Steep learning curve - or not?
Bertel Lund Hansen
In the bridge group there was a link to an article in the New
Yoork Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/opinion/27osberg.html
There is an error in the article:
<quote>
Bridge will never have the spectator appeal of games like poker.
It's just too cerebral. Moreover, the learning curve is steep.
But it's worth trying to bring back some of the glory of bridge
by getting young people engaged in the game.
</quote>
The learning curve for bridge is not steep - on the contrary. But
I have seen other examples of this confusing of "steep curve"
with something that is hard to learn. The association is probably
that it is hard to get uphill, but the true meaning is that with
a steep learning curve a given effort will take you high up the
curve and thus corresponds to something that is easy.
--
Bertel
Denmark
Lars Eighner
<1fbc2n4t8bppn.1...@40tude.net>,
the lovely and talented Bertel Lund Hansen
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Hi all
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/opinion/27osberg.html
This has been done to death in these precincts. It is a lost
battle.
"Steep learning curve" has joined what Fowler called the sturdy
indefensibles, along with "lowest common denominator," which
really means "greatest common factor."
--
Lars Eighner use...@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"If writers were good businessmen, they'd have too much sense to be
writers." --Irvin S. Cobb
Donna Richoux
Uh-oh. We have discussed this at mind-numbing length before. You are
mostly right, about today's use making no literal sense. However, your
last bit is wrong, if you look at what "learning curves" have
traditionally meant in psychology and business. There were several
graphs called "Learning curves," but what's interesting is that they
went *down* as time went by -- sometimes steeply down -- showing that
the subjects/employees/etc were still learning their tasks -- until the
curves levelled out. The graphs varied in what values they plotted, but
usually was time passing or numbered trials on the horizontal, and time
required to accomplish the task, or cost of producing the product, on
the vertical. As time passed, costs dropped, because the employees
learned, and then levelled, signifying that benefit-of-learning-effect
wore off.
If the curve went down steeply, that meant the subjects/employees
learned quickly. That's almost what you said, but down, not up.
The modern meaning of "difficult to learn" that you report has been
around for a few decades and does not match any actual graph, no matter
how loudly some people protest that surely it must. The best conclusion
we could come to was that it arose out of confusion, when business
administrators introduced the term to general working staff.
I really dread going through all this again. If you or anyone else wants
to argue, I beg you to point to some actual graphs used by real people
in the world, including what values are named and measured on the axes,
and not to just wave your hands around and sketch rising lines.
I could point out more carefully what's wrong with your "given effort"
theory but I just get exhausted at the prospect. For one thing, six more
people would leap in to describe their personal takes on the matter.
You could check the archives. And I know I have some URLs lying around
on the subject, if you want to pursue it.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
R H Draney
>
>In our last episode,
><1fbc2n4t8bppn.1...@40tude.net>,
>the lovely and talented Bertel Lund Hansen
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>> I have seen other examples of this confusing of "steep curve"
>> with something that is hard to learn. The association is probably
>> that it is hard to get uphill, but the true meaning is that with
>> a steep learning curve a given effort will take you high up the
>> curve and thus corresponds to something that is easy.
>
>This has been done to death in these precincts. It is a lost
>battle.
>
>"Steep learning curve" has joined what Fowler called the sturdy
>indefensibles, along with "lowest common denominator," which
>really means "greatest common factor."
Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...and "penultimate"
for "even more ultimate than simply ultimate"....r
the Omrud
> Lars Eighner filted:
>
> >"Steep learning curve" has joined what Fowler called the sturdy
> >indefensibles, along with "lowest common denominator," which
> >really means "greatest common factor."
>
> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...and "penultimate"
> for "even more ultimate than simply ultimate"....r
Really? The ultimate item, I mean. I've never heard "penultimate"
misused in the UK.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
[...]
> I really dread going through all this again. If you or anyone else wants
> to argue, I beg you to point to some actual graphs used by real people
> in the world, including what values are named and measured on the axes,
> and not to just wave your hands around and sketch rising lines.
> I could point out more carefully what's wrong with your "given effort"
> theory but I just get exhausted at the prospect. For one thing, six more
> people would leap in to describe their personal takes on the matter.
