cumulative* performance, not
learning *per unit of time* which can be constant or declining as
mastery is achieved (reflecting the fact that a learning curve typically
flattens out over time and may even have intermediate plateaus).
This is EdPsych 101. The fact that "steep learning curve" is now used --
to the consternation of all, it seems -- to mean something else entirely
ought not to be blamed on the psychologists who developed the notion of
a learning curve (and did not, as far as I know, talk about "steep"
ones).
The traditional "learning curve" measured student performance. As it is
now used, the phrase refers to the cumulative amount of learning which
must occur in order to master a subject within a reasonable time. For
example, consider memorizing a ten-line poem in ten hours. On average,
one must learn one line per hour -- one line by the end of the first
hour, two by the end of the second hour, etc. The generic graph of the
whole process is a straight line running from (0,0) to (10,10).
Now change the task -- make it a 100-line poem in ten hours. One must
now learn ten lines by the end of the first hour, twenty lines by the
end of the second hour, etc. The graph is now a straight line running
from (0,0) to (10,100). It's "steeper" than the first graph, reflecting
the fact that, other things being equal, learning a hundred-line poem in
ten hours is more difficult than learning a ten-line poem in ten hours.
> I am actually totally satisfied with the answer Fran gave about
> *industry* plotting amount-produced against cost-per-unit, the shape of
> the result showing the effect of "learning." It is elegant, it is
> documented, it make sense, and I really doubt that anyone is going to
> produce as good evidence from the field of education.
Learning curves in the field of education were well documented before
anyone thought to adapt them to pricing models.
--
David
Kenneth Cornelius
grid. Mr. Hines' sin appears to be that he capitalized it.
Michael Cargal
>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
>"Professional" Mathematician...
In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
--
Michael Cargal mhca...@home.com
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Michael Cargal" <mhca...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1hbvkski4jqm3solp...@4ax.com...
Donna Richoux
interesting responses on this subject in the last twenty-four hours. I
have answers partially written on some of them. I'm not certain I'll
have time to finish replies to all of them tonight, but I at least want
to acknowledge them and let the writers know I've read them and hope to
respond. (This is the time when the image of fighting the many-headed
hydra comes to mind -- sometimes, for each response I write, I get
several more to answer.) Meanwhile, some of what I say here may answer
others' points.
David McMurray <ik0...@kingston.net> wrote:
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Everyone can see the risk I have run by saying "the emperor has no
> > clothes," but say it I do. So far no one has shown me any convincing
> > evidence of plotting time against *material learned* that is plausible
> > for producing the phrase "a steep learning curve."
>
> Take a group of students learning to type. At the end of each hour of
> training and practice, administer a typing test to each student. Plot
> the scores for each student (vertical axis) against hours of practice
> (horizontal axis). For each student, this process generates a learning
> curve.
Thank you for making an effort to be clear. The only fuzzy point I see
in what you outline above is what kind of "score" is graphed. In a
typing test, it's a bit hard to get a percent-correct sort of score, you
are more likely to count the number of errors, or of course measure the
speed of the typing, or both -- measure speed of typing and take off
points for errors. Anyway, we can assume that in some way, a numerical
value is obtained for each test, and a higher number is considered to be
a better performance.
>Compare the curves of any two students; the "steeper" curve will
> belong to the "better" student.
Why? When I make up some imaginary students and plot their test scores
for each hour, this doesn't follow. One might start testing high and
stay right around the same (a near flat line). Another might start low
and gradually improve, while a third starts in the middle and gradually
improves -- at the same slope or rate. The steepness of the line does
not indicate who was the better student -- whatever it means to be a
better student, anyway. (Most changed? Highest results?).
That's the problem there, isn't it. By "better" student you must mean
the one with the biggest change between the first test and the last
test. Probably. Well, mathematically, the student who shows the biggest
increase from start to finish will have to have the steepest line on the
graph, overall, so what you are saying is consistent.