Only six?
Here's my take. I don't think I ever saw anyone try to
relate "steep learning curve" to an actual graph, but so far
as I know, among the engineering and marketing people I
worked with, we were all agreed on what it meant, and we
used it fairly often: It meant you had a lot to learn
about something and not much time to learn it.
If I try to conceive of a graph that fits that definition, I
get a starting point (beginning of effort and nothing
learned yet) and an ending point (enough learned and time is
up). The steepness would refer to the slope of a straight
line drawn between those two points. It wouldn't matter
much what wiggles the curve might have in between. All that
mattered was knowing enough soon enough.
Mark Brader
> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
Do I have to explain *again* why this is not an error?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Typos are a journalistic tradition of long
m...@vex.net | etaoin shrdlu. -- Truly Donovan
Mark Brader
> The modern meaning of "difficult to learn" that you report has been
Yes, well, this thread wouldn't have gone on so long last time if you
hadn't confused the issue by dragging "actual graphs" into it.
--
Mark Brader "Well, it's not in MY interest -- and I represent
Toronto the public, so it's not in the public interest!"
m...@vex.net -- Jim Hacker, "Yes, Minister" (Lynn & Jay)
Mike Barnes
"True meaning", eh? I assume you mean "literal meaning", because the
true meaning is what people mean and understand by the term in real
life. And that true meaning is, to me, that a lot has to learned before
one feels any benefit. That seems to describe bridge pretty well.
By the way this subject has been aired at length in this group - Google
will turn up dozens of messages, I'm sure.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
R H Draney
>> for "even more ultimate than simply ultimate"....r
>
>Really? The ultimate item, I mean. I've never heard "penultimate"
>misused in the UK.
In my experience, one seldom hears it *not* misused....r
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
That makes sense. The change can hardly be more drastic (in the
quantum world) though the 'measurable' difference may be small.
Compare for instance with 1 and 0 and interpret them as "true"
and "false".
--
Bertel
Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
> Do I have to explain *again* why this is not an error?
I might have known ...
--
Bertel
Denmark
Lars Eighner
<1c7vdqxalfehc$.1fymlyao...@40tude.net>,
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Mark Brader skrev:
>>> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
>> Do I have to explain *again* why this is not an error?
> I might have known ...
If only you had thought about it for a lightyear or two.
--
Lars Eighner use...@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying". --John Ruskin
Harvey Van Sickle
Like David, I can't recall hearing it misused, but I'll listen for
it.
(I wonder if this is an AmEng thing which hasn't arrived here yet -
- simliar to "moot" meaning "trivial", which I don't think has
overtaken the original meaning in BrEng.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Mike Barnes
I don't think I've ever head it misused. Perhaps the misuse is leftpond
only, in which case it'll be here before long, I'm sure. Who knows what
"antepenultimate" will end up meaning.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux writes:
> > The modern meaning of "difficult to learn" that you report has been
> > around for a few decades and does not match any actual graph...
>
> Yes, well, this thread wouldn't have gone on so long last time if you
> hadn't confused the issue by dragging "actual graphs" into it.
This time I'm taking the approach that we can shorten the discussion by
dragging "actual graphs" into it immediately.
Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's what I mean.
Donna Richoux
> If I try to conceive of a graph that fits that definition, I
> get a starting point (beginning of effort and nothing
> learned yet) and an ending point (enough learned and time is
> up). The steepness would refer to the slope of a straight
> line drawn between those two points. It wouldn't matter
> much what wiggles the curve might have in between. All that
> mattered was knowing enough soon enough.
I am trying to not answer this, but grasping one hand with the other is
not enough to stop my fingers from typing. Your idea doesn't work, Bob.
Anybody can sit and imagine graphs that go up, down, and sideways, but
those graphs have no connection to any graphs that real people have made
and published in real life to represent actual events.
In particular, no graph would ever have a horizontal axis called "enough
learned" and a vertical one called "time used up," or however you want
to tinker with your terms.
But that imaginary inventive process that you describe must be exactly
what thousands of people have also thought, in order to (vaguely) assign
meaning to "steep learning curve." People are literate enough to know
what a steep curve means, so they just assume the rest.
--
And she's off -- Donna Richoux
Ramon
My favorite is "they made a 360 degree turn on their previous policy".
-RFH
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney skrev:
>
>> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
>
>That makes sense. The change can hardly be more drastic (in the
>quantum world) though the 'measurable' difference may be small.
Granted, but the technical meaning is of a change smaller than which there can
be none....
Let's just make sure that Joe Trailerpark never gets his hands on the
terminology of catastrophe theory, or we'll have folds, cusps, swallowtails,
butterflies and assorted umbilics coming out of our ears....r
Bob Cunningham
Richoux) said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > If I try to conceive of a graph that fits that definition, I
> > get a starting point (beginning of effort and nothing
> > learned yet) and an ending point (enough learned and time is
> > up). The steepness would refer to the slope of a straight
> > line drawn between those two points. It wouldn't matter
> > much what wiggles the curve might have in between. All that
> > mattered was knowing enough soon enough.
> I am trying to not answer this, but grasping one hand with the other is
> not enough to stop my fingers from typing. Your idea doesn't work, Bob.
It not only does work, but it did work.
> Anybody can sit and imagine graphs that go up, down, and sideways, but
> those graphs have no connection to any graphs that real people have made
> and published in real life to represent actual events.
The real people that I worked with in real life conceptually
constructed the graphs to fit real situations, but would see
no need to publish them, because they consisted of a simple
straight line. Their need was to have a concise term to say
that there was a lot to learn in a short time. "Steep
learning curve" accurately gave them that term.
> In particular, no graph would ever have a horizontal axis called "enough
> learned" and a vertical one called "time used up," or however you want
> to tinker with your terms.
That's absurd. I would find it totally ridiculous to label
the abscissa "enough learned" and the ordinate "time used
up", and I can't imagine what led you to think I had
suggested that. The graph that I described would have the
abscissa labeled "amount learned" and the ordinate "time
used". In order to reach a stated goal, the amount learned
would reach the amount needed to be learned at or before the
time used reached the time available for the task.
> But that imaginary inventive process that you describe must be exactly
> what thousands of people have also thought, in order to (vaguely) assign
> meaning to "steep learning curve."
There's nothing even slightly vague about the learning curve
I described.
> People are literate enough to know
> what a steep curve means, so they just assume the rest.
No, people are smart enough to make their best estimate of
what they need to learn by a specified time and to express
the rate of learning needed in terms of the steepness of the
line drawn between the starting point and the point
representing the successful completion of the goal. It's a
thoroughly simple concept that involves no assumptions that
are not based on solid logic.
I will say, though, that it's easy to imagine people finding
uses for the term "learning curve" that are different from
the one we used. More power to them. Let them use whatever
definitions they want, so long as they agree among
themselves what the definitions are and so long as they
don't insist on other people conforming to their
definitions.
I think some people may be fixated on one notion of what
"steep learning curve" should mean, so their mind
automatically blocks out alternative definitions without
really trying to understand their merits.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I think some people may be fixated on one notion of what
> "steep learning curve" should mean, so their mind
> automatically blocks out alternative definitions without
> really trying to understand their merits.
It's practical that we all agree that "large" means something in
the nature of "big". I do not 'block out' the possibility that it
might mean "small"; I just don't find it very practical to take
that into consideration.
This is not a defense of my perception of "steep learning curve".
I am going to block it out, because I now realize that I cannot
use the expression and trust that it will be understood as
intended.
--
Bertel
Denmark
Bob Cunningham
<nospam...@lundhansen.dk> said:
[...]
> It's practical that we all agree that "large" means something in
> the nature of "big". I do not 'block out' the possibility that it
> might mean "small"; I just don't find it very practical to take
> that into consideration.
Why should anyone want to waste bandwidth posting nonsense
like that?
Mark Brader
>>> Leave us not forget "quantum leap" for "really huge change"...
> Granted, but the technical meaning is of a change smaller than
> which there can be none....
Do I have to explain *again* why this is an error?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No weapons of any kind are allowed on
m...@vex.net | White Sands Missile Range" -- U.S. Army
Mark Brader
> My favorite is "they made a 360 degree turn on their previous policy".