> Note that learning curves are based on *cumulative* performance,
Well, now you bring in "cumulative." What is that supposed to mean, in
regard to typing scores? If my test scores were 20, 35, and 51, Then I'm
supposed to plot a running total, 20, 55, and 106? Why?
Anyway, I know enough about adding curves to know that taking those same
scores I used above and plotting the running totals instead of the
individual numbers is not going to change anything meaningful. It will
make each line be steeper, that's all. Every other student's line will
be correspondingly steeper, too. So? What am I missing here?
>not
> learning *per unit of time* which can be constant or declining
Do I understand by this phrase you mean that learning is the change in
one test score to the next? Test scores can go up, be the same, or go
down, yes. I'm not so sure everyone would agree that the change in test
score from one test to the next equals "learning," but it's not a bad
approximation.
as
> mastery is achieved (reflecting the fact that a learning curve typically
> flattens out over time and may even have intermediate plateaus).
>
> This is EdPsych 101. The fact that "steep learning curve" is now used --
> to the consternation of all, it seems -- to mean something else entirely
> ought not to be blamed
I agree with you here. The phrase as it is used today may have no direct
connection to this learning psychology stuff, or it may have evolved
over a number of decades to where there is only the slightest historical
connection. But since people keep asking "what is the origin of the
phrase steep learning curve" and others keep trotting out one proposed
graph or another that purports to show difficulty of learning, I think
this subject is worth undertanding.
>on the psychologists who developed the notion of
> a learning curve (and did not, as far as I know, talk about "steep"
> ones).
So, if it's so well-known, can anybody give a reference here? Can
someone pull out the box of texts from under the bed and say,
"Smith-Barton and Hooey (1988) show curves exactly like that, made by
Feeblefritzer in 1922"? I would be delighted to hear of it. It would be
something concrete.
> The traditional "learning curve" measured student performance. As it is
> now used, the phrase refers to the cumulative amount of learning which
> must occur in order to master a subject within a reasonable time. For
> example, consider memorizing a ten-line poem in ten hours. On average,
> one must learn one line per hour -- one line by the end of the first
> hour, two by the end of the second hour, etc. The generic graph of the
> whole process is a straight line running from (0,0) to (10,10).
>
> Now change the task -- make it a 100-line poem in ten hours. One must
> now learn ten lines by the end of the first hour, twenty lines by the
> end of the second hour, etc. The graph is now a straight line running
> from (0,0) to (10,100). It's "steeper" than the first graph, reflecting
> the fact that, other things being equal, learning a hundred-line poem in
> ten hours is more difficult than learning a ten-line poem in ten hours.
Now, that kind of model is the same as Padraig and Bob's, the two-point
lines. I will post on the shortcomings of that elsewhere. Oh, well, in a
nutshell, in case I don't get to it tonight -- these two-point lines
don't *tell* you anything. "Well, yup, it shore is harder to learn ten
times more material in the same length of time. Gollee." You could have
known that without making the graph. Nor can you interpolate anything
useful about what went on during that interval (was it truly a straight
line or a J-curve, etc.) Therefore I do not believe any sane
psychologist spent any time whatsoever in drawing such two-point graphs.
Therefore such two-point graphs could not be the historical source of
the phrase.
That they may be the graph that some people have in mind when they say
the phrase today, is possible -- if we agree on the meaning of how
"steep learning curve" is used today and that's ANOTHER post.
> > I am actually totally satisfied with the answer Fran gave about
> > *industry* plotting amount-produced against cost-per-unit, the shape of
> > the result showing the effect of "learning." It is elegant, it is
> > documented, it make sense, and I really doubt that anyone is going to
> > produce as good evidence from the field of education.
>
> Learning curves in the field of education were well documented before
> anyone thought to adapt them to pricing models.
I'm sorry to be such a doubting Thomas, but if this were true, why
hasn't someone given some sort of authoritative reference by now? I'm
not going to go to Google and search on "learning curve" because I
figure I'll get fifty thousand metaphorical uses. Is there a site
specializing in classic learning psychology?
Again, I appreciate your post. I really am trying to make sense of this
stuff.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Franklin Cacciutto
became English majors because we couldn't do mathematics.
Padraig Breathnach
>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
>
>>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
>>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
>>"Professional" Mathematician...
>
>In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
Oxford University had not sunk to that level in his time.
PB
Padraig Breathnach
>I am very impressed by this thread, having long believed that most of us
>became English majors because we couldn't do mathematics.
>
What makes you think that "most of us became English majors"?
PB
Mike Page
<mhca...@home.com> wrote:
>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
>
>>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
>>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
>>"Professional" Mathematician...
>
>In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
No he wasn't; the Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a fellow of
Christ Church College, Oxford where he lectured in Mathematics.
Mike Page
Let the ape escape for e-mail
Robert Lieblich
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Michael Cargal wrote:
> | Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
> | >Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
> | >Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
> | >"Professional" Mathematician...
> | In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
> Back when kids actually learned some useful things in high school.
<snip sig and stuff>
Perhaps one of the uesful things that used to be taught in high school
is that Dodgson was never a high school teacher (or British equivalent).
He assumed a teaching position at Oxford almost immediately upon
receiving his Bachelor of Arts at the end of 1854. Morton Cohen's
recent biography *Lewis Carroll* (ISBN 0-333-66033-1) has the details.
Bob Cunningham
said:
[ . . . ]
>I'm
>not going to go to Google and search on "learning curve" because I
>figure I'll get fifty thousand metaphorical uses. Is there a site
>specializing in classic learning psychology?
Those remarks cry out for a Google search on the string:
learning curve classic psychology
I requested that search. The second hit has the URL
<http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/x/gxm21/NECSI98/>.
At that site you can learn a great deal about the mathematics
underlying learning curves, and you can see several graphic
illustrations of learning curves, one of which is taken from a 1926
reference.
A search of the page on the string "steep" yielded no hits. I hope,
though, that once you have found evidence of the use of "learning
curve" in technical literature, you will have no reason to ask why
someone should have thought to apply the adjective "steep" to a
learning curve, or to any other curve.
In a long list of references at the end of the page, one that seems
most relevant to the questions you've raised is:
Shaw, R. E., & Alley, T. R., 1985, How to draw learning
curves: Their use and justification. In Issues in the
ecological study of learning, edited by T. D. Johnston
& A. T. Pietrewicz, Erlbaum (Hillsdale), 275.
The oldest reference that is given is:
Thurstone, L. L., 1919, Psychological Monographs, XXVI,
Whole No. 114.
Of course, all of this has nothing to do with the other question:
What does "steep learning curve" mean as it's commonly used by people
who have no knowledge of, or use for, the psychology of learning? But
I think that question has been satisfactorily answered by more than
one poster.
Charles Riggs
<ken...@radix.net> wrote:
>It seems to me that your Cartesian Grid is simply another cartesian
>grid. Mr. Hines' sin appears to be that he capitalized it.
He committed no sin in this case. Cartesian is always capitalised.
Charles Riggs
Mike Dana
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:47:52 -0700, Michael Cargal
>
> >Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
> >>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
> >>"Professional" Mathematician...
> >
> >In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
>
> Christ Church College, Oxford where he lectured in Mathematics.
He also published quite a large number of respected works in the field
of Mathematics under his real name, and while alive he maintained a
strict distinction between that and the stuff published under the
pseudonym.
Donna Richoux
> I requested that search. The second hit has the URL
> <http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/x/gxm21/NECSI98/>.
>
> At that site you can learn a great deal about the mathematics
> underlying learning curves, and you can see several graphic
> illustrations of learning curves, one of which is taken from a 1926
> reference.
Now that page should shut me up for a while. (Do I hear distant
cheering?) Exponents, logarithms, stuff I haven't thought about in
years. Thanks, Bob.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
D. Spencer Hines
She is lost in Bafflegab.