Of course, sometimes that's *true*.
A friend of mine once reported that someone speaking to him and
intending a metaphorical 180 degrees had first said 360 degrees,
then paused a moment, then corrected it to 365 degrees!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We are full of digital chain letters and
m...@vex.net | warnings about marmalade." --Matt Ridley
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> But that imaginary inventive process that you describe must be exactly
> what thousands of people have also thought, in order to (vaguely) assign
> meaning to "steep learning curve." People are literate enough to know
> what a steep curve means, so they just assume the rest.]
I know what a learning curve is, Donna, and I have long treated "steep
learning curve" as a popularized technicality that turned out to mean
almost exactly the opposite of its meaning in technical contexts. But
I'm beginning to wonder.
As plotted on standard graph paper, a learning curve is a J curve in
the upper right quadrant, where both axes have positive numbers. The
X axis represents units produced, and the Y axis represents time to
produce a single unit, so the curve as a whole compares how long it
takes to produce any given unit against the numbers of units already
produced. As more units are produced, it takes less time to produce
each one; the phenomenon this represents is called "learning," and
that's what the curve purports to measure, though "improvement" might
be a better term. The learning curve slopes from upper left to lower
right within that upper right quadrant, starting out at its most
vertical and finishing close to horizontal. It is steepest, then, at
the very beginning of the process.
So, okay, what's so strange about saying the learning curve is
steepest when you first start to work on something? It actually is.
The earlier the unit of production, the higher on the curve it
appears, and the steeper the curve is at that point.
I suspect that most people, asked what they envision when they talk
about a steep learning curve, talk about some metaphorical mountain to
be climbed or other challenge to be surmounted. But the origin of the
phrase may lie in the notion that earliest is steepest. And there is
a challenge for those who confront the learning curve -- to do the
actual learning and bring down the time and effort needed to do the
work.
Like you, I hope I can bail out with just one post. We shall see.
--
Bob Lieblich
Learning as he goes
Sara Lorimer
I don't remember hearing it misused either, and I'm Leftpondian.
--
SML
R H Draney
>
>Ramon F.H. writes:
>> My favorite is "they made a 360 degree turn on their previous policy".
>
>Of course, sometimes that's *true*.
>
>A friend of mine once reported that someone speaking to him and
>intending a metaphorical 180 degrees had first said 360 degrees,
>then paused a moment, then corrected it to 365 degrees!
...and, after another brief pause, added "Celsius"....
(Which is why I now describe all my metaphorical turnings in radians)....r
Bob Cunningham
<exw...@earthlink.net> said:
[...]
> Here's my take. I don't think I ever saw anyone try to
> relate "steep learning curve" to an actual graph, but so far
> as I know, among the engineering and marketing people I
> worked with, we were all agreed on what it meant, and we
> used it fairly often: It meant you had a lot to learn
> about something and not much time to learn it.
> If I try to conceive of a graph that fits that definition, I
> get a starting point (beginning of effort and nothing
> learned yet) and an ending point (enough learned and time is
> up). The steepness would refer to the slope of a straight
> line drawn between those two points. It wouldn't matter
> much what wiggles the curve might have in between. All that
> mattered was knowing enough soon enough.
Looking at some Google hits on "steep learning curve", I can
understand why some people think other people think it means
"difficult to learn". In every hit I've looked at, "steep
learning curve" is used because there's a lot to learn. But
my concept of "steep learning curve" fits those cases
because in every case there must be an implicit time
available to do the learning. With a certain time
available, the more you have to learn in a given time, the
steeper the learning curve is.
I suppose it's possible, though, that some people have heard
"steep learning curve" used properly and have misperceived
its meaning to be simply "difficult to learn". Like "beg
the question" and "could care less", "steep learning curve"
would then acquire an accepted meaning that makes no sense
when the words are taken literally.
Bob Cunningham
my definition of "steep learning curve" I said that if you
have a lot to learn and not much time in which to learn it,
that represents a steep learning curve.
That is true, but it will also be a steep learning curve if
you don't have much to learn but you have a very short time
to in which to learn it.