Bob Cunningham
Does anyone besides me think it's a little odd that the 'c' in
'Cartesian' is uppercase while the 'c' in 'Descartes' is lowercase?
Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
Alex Chernavsky
>Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
Hey, that's nothing. Ever wonder about the origin of the term,
"reverse-Polish notation"?
fandango.ch.cam.ac.uk/doc/rrf/rpn.html
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Bob Cunningham
<al...@astrocyte-design.com> said:
>Bob Cunningham wrote, in part:
>>Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
>Hey, that's nothing. Ever wonder about the origin of the term,
>"reverse-Polish notation"?
I haven't wondered about that for a long time, ever since someone told
me that Polish notation was invented by a Polish philosopher and
mathematician named Jan Lucasiewicz (1878-1956), and someone decided
that 'Polish notation' was easier to say than 'Lucasiewicz notation'.
Reverse Polish notation is Polish notation reversed; that is, instead
of Lucasiewicz's <operator><operand><operand>, reverse Polish notation
has <operand><operand><operator>.
Michael Cargal
>Michael Cargal wrote:
>
>>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
>>>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
>>>"Professional" Mathematician...
>>
>>In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
>
>Oxford University had not sunk to that level in his time.
But as I understand it, Dodgeson was teaching adolescents rather than
college kids. Maybe the scare quotes in Mike Dana's post were
intentional.
--
Michael Cargal mhca...@home.com
tiglath
Alex Chernavsky <al...@astrocyte-design.com> wrote in message
news:t5645.23980$rc.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> Bob Cunningham wrote, in part:
>
> >Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
>
> Hey, that's nothing. Ever wonder about the origin of the term,
> "reverse-Polish notation"?
Polish notation was devised by the Polish philosopher and
mathematician Jan Lucasiewicz (1878-1956) for use in symbolic logic.
In his notation, the operators preceded their arguments. The
`reversed' form has however been found more convenient from a
computational point of view.
Once you try an HP calculator you never go back.
Alex Chernavsky
>But as I understand it, Dodgeson was teaching
>adolescents rather than college kids.
As I understand it, Dodgeson was fond of the aphorism, "Better jailbait than
masturbate". Or, "Past eight, too late".
On the other hand, scholars apparently remain divided:
=======Begin quote========
Lewis Carroll was a pedophile. [True or False?]
False. What is interesting about this rumor, however, is that more than
likely Carroll became victim of his own superlative writing skills. When
Lewis Carroll wrote "I am fond of children (except boys)", he affirmed his
fondness for young girls more strongly than he would have had he written
merely "I am fond of young girls". There is no evidence to suggest that
Carroll's "fondness" was sexually deviant. The writing artifice used here
by Carroll is called, "The Exception Proves the Rule" and has been best
defined by Gilbert Watts (1640), in Bacon's ADVANCEMENT AND PROFICIENCE OF
LEARNING VIII. iii. Aph. 17: "As exception strengthens the force of a Law in
Cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in Cases not enumerated."
http://www.megabrands.com/carroll/forf.html
=======End quote========
Exception that proves the rule, eh? Methinks the author doth protest
unconvincingly.
--
Alex Chernavsky
al...@astrocyte-design.com
Phyllis Gilmore
<shad...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I am very impressed by this thread, having long believed that most of us
> became English majors because we couldn't do mathematics.
>
Chuckle.
I suddenly flashed on my misspent youth, and the day I lugged a hefty
calculus textbook into a Shakespeare class at UCLA, to have horrified
fellow students exclaim, "Isn't that hard?" Later the same day, I
lugged a hefty Shakespeare's Works into the calculus class, to have
horrified fellow students exclaim, "Isn't that hard?"
The answer to both questions was, of course, "Yes. So?"
Phyllis
(Who is willing to confess that I've forgotten more than I ever knew
about mathematics.)
Padraig Breathnach
>(Who is willing to confess that I've forgotten more than I ever knew
>about mathematics.)
This is a conundrum. You imply that your mathematics is negative -- but you
probably have lost the idea of negatinve quantity. Does that mean that you
don't know what you are talking about? Or talking about what you don't know?
I think that I had better lie down now.
PB
Alan Jones
| "Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
|
| >Michael Cargal wrote:
| >
| >>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
| >>
| >>>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
| >>>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
| >>>"Professional" Mathematician...
| >>
| >>In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
| >
| >Oxford University had not sunk to that level in his time.
|
| intentional.
This Rightpondian doesn't really know the difference between adolescents and
US college kids, but AFAIK undergraduates in Dodgson's time would have
matriculated at Oxford immediately after leaving public school [i.e. US
private prep school] at the same age as today - 18 or thereabouts. Dodgson
himself was almost 19 when he went into residence at Christ Church, having
spent the previous year being tutored by his father. He was a brilliant
mathematician, gaining a distinguished First in his 1854 finals; thereupon
he was, rather exceptionally, elected almost at once to be a Student of
Christ Church (i.e. a Fellow), and tutored undergraduates in mathematics and
logic.
Mike Page in his posting of 20 June said: ". . . the Rev. Charles Lutwidge
Dodgson was a fellow of Christ Church College, Oxford where he lectured in
Mathematics." In essence this is so, but as we are contributing to a "usage"
group I'd like to point out that Christ Church does not use the term
"Fellow"; since the 16th century the term has been "Student". Nor is the
word "college" part of its official name, which is simply Christ Church
("Aedes Christi" - the House of Christ), informally referred to as "The
House". The Head of House is the Very Reverend the Dean, who is also the
Dean of Oxford Cathedral; the Cathedral accordingly is also the chapel of
the House, where College Prayers are held (yes, there's an inconsistency
there . . .) And, no, you don't have to be an Anglican, or indeed a
believer of any kind, to study or teach there.
Alan Jones
Padraig Breathnach
>
>
>Mike Page in his posting of 20 June said: ". . . the Rev. Charles Lutwidge
>Dodgson was a fellow of Christ Church College, Oxford where he lectured in
>Mathematics." In essence this is so, but as we are contributing to a
"usage"
>group I'd like to point out that Christ Church does not use the term
>"Fellow"; since the 16th century the term has been "Student". Nor is the
>word "college" part of its official name, which is simply Christ Church
>("Aedes Christi" - the House of Christ), informally referred to as "The
>House". The Head of House is the Very Reverend the Dean, who is also the
>Dean of Oxford Cathedral; the Cathedral accordingly is also the chapel of
>the House, where College Prayers are held (yes, there's an inconsistency
>there . . .) And, no, you don't have to be an Anglican, or indeed a
>believer of any kind, to study or teach there.
>
within the Anglican Communion before his appointment.
PB
Paul J. Gans
> Michael Cargal wrote, in part:
Folks: Our good friend Mr. Hines began this by crossposting
this thread to soc.history.medieval. Once the thread built
up he left it, thus leaving behind a cross-posted thread that
makes little or no sense in soc.history.medieval.
Please fix the headers to avoid the crosspost.
If I may offer some advice: next time you get involved in
a thread he's crossposted, delete the crossposting and keep
it in your "home" newsgroup.
Hines is laughing all the way to the bar.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
Mr. Gans is a liar ---- pure and simple. Once again, his fragile
temperament has shattered and he pulls out all the stops, because he
can't stand a fair-minded, open debate on the issues.
I've often proven him to be a liar. Here, I've caught him once again.
"tiglath" ---- on 19 June 2000 ---- crossposted this thread to SHM, not
I.
Here is the post's number:
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8iljam$oip$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
"tiglath" is, as we all know, Mr. Gans's little sycophant ---- his
"Me-Too".
Gentle Readers will find "tiglath's" message in this thread. The man is
too much of a coward to even reveal his name, so he hides behind a
pseudonym.
In fact, I REMOVED SHM from distribution so that they would not be
bothered by this thread.