And you could have an enormous amount to learn, but the
learning curve would not be steep if you also had an
enormous amount of time in which to learn it.
The terms involved -- like "a lot", "not much", "very
short", "enormous", and "steep" itself -- are, of course,
relative terms, so a learning curve can be said to be steep
only in comparison with one that is steeper or not so steep.
Mark Brader
> ... a J curve in the upper right quadrant...
J curve?
--
Mark Brader "The best you can write will be the best you are.
Toronto Every sentence is the result of a long probation."
m...@vex.net -- Henry David Thoreau, 1841
Mike Barnes
>As plotted on standard graph paper, a learning curve is a J curve in
>the upper right quadrant, where both axes have positive numbers. The X
>axis represents units produced, and the Y axis represents time to
>produce a single unit, so the curve as a whole compares how long it
>takes to produce any given unit against the numbers of units already
>produced.
Surely that information is available from the obvious and much simpler
graph, which is that of numbers of units produced (Y) against time (X).
You'd just look at the gradient. Why would anyone feel the need to draw
the somewhat specialised and off-beat graph that you describe?
Oh, I forgot, they're probably educationalists. Forget I spoke.
Donna Richoux
Whether you take it to mean "difficult to learn" or "a lot to learn in a
short time" doesn't matter to me. They're close enough to the same
thing. Neither one relates directly to any graph that was ever used for
any practical purpose, and therefore this non-existent graph cannot be
the true source of the the expression.
I would actually like to discuss your posts item by item but I've got
other stuff I'm supposed to do today, and my post wouldn't be much
different from the ten or more posts I made some months ago, taking
other people apart item by item. These imaginary graphs that supposedly
plot "amount assigned to learn" against "time it takes," or "time"
against "amount learned," or "amount assigned to learn" against
"cumulative amount learned," or "effort required" against "results," or
whatever people want to dream up, (l) do not follow the basic
requirements of graphic practice (like I say, I can't go into why not,
again) (2) do not yield the required result of "the steep part
represents the difficult part," or (3) in the rare case a tortured graph
can be invented to fit, has never actually been employed by anyone
(witness, no such graph can be found anywhere except in people's minds.)
On the other hand, there actually have been real graphs, displaying
genuine data, that have been called "learning curves" for a century or
so, and they're *different*. The learning is neither the x-variable nor
the y-variable, it is what is demonstrated by the shape of the curve.
When it is steep (steeply dropping), the subject is learning and
producing more results (or faster or cheaper). When it levels off,
they're not learning and produce the same results.
--
All for now -- Donna Richoux
Mike Lyle
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:22:01 GMT, Bob Cunningham
>> <exw...@earthlink.net> said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> relate "steep learning curve" to an actual graph, but so far
>>> as I know, among the engineering and marketing people I
>>> worked with, we were all agreed on what it meant, and we
>
> I would actually like to discuss your posts item by item but I've
got
> other stuff I'm supposed to do today, and my post wouldn't be much
> different from the ten or more posts I made some months ago, taking
> other people apart item by item. These imaginary graphs that
> supposedly plot "amount assigned to learn" against "time it takes,"
> or "time" against "amount learned," or "amount assigned to learn"
> against "cumulative amount learned," or "effort required" against
> "results," or whatever people want to dream up, (l) do not follow
the
> basic requirements of graphic practice (like I say, I can't go into
> why not, again) (2) do not yield the required result of "the steep
> part represents the difficult part," or (3) in the rare case a
> tortured graph can be invented to fit, has never actually been
> employed by anyone (witness, no such graph can be found anywhere
> except in people's minds.)
Which last is your let-out from doing it all again: you don't need
to, because the expression doesn't rely on the terms in which you
want to "take it apart". Note Bob's first sentence above: the whole
point of what he said, as I understand it, it that the curve _does_
exist in people's minds, and need not exist anywhere else. Hence his
second sentence above: the underlying mental image is probably fuzzy,
but it's forcible, and that's why it works as a figure of speech.
I've never found a more plausible or lucid explanation of the
expression than Bob's. You should be applauding.
What are you going to take apart next? I suggest "Other things being
equal". Not to mention "A hard row to hoe."
--
Mike.