Mr. Gans owes me a public apology. I await his admission of his
egregious error and his blatant lie.
Once before, he called me a bastard. I called him on it. He denied he
had ever said any such thing.
I quoted his own words back to him, of the day before. The man never
even had the decency to frankly admit he lied on that occasion.
I've posted this to SHM, so people there will KNOW he is a liar. BUT,
I've set follow-ups to go only to AUE.
Liars should be exposed ---- immediately. I have done so.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"Cave ab homine unius libri." ---- Anonymous
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:ET945.57$Iz1...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
M.J.Powell
writes
I did. Straight back to my slide-rule.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
William Lieblich
> In soc.history.medieval Alex Chernavsky <al...@astrocyte-design.com> wrote:
> > Michael Cargal wrote, in part:
>
> Folks: Our good friend Mr. Hines began this by crossposting
> this thread to soc.history.medieval. Once the thread built
> up he left it, thus leaving behind a cross-posted thread that
> makes little or no sense in soc.history.medieval.
>
> Please fix the headers to avoid the crosspost.
>
> If I may offer some advice: next time you get involved in
> a thread he's crossposted, delete the crossposting and keep
> it in your "home" newsgroup.
>
> Hines is laughing all the way to the bar.
In fact, the first crossposting in this subthread was by Tiglath on
Monday. He crossposted in another subthread at the same time.
Hines has had several posts in this thread without initiating any
crossposting.
Hines is an egregious crossposter, but obviously he isn't the only one.
--
Bill Lieblich
tiglath
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:#dwZVf82$GA.330@cpmsnbbsa07...
> Vide infra postea.
>
> Mr. Gans is a liar ---- pure and simple. Once again, his fragile
> temperament has shattered and he pulls out all the stops, because he
> can't stand a fair-minded, open debate on the issues.
>
> I've often proven him to be a liar. Here, I've caught him once again.
>
> "tiglath" ---- on 19 June 2000 ---- crossposted this thread to SHM, not
> I.
>
> Here is the post's number:
>
> "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:8iljam$oip$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "tiglath" is, as we all know, Mr. Gans's little sycophant ---- his
> "Me-Too".
It's going to be a hot summer, Spencer.
David McMurray
> David McMurray <ik0...@kingston.net> wrote:
>
> > Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> >
> > > Everyone can see the risk I have run by saying "the emperor has no
> > > clothes," but say it I do. So far no one has shown me any convincing
> > > evidence of plotting time against *material learned* that is plausible
> > > for producing the phrase "a steep learning curve."
> >
> > Take a group of students learning to type. At the end of each hour of
> > training and practice, administer a typing test to each student. Plot
> > the scores for each student (vertical axis) against hours of practice
> > (horizontal axis). For each student, this process generates a learning
> > curve.
> [...] we can assume that in some way, a numerical
> value is obtained for each test, and a higher number is considered to be
> a better performance.
Yes, let's assume that. And let's also assume that some students get the
hang of it quickly and others progress more slowly. Generally speaking,
the learning curves of the first group will rise more quickly than those
of the second group.
I really don't see the point of your insistence that you can imagine
sets of numbers which don't fit the pattern. Does imagining that a
particular student scores (100, 75, 60, 50, 45) refute the idea that
typing ability generally increases with practice?
[...]
> > Note that learning curves are based on *cumulative* performance,
>
> Well, now you bring in "cumulative." What is that supposed to mean, in
> regard to typing scores? If my test scores were 20, 35, and 51, Then I'm
> supposed to plot a running total, 20, 55, and 106? Why?
That was a bad choice of word on my part. I was thinking of performance
based on the entire training period. It simply means that one plots the
scores -- 20, 35, 51 -- rather than the changes in the scores since the
previous test -- 20, 15, 16.
[...]
> >not
> > learning *per unit of time* which can be constant or declining
>
> Do I understand by this phrase you mean that learning is the change in
> one test score to the next?
If one accepts, for discussion purposes, that "learning" is measured by
test results, then it would seem to follow that the change in score from
one test to the next represents the amount of learning which has taken
place since the last test.
My point was that in order to generate a learning curve, one plots the
actual scores (which represent *total* "learning" since the start of
training) rather than the change in the scores from one test to the next
as someone else in this thread suggested when they spoke of changes "per
unit of time".
[...]
> > This is EdPsych 101. The fact that "steep learning curve" is now used --
> > to the consternation of all, it seems -- to mean something else entirely
> > ought not to be blamed
>
> I agree with you here. The phrase as it is used today may have no direct
> connection to this learning psychology stuff, or it may have evolved
> over a number of decades to where there is only the slightest historical
> connection. But since people keep asking "what is the origin of the
> phrase steep learning curve" and others keep trotting out one proposed
> graph or another that purports to show difficulty of learning, I think
> this subject is worth undertanding.
>
> >on the psychologists who developed the notion of
> > a learning curve (and did not, as far as I know, talk about "steep"
> > ones).
>
> So, if it's so well-known, can anybody give a reference here? Can
> someone pull out the box of texts from under the bed and say,
> "Smith-Barton and Hooey (1988) show curves exactly like that, made by
> Feeblefritzer in 1922"? I would be delighted to hear of it. It would be
> something concrete.
That's easy. Cronbach; _Educational Psychology_, 2nd ed. (1963) shows,
at page 303, learning curves generated from scores on typing tests. They
are taken from Sandiford, _Educational Psychology_ (1928) and are based
on an original study by W.G. Edwards conducted, I would guess, in the
early 1920s. [I see that Bob Cummingham has also posted some
references.]
By the way, I never suggested that this stuff was well-known -- clearly,
it isn't. But it ain't rocket science, either.
> > The traditional "learning curve" measured student performance. As
it is
> > now used, the phrase refers to the cumulative amount of learning which
> > must occur in order to master a subject within a reasonable time. For
> > example, consider memorizing a ten-line poem in ten hours. On average,
> > one must learn one line per hour -- one line by the end of the first
> > hour, two by the end of the second hour, etc. The generic graph of the
> > whole process is a straight line running from (0,0) to (10,10).
> >
> > Now change the task -- make it a 100-line poem in ten hours. One must
> > now learn ten lines by the end of the first hour, twenty lines by the
> > end of the second hour, etc. The graph is now a straight line running
> > from (0,0) to (10,100). It's "steeper" than the first graph, reflecting
> > the fact that, other things being equal, learning a hundred-line poem in
> > ten hours is more difficult than learning a ten-line poem in ten hours.
> Now, that kind of model is the same as Padraig and Bob's, the two-point
> lines. I will post on the shortcomings of that elsewhere. Oh, well, in a
> nutshell, in case I don't get to it tonight -- these two-point lines
> don't *tell* you anything.
I was not talking about "two-point lines". I was talking about a "curve"
generated by plotting the total number of lines (of poetry) memorized by
the end of each hour, over a ten-hour period. On average, such curves
can be represented by a straight line from (0,0) to (10, 10) which
passes through (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (4,4), (5,5), (6,6), (7,7), (8,8),
and (9,9).
Whether such a line, in itself, *tells* you anything is probably a
matter of opinion; I was suggesting that by comparing it with another
line generated in a similar way for a different task, you might learn
something about the comparative difficulties of the two tasks. I was not
suggesting that anyone actually had to draw the graphs to figure that
out, but graphs might be useful in showing why one task is said to have
a steep learning curve, but not the other.
> "Well, yup, it shore is harder to learn ten
> times more material in the same length of time. Gollee." You could have
> known that without making the graph.
This thread demonstrates that making assumptions about what people could
have known without being told is a risky business. But I happen to agree
with you. That is why "steep learning curve" can be a useful phrase; it
indicates, for example, that learning to be productive with a particular
piece of software is more akin to learning a 100-line poem in ten hours
than to learning a ten-line poem in ten hours.