John Dawkins
Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> "Steep learning curve" has joined what Fowler called the sturdy
> indefensibles, along with "lowest common denominator," which
> really means "greatest common factor."
No, these notions are quite distinct. The lowest common denominator of
the fractions 7/15 and 5/6 is 30 (= the least common multiple of 15 and
6). The greatest common factor of these two denominators (15 and 6) is
3.
--
J.
Bob Cunningham
> > [...]
They're totally different. The word "steep" implies a
slope. A slope implies a first derivative of one variable
with respect to another. When you say "difficult to learn",
you have only one variable, so you have no slope, so
"steep"' has no meaning. When you say "amount learned vs
time consumed", you have two variables, so you have a slope,
and "steep" has meaning.
If I say it's 300 miles from point A to point B and it took
me six hours to travel that distance, I don't need to draw a
graph to say that my average speed was 50 miles per hour and
that if I want to make it in less time I have to drive
faster than 50. If I say it's 300 miles over narrow,
winding mountain roads covered with snow and ice, I can say
that's a difficult drive, but you can't calculate my average
speed until I tell you how long it took me to make the
drive.
Your implying that with regard to the meaning of "steep"
there's no difference between a case with only one variable
and one with two suggests that you haven't thought enough
about what "steep" means.
> Neither one relates directly to any graph that was ever
> used for any practical purpose, and therefore this
> non-existent graph cannot be the true source of the the
> expression.
So far as I know, we haven't been discussing the "true
source" of the expression "steep learning curve"; we've been
discussing different meanings it has for different people.
Maybe you've been discussing the true source, but I don't
care what the true source may be; I'm interested only in
what it means now.
A purist will tell you that it's wrong to use "aggravate" to
mean "annoy" and that it can mean only "make heavier". One
who recognizes that words can have different meanings will
tell you that both meanings of "aggravate" are in use and so
are acceptable.
"Steep learning curve" appears to represent a similar
situation. I know its meaning as my coworkers and I used it
for about fifty years. Others, like you, know of meanings
that I'm not familiar with, feel no need of, and have no
reason to learn. I'm content with the meaning I know and am
long accustomed to. I suggest that you be content with the
one you like and stop trying to tell other people they're
wrong because they know and use meanings that are different
from yours.
> I would actually like to discuss your posts item by item
> but I've got other stuff I'm supposed to do today, and my
> post wouldn't be much different from the ten or more posts
> I made some months ago, taking other people apart item by
> item.
Since I can see that you have a myopic attachment to a
single meaning of "steep learning curve", I have no doubt
that I could take your reasoning apart item by item. I
wouldn't bother to do so, though, because your underlying
premise, that there is only one acceptable meaning for an
English phrase, is all that's needed to thoroughly discredit
your position. No further taking apart is needed.
> These imaginary graphs that supposedly
> plot "amount assigned to learn" against "time it takes," or
> "time" against "amount learned," or "amount assigned to
> learn" against "cumulative amount learned," or "effort
> required" against "results," or whatever people want to
> dream up,
> (l) do not follow the basic requirements of graphic
> practice (like I say, I can't go into why not, again)
The only indispensable requirement for drawing a graph is
that you have two variables such that the value of one can
be found from the value of the other. In the simplest case
the change will be linear, so the graph is a straight line.
That's the case where all you're interested in is the time
available to learn something and the time available to learn
it.
> (2) do not yield the required result of "the steep part
> represents the difficult part,"
You're assuming that that is invariably the "required
result". Others are free to say what the required result is
in their application.
> or (3) in the rare case a tortured graph
> can be invented to fit, has never actually been employed
> by anyone (witness, no such graph can be found anywhere
> except in people's minds.)
If you can say that a straight line between two points is a
"tortured graph", you must have a different perception of
what "tortured" means from the one I have.
If you know of a graph someone has bothered to draw to
illustrate that driving 300 miles in six hours shows an
average speed of 50 miles per hour and that to make it in
less time you have to drive faster than 50, please tell us
where it is so we can look at it.