In my view, "steep", in the contemporary use of "steep learning curve",
has nothing to do with graphs -- it simply means relatively difficult. I
suggested the graph in order to explain how the phrase could have some
mathematical basis; I don't believe for a moment that it actually does
have.
But I remind you that you asked for "convincing evidence of plotting
time against *material learned* that is plausible for producing the
phrase 'a steep learning curve'". When someone produces it, it's hardly
fair to complain that they needn't have bothered.
> Nor can you interpolate anything
> useful about what went on during that interval (was it truly a straight
> line or a J-curve, etc.) Therefore I do not believe any sane
> psychologist spent any time whatsoever in drawing such two-point graphs.
> Therefore such two-point graphs could not be the historical source of
> the phrase.
Agreed. And I didn't claim otherwise.
[...]
--
David
Donna Richoux
>
> Does anyone besides me think it's a little odd that the 'c' in
> 'Cartesian' is uppercase while the 'c' in 'Descartes' is lowercase?
>
A bit of Web searching shows that in his time, 1596-1650, he was called
Des-Cartes, Des Cartes, and des Cartes as often as he was Descartes. The
modern standard is definitely Descartes.
Evidence.
List of Library of Congress books about Descartes, many published in the
1600s:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/cit/citlcdescart.htm
Quote from a contemporary:
I should look upon Des-Cartes as a man most truly inspired in the
knowledge of Nature, than any that have professed themselves so these
sixteen hundred years...
Facsimile of an original title page -- is that a space after Des or not?
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Images/03.GIF
Transcription of an original title page (in Latin), 1641:
RENATI
DES-CARTES,
MEDITATIONES
De Prima
PHILOSOPHIA
To get from the separated prefix "des" to the adjective "Cartesian" is a
trivial exercise. .
(In the Netherlands, where the same few prefixes are used for many
names, they are routinely ignored for the purpose of alphabetizing. I
couldn't say about adjectivizing.)
Peter Haglund
wrote the following on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:53:28 +0100:
>Bob Cunningham <spa...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone besides me think it's a little odd that the 'c' in
>> 'Cartesian' is uppercase while the 'c' in 'Descartes' is lowercase?
>>
>> Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
>
>A bit of Web searching shows that in his time, 1596-1650, he was called
>Des-Cartes, Des Cartes, and des Cartes as often as he was Descartes. The
>modern standard is definitely Descartes.
To those who call him Cartesius, 'Cartesian' makes a lot more
sense than 'Descartesian'.
Aaron J Dinkin
> Anyway, why 'Cartesian'? Why not 'Descartesian'?
Because Descartes Latinized his name as Cartesius, not Descartesius, is
the easy answer. The reason for that is probably etymological. "Descartes"
looks to me like it's French for 'of Cartes' or something like that; one
way a Latin name meaning 'of Cartes' could be formed is "Cartesius".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J Dinkin
> I am very impressed by this thread, having long believed that most of us
> became English majors because we couldn't do mathematics.
I don't know; I became a math major because it would leave me time to
study linguistics.
CG Luxford
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Michael Cargal wrote:
> "Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >Michael Cargal wrote:
> >>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Interesting choice of analogies, considering the fact that Charles
> >>>Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carrol, author of the "Alice" stories) was a
> >>>"Professional" Mathematician...
> >>
> >>In a sense. He was a high school math teacher.
> >
> >Oxford University had not sunk to that level in his time.
>
> But as I understand it, Dodgeson was teaching adolescents rather than
> college kids.
Most university undergraduates are adolescents.
Chris,
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"It may be said that, thanks to the 'clercs', humanity did evil for two
thousand years, but honoured good. This contradiction was an honour to
the human species, and formed the rift whereby civilisation slipped into
the world." "La Trahison des clercs" [The Treason of the Intellectuals]
(1927) Julien Benda (1867-1956)
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
"CG Luxford" <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.100062...@eis.bris.ac.uk...