> On the other hand, there actually have been real graphs,
> displaying genuine data, that have been called "learning
> curves" for a century or so, and they're *different*. The
> learning is neither the x-variable nor the y-variable, it
> is what is demonstrated by the shape of the curve. When
> it is steep (steeply dropping), the subject is learning
> and producing more results (or faster or cheaper). When
> it levels off, they're not learning and produce the same
> results.
That is a meaning of "steep learning curve" that I'm not
familiar with, can foresee no personal need for, and have no
desire to remember. I'll stick with the one I fully
understand and have used effectively. But I won't deny that
you have the right to embrace whatever meaning pleases you.
You probably will continue to be like Miss Thistlebottom
heaping scorn on those who use "decimate" to mean "destroy
most of".
(Note the highly significant absence of a comma after
"Thistlebottom".)
Mike Lyle
Sometimes it's better if a third party intervenes. It seemed clear to
me that what Lars was referring to is the everyday-speech meaning of
"lowest common denominator", which is indeed, however absurdly,
"highest common factor". People using the expression aren't thinking
about mathematics at all. That's why Lars mentioned Fowler's "sturdy
indefensibles".
--
Mike.
Bob Cunningham
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> said:
[...]
> I've never found a more plausible or lucid explanation of the
> expression than Bob's. You should be applauding.
Thank you. But don't applaud: Throw money.
Mike Lyle
My cheque would probably bounce off you. I've got a stray $5 bill in
my desk, but, even with the latest advances in paper-aeroplane
construction here in UK, it's not ready for the Atlantic route.
--
Mike.
Skitt
I know I wrote something along these lines before, but what the heck ...
In my 40 years in the engineering field, I was involved in many startups of
projects. When new ways of doing something were discussed, there was always
the mention of allowances to be made for a learning curve. There were no
mentions of any steepness or other attributes such curve might have. All it
meant was that time will be spent with minimal results for a while, and that
this had to be taken into consideration when making schedules. Let's not
get into scheduling, as I have never seen any of that activity resulting in
something representing real life. That's why there were never any limits on
the number of re-scheduling meetings. The final schedule was usually
arrived at after all tasks were 99.9% complete.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Robert Lieblich
How about compass points?
--
Bob Lieblich
Old salt
Spehro Pefhany
How many eighths of pi would you like?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Mark Brader filted:
>> >
>> >intending a metaphorical 180 degrees had first said 360 degrees,
>> >then paused a moment, then corrected it to 365 degrees!
>>
>> ...and, after another brief pause, added "Celsius"....
>>
>> (Which is why I now describe all my metaphorical turnings in radians)....r
>
>How about compass points?
Only on Boxing Day, of course....r
Charles Riggs
Even in these days of the credit card, there are times when it is
handy for a European to be able to write an AmE check. I forget when
those times are and the reasons for them, but it has happened to me. I
use them to deposit my monthly annuity since automatic paycheck
deposits from the US don't work here, and vice versa, but they have
been useful in other ways more than once.
--
Charles Riggs
Jitze Couperus
<nospam...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>The learning curve for bridge is not steep - on the contrary. But
>I have seen other examples of this confusing of "steep curve"
>with something that is hard to learn. The association is probably
>that it is hard to get uphill, but the true meaning is that with
>a steep learning curve a given effort will take you high up the
>curve and thus corresponds to something that is easy.
>
The real origins of this expression have to do with the
learning difficulty that is encountered when brass monkeys attempt
to become competent in the handling of a whole nine yards - while
simultaneously executing a Full Monte. Also referred the
as the "gry factor" sometimes.
Jitze
R J Valentine
} In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:
}>the Omrud filted:
}>>
}>>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> spake thusly:
}>>
}>>>and "penultimate"
}>>> for "even more ultimate than simply ultimate"....r
}>>
}>>Really? The ultimate item, I mean. I've never heard "penultimate"
}>>misused in the UK.
}>
}>In my experience, one seldom hears it *not* misused....r
}
} I don't think I've ever head it misused. Perhaps the misuse is leftpond
} only, in which case it'll be here before long, I'm sure. Who knows what
} "antepenultimate" will end up meaning.
"The very first". But the misuse goes in another direction, too: meaning
"just before the previous", rather than "just before the final".
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@world.std.com>
R J Valentine
Large waste, eh?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder.