10 times lighter

[Jim Newton]

I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like the following:

This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.

Does that sentence bother anyone? What are the units of lightness?
If something can be 10 times lighter, can it also be 1 time lighter? And how heavy would something be if it were 1 time lighter than 1kg? If that means anything it would mean it is 100% lighter, meaning that it would weigh 0kg. 1kg - 100%(1kg) = 0kg. Right?

So 2 times lighter than 1kg should mean it weighs 1kg - 2*(1kg) = -1 kg.
Similarly 10 times lighter would be 1kg - 10*(1kg) = -9kg.

I don't think Newsweek means to claim that this material has negative mass. If so it ought to be on the cover, rather than hidden in some obscure page.

I'm tempted to start spelling it Newsweak rather than Newsweek.

Any thoughts?

Jim

[bert]

On Friday, 6 November 2015 14:06:26 UTC, Jim Newton wrote:

> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.

> Any thoughts?

I think it unambiguously states that the material is
one-tenth of the density of aluminium, but has fallen
over itself to avoid fractions and scientific terms.
--

[Richard Yates]

That usage is very common and in context "10 times lighter" just means
"10 times as light as."

Do you have any objection to "10 times as light as aluminum"?

What about "10 times as heavy as aluminum"?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 06:06:23 -0800 (PST), Jim Newton
<jimka...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like the following:
>
>This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>
>Does that sentence bother anyone? What are the units of lightness?

The units of lightness are the inverse of units of darkness. <wink>

>If something can be 10 times lighter, can it also be 1 time lighter? And how heavy would something be if it were 1 time lighter than 1kg? If that means anything it would mean it is 100% lighter, meaning that it would weigh 0kg. 1kg - 100%(1kg) = 0kg. Right?
>
>So 2 times lighter than 1kg should mean it weighs 1kg - 2*(1kg) = -1 kg.
>Similarly 10 times lighter would be 1kg - 10*(1kg) = -9kg.
>
>I don't think Newsweek means to claim that this material has negative mass. If so it ought to be on the cover, rather than hidden in some obscure page.
>
>I'm tempted to start spelling it Newsweak rather than Newsweek.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Jim

"lightness" is the inverse of "heaviness" so:

"This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium."

means the same as
"Aluminium is 10 times heavier than this material."

"lightness" and "heaviness" are informal terms referring to relative
density, specific gravity.


ObAmEspelling: I assume that Newsweek used "aluminum".


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Harrison Hill]

Me too - and even the maths works:
"one tenth as heavy" = "ten times lighter".

[Richard Tobin]

In article <0e3c9f2b-528c-4960...@googlegroups.com>,

Jim Newton <jimka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What are the units of lightness?

m^3/kg.

>If something can be 10 times lighter, can it also be 1 time lighter?

That's not normal English even if you substitute "heavier" for
"lighter".

>If
>that means anything it would mean it is 100% lighter, meaning that it
>would weigh 0kg.

Do you think "three times heavier" would mean "300% heavier"?

But it would be clearer to say "3 times as heavy" or "10 times as
light".

-- Richard

[Charles Bishop]

In article <0e3c9f2b-528c-4960...@googlegroups.com>,
Jim Newton <jimka...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hmmm, I'd assume "lighter than" refers to density rather than just
weight (or mass in the case of grams and kgs).

[Don Phillipson]

"Jim Newton" <jimka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e3c9f2b-528c-4960...@googlegroups.com...

> I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like
> the following:
>
> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.

When Newsweek was founded (in the 1930s) Americans also
created journalism departments at universities, with a curriculum
of accrued newspaper methods, many of them more negative
than positive, viz. avoidance of common errors or infelicities.

This is a classic instance, an error for:
"This material is one tenth the weight of aluminum"
or
"This material weighs as tenth as much as aluminum."

But Newsweek changed a lot in recent years (e.g. was sold
outright for $1 in 2009, Wikipedia tells us) and now is amalgamated
with the Daily Beast and publishes in Korean, Serbian, Japanese
etc., so we must suppose its grasp of good newspaper English
is not so strong as it used to be.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-5, Don Phillipson wrote:

> But Newsweek changed a lot in recent years (e.g. was sold
> outright for $1 in 2009, Wikipedia tells us) and now is amalgamated
> with the Daily Beast and publishes in Korean, Serbian, Japanese
> etc., so we must suppose its grasp of good newspaper English
> is not so strong as it used to be.

"Tina Brown" is all that need be said.

[Jerry Friedman]

Then what's the explanation for this?

"When they discovered a moon around the distant body last year, James
Christy and Robert Harrington of the U.S. Naval Observatory in
Washington showed that Pluto must be five times smaller and 40 times
lighter than once thought."

/Newsweek/, 1979

https://books.google.com/books?id=6jHkAAAAMAAJ&q=Newsweek+%22times+lighter%22

I suspect, but don't know, that as people have said, these phrases are
used deliberately to avoid fractions, which are believed to be less
widely understood.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jim Newton skrev:

> If something can be 10 times lighter, can it also be 1 time lighter?

Yes, it can be a disposable lighter with very little gas in it.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Jerry Friedman skrev:

> "When they discovered a moon around the distant body last year, James
> Christy and Robert Harrington of the U.S. Naval Observatory in
> Washington showed that Pluto must be five times smaller and 40 times
> lighter than once thought."

> /Newsweek/, 1979

> https://books.google.com/books?id=6jHkAAAAMAAJ&q=Newsweek+%22times+lighter%22

> I suspect, but don't know, that as people have said, these phrases are
> used deliberately to avoid fractions, which are believed to be less
> widely understood.

Expressing the information with the word "heavier" is a
roundabout way of explaining that it is lighter - whether you
understand fractions or not.

It's one fortieth heavier than ...
No, it's not heavier. It's lighter.

There is not the same problem when talking about the volume since
the words do not carry any 'sidemeaning' ("heavier" means "it
weighs more":

It's volume is one fifth of what was previously thought.

Volume is just volume.

Approaching the cross he accelerated to one fifth of his
previous speed.

That is strictly correct, but it would bother a lot of people who
associate "accelerate" with increased speed.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:

> It's one fortieth heavier than ...
> No, it's not heavier. It's lighter.

Correction: Insert "times as heavy" instead of "heavier". But my
argument is still valid.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <n1ioal$kuf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Jim Newton skrev:
>
> > If something can be 10 times lighter, can it also be 1 time lighter?
>
> Yes, it can be a disposable lighter with very little gas in it.

Or a sulfur match.

[the Omrud]

Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
meaningless when analysed.

--
David

[GordonD]

Many years ago there was a TV advert in the UK for a razor blade which
was claimed to be "twice as thin" as its nearest rival.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Harrison Hill]

Opposites are so often synonyms. "Half as thin" and "twice as thin" fit
that pattern.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 12:50:14 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Jerry Friedman skrev:

> Approaching the cross he accelerated to one fifth of his
> previous speed.
>
> That is strictly correct, but it would bother a lot of people who
> associate "accelerate" with increased speed.

Because we have "decelerate" for the other.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <Ys6%x.17001$Ni7....@fx40.am4>,

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
>smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
>meaningless when analysed.

Could you perform this analysis?

-- Richard

[Richard Yates]

To me that one is very peculiar as it will confuse everyone because of
our poor estimations of scaling. The dimensions of "size" are not
specified here and could be a linear, an area or a volume measure, and
the density is therefore either 3x, .67x, or .125x as high as was

[Richard Yates]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 18:38:46 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The options are either to not analyze language that way, or to do so
and delight in the ambiguities and inconsistencies.

[RH Draney]

On 11/6/2015 12:52 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:49:55 UTC, GordonD wrote:
>> On 06/11/2015 18:38, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2015 14:06, Jim Newton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>>>

>>> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
>>> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
>>> meaningless when analysed.

I'm willing to let the present example slide, on the premise that I too
know what they mean...I'm less forgiving when someone says tomorrow's
weather will be "twice as cold"....

>> Many years ago there was a TV advert in the UK for a razor blade which
>> was claimed to be "twice as thin" as its nearest rival.
>
> Opposites are so often synonyms. "Half as thin" and "twice as thin" fit
> that pattern.

Yeah, there's thirteen hundred and fifty-two
Guitar cases in Nashville,
And anyone that unpacks his guitar could play
Twice as better than I will.

....r

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 3:06:32 PM UTC-7, RH Draney wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 12:52 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:49:55 UTC, GordonD wrote:
> >> On 06/11/2015 18:38, the Omrud wrote:
> >>> On 06/11/2015 14:06, Jim Newton wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
> >>> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
> >>> meaningless when analysed.
>
> I'm willing to let the present example slide, on the premise that I too
> know what they mean...I'm less forgiving when someone says tomorrow's
> weather will be "twice as cold"....

...

That's very simple. Today's high was 50 F, and tomorrow's will be
-205 F.

--
Jerry Friedman

[the Omrud]

On 06/11/2015 22:05, RH Draney wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 12:52 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:49:55 UTC, GordonD wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2015 18:38, the Omrud wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2015 14:06, Jim Newton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten
>>>> times
>>>> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
>>>> meaningless when analysed.
>
> I'm willing to let the present example slide, on the premise that I too
> know what they mean...I'm less forgiving when someone says tomorrow's
> weather will be "twice as cold"....

Quite. And 20 degrees C is not "twice as hot" as 10 degrees C. You
have to move to Kelvins to have any change of this making sense.

--
David

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:53:13 -0700, Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

" ... five times smaller", and so on, is one of those things
that I was rigidly opposed to, back when I started reading aue.

Now it is one of those things -- like "they" for the pronoun with
indefinite sex -- on which I have switched. I now consider it
to be a handy and acceptable convention.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Richard Tobin]

In article <6ea%x.57853$bA1....@fx41.am4>,

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'm willing to let the present example slide, on the premise that I too
>> know what they mean...I'm less forgiving when someone says tomorrow's
>> weather will be "twice as cold"....

>Quite. And 20 degrees C is not "twice as hot" as 10 degrees C. You
>have to move to Kelvins to have any change of this making sense.

It could reasonably be relative to something like body temperature.
The temperature at which you gain or lose heat twice as fast would
be twice as hot or cold.

-- Richard

[Robert Bannister]

On 6/11/2015 10:06 PM, Jim Newton wrote:
> I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like the following:
>
> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>

> Does that sentence bother anyone? What are the units of lightness?

It doesn't bother me at all, but I suppose it should be
"is 10 times as light as".
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Nov-07 01:34, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> "lightness" is the inverse of "heaviness" so:
>
> "This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium."
> means the same as
> "Aluminium is 10 times heavier than this material."

which in turn means

"Aluminium is 11 times as heavy as this material."

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

Except that that word is normally avoided in mathematics, physics, and
engineering, because it's potentially confusing. It's clearer to express
the acceleration as a negative number.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 11:05:50 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Nov-07 07:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 12:50:14 PM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >> Jerry Friedman skrev:

> >> Approaching the cross he accelerated to one fifth of his
> >> previous speed.
> >> That is strictly correct, but it would bother a lot of people who
> >> associate "accelerate" with increased speed.
> > Because we have "decelerate" for the other.
>
> Except that that word is normally avoided in mathematics, physics, and
> engineering, because it's potentially confusing. It's clearer to express
> the acceleration as a negative number.

You people are more easily confused than little old ladies from Pasadena?

"It isn't the fall that kills you, but the sudden reversal of the sign at
the end"?

[Peter Moylan]

I look at it this way. When you're dealing only with positive numbers,
that puts a constraint on your number system: a barrier that can't be
crossed.

Q: What is 3 minus 5?
A: The question makes no sense. There is no such number.

It can also force you to invent two separate words, such as "accelerate"
and "decelerate" for what is essentially the same concept.

Recognising these limitations, some of our forebears invented the
concept of negative numbers. The removal of the hard barrier at 0
simplified a lot of problems. The collection of available numbers
stretches without limit in both directions, in both the discrete
(integer) and the continuous (real number) universes of discourse. This
removes a lot of complexity from questions like "3 minus 5".

People who live in an unsigned world are constraining themselves
unreasonably.

[Lewis]

In message <n1jsvi$i5a$2...@dont-email.me>

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-Nov-07 01:34, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> "lightness" is the inverse of "heaviness" so:
>>
>> "This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium."
>> means the same as
>> "Aluminium is 10 times heavier than this material."

> which in turn means

> "Aluminium is 11 times as heavy as this material."

You might be able to argue that in a math class, but not in the real
world.

If item A is 50kg and item B is 5kg, then a normal person will say that
item B is 10 times lighter than item A. Maybe. Some small minority will
say that item A weighs 10 times as much, or that item B is 1/10th the
eight of item A.

An even smaller minority will say that item A is 10 times the mass of
item B or that item B is 1/10th the mass of item A.

--
You try to shape the world to what you want the world to be. Carving
your name a thousand times won't bring you back to me. Oh no, no I
might as well go and tell it to the trees. Go and tell it to the trees,
yeah.

[the Omrud]

Probably not. Let's see.

A large bag of sugar (LBS) weighs 2 Kg. A small bag of sugar (SBS)
weighs 1 Kg.

The LBS is heavier than the SBS; the LBS has twice the weight (or mass,
if you prefer) of the SBS. It is twice as heavy/massive.

The SBS is lighter than the LBS; the SBS has half the weight/mass of
the LBS. But is it twice as light? I don't think so. I can't see any
meaning in the attempted comparison of "lightness".

In fact, thinking about it, I don't really like the comparison of
"heaviness". Comparison of mass seems much less problematic.

Here's an extract from a book:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uQ06AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=comparing+heaviness+lightness+-unbearable&source=bl&ots=Bvm4-lh9WK&sig=koPCgUWfc-RD_ZrZ38bMx6N4BNI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAmoVChMI6L6elIn-yAIVR_4OCh3pZwi7#v=onepage&q=comparing%20heaviness%20lightness%20-unbearable&f=false

"heavier vs. lighter In these examples, a contrast of degree (of
hotness/heaviness/lightness) is established within the respective
relative scales of hot/heavy/light..."

There's no scale of "lightness". There may be no scale of "heaviness"
but there certainly is one of mass, which may be conflated with heaviness.

That's about as far as I've got.

--
David

[Richard Tobin]

In article <n1jsvi$i5a$2...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> "lightness" is the inverse of "heaviness" so:
>>
>> "This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium."
>> means the same as
>> "Aluminium is 10 times heavier than this material."

>which in turn means
>
> "Aluminium is 11 times as heavy as this material."

You might think it logical for it to mean that, but it doesn't.

-- Richard

[Mark Brader]

Jim Newton:

> I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like
> the following:
>

> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>

> Does that sentence bother anyone? What are the units of lightness?

Reciprocal density units, in this case: m^3/kg, for example.
In another context, it could be reciprocal mass units: 1/kg.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "A cow-orker of mine used to ood dogs."
m...@vex.net -- Steve Hayes

[David Kleinecke]

This comes up constantly in rge C comouter language (and many - most?
pthers). The default way to define a numerical variable is "int" and
int is a signed integer. Most most int variables are really counting
numbers (non-negative integers) and should be "unsigned int". But that
is too much trouble to write. So lots o never existent negatives,

Don't get me started on "enums".

[Charles Bishop]

In article <L8k%x.44040$eu4....@fx44.am4>,

the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/11/2015 20:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <Ys6%x.17001$Ni7....@fx40.am4>,
> > the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
> >> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
> >> meaningless when analysed.
> >
> > Could you perform this analysis?
>
> Probably not. Let's see.
>
> A large bag of sugar (LBS) weighs 2 Kg. A small bag of sugar (SBS)
> weighs 1 Kg.
>
> The LBS is heavier than the SBS; the LBS has twice the weight (or mass,
> if you prefer) of the SBS. It is twice as heavy/massive.

May I, just for fun, pick a nit? You didn't specify that the LBS and the
SBS are in the same location. If they are not, they may have the mass
you indicated, which you did by specifying Kgs, but the weights could be
different. The LBS is in Denver Colorado (or if you prefer, on top of
Mt. Everest) an the SNS is at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. They
both retain the Kgsness you assigned them, but their weights would be
different.

The above paragraph adds almost nothing to the discussion, it was only
something in my personality that made me insert it into the discussion.

As you were.

--
charles

[snip actual discussion]

--
charles

[the Omrud]

On 07/11/2015 18:37, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <L8k%x.44040$eu4....@fx44.am4>,
> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2015 20:44, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <Ys6%x.17001$Ni7....@fx40.am4>,
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten times
>>>> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
>>>> meaningless when analysed.
>>>
>>> Could you perform this analysis?
>>
>> Probably not. Let's see.
>>
>> A large bag of sugar (LBS) weighs 2 Kg. A small bag of sugar (SBS)
>> weighs 1 Kg.
>>
>> The LBS is heavier than the SBS; the LBS has twice the weight (or mass,
>> if you prefer) of the SBS. It is twice as heavy/massive.
>
> May I, just for fun, pick a nit? You didn't specify that the LBS and the
> SBS are in the same location.

It's a fair cop. I'll come quietly.

> If they are not, they may have the mass
> you indicated, which you did by specifying Kgs, but the weights could be
> different. The LBS is in Denver Colorado (or if you prefer, on top of
> Mt. Everest) an the SNS is at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. They
> both retain the Kgsness you assigned them, but their weights would be
> different.
>
> The above paragraph adds almost nothing to the discussion, it was only
> something in my personality that made me insert it into the discussion.
>
> As you were.

Fair enough.

--
David

[Peter Moylan]

Common parlance gets away with this sort of thing because the difference
between 10 and 11 is small. With smaller ratios you have a serious
possibility of confusion. What does "one times heavier" or "100%
heavier" mean? Does it mean the same as 200% heavier?

[grabber]

"One times heavier" doesn't mean anything to me. For n > 1, "n times
heavier than" and "n times as heavy as" mean the same. "100% heavier
than" is a possible way of saying "twice as heavy as", whilst "200%
heavier than" means "three times as heavy as".

[Richard Tobin]

In article <n1m3gc$tte$4...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Common parlance gets away with this sort of thing because the difference
>between 10 and 11 is small. With smaller ratios you have a serious
>possibility of confusion. What does "one times heavier" or "100%
>heavier" mean? Does it mean the same as 200% heavier?

You'll notice that no-one ever says "one times heavier", which is because
it would mean "the same weight".

I don't see any ambiguity in "100% heavier" - it means twice as heavy.
Presumably you wouldn't object to "1% heavier"?

It's the "times" that changes it from an addition to a multiplication.

-- Richard

[Peter Moylan]

"100%" is also a multiplication. It's the "-er" that turns it from a
multiplication to an addition, i.e. that stops it from meaning "100% as
heavy".

[Mike Barnes]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Nov-07 21:10, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <n1jsvi$i5a$2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> "lightness" is the inverse of "heaviness" so:
>>>>
>>>> "This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium."
>>>> means the same as
>>>> "Aluminium is 10 times heavier than this material."
>>
>>> which in turn means
>>>
>>> "Aluminium is 11 times as heavy as this material."
>>
>> You might think it logical for it to mean that, but it doesn't.
>
> Common parlance gets away with this sort of thing because the difference
> between 10 and 11 is small.

That's one way of putting it. I'd say that people are sometimes happy to
express things in that way because the difference is irrelevant to what
they're trying to put across. If some listeners stress about the
difference, they haven't understood.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/11/2015 8:05 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> Common parlance gets away with this sort of thing because the difference
> between 10 and 11 is small. With smaller ratios you have a serious
> possibility of confusion. What does "one times heavier" or "100%
> heavier"

At least 100% heavier isn't usually the same as 100 times heavier.
Any percentage increase is subject to arithmetical obfuscation:
a price rise from $100 to $150 is either
a rise of 33% or a rise of 50% depending on how you look at it.

[Robert Bannister]

Doesn't that mean it's "(n + 1) times as heavy as"?

[bill van]

In article <daagl0...@mid.individual.net>,

I don't think so. A rise from 100 to 150 (dollars or anything else) is
always 50 per cent. But a drop from 150 to 100 is 33 1/3 per cent.
--
bill

[Peter T. Daniels]

Maybe you can say it's either 33 1/3% more or 50% more.

[Mark Brader]

Robert Bannister:

> Any percentage increase is subject to arithmetical obfuscation:
> a price rise from $100 to $150 is either
> a rise of 33% or a rise of 50% depending on how you look at it.

Wrongly or correctly, that is!
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "However, 0.02283% failure might be better than 50%
m...@vex.net | failure, depending on your needs." --Norman Diamond

[grabber]

"(100n)% heavier than" does mean that (to me). Though I am not that keen
on this construction.

"n times heavier than" doesn't mean the same. It means "n times as heavy
as".

"(100n)% heavier than" seems to be about a percentage increase, so it
involves addition to the given quantity. I don't see any equivalent
implication in "n times heavier than", though I can imagine why some
people think might there ought to be. (I think such people would see it
as an awkward and potentially ambiguous construction, and would
therefore normally avoid it. So I think it is reasonable to conclude
that anyone choosing to use it is not persuaded by that analogy, and
therefore means what I claim they mean.)

[Robert Bannister]

Usually, it depends on who is reporting it and whether they are in
favour or against.

[GordonD]

On 09/11/2015 03:03, Robert Bannister wrote:

I've been trying to get my head round something.

A box which weighs 4.4 pounds is twice as heavy as one which weighs 2.2
pounds, and that's true no matter what units you use - 2 kilograms as
opposed to 1 kilo.

The same holds for time - a one-hour TV show is twice the length of a
half-hour one, and it's the same if you measure them in minutes.

But when it comes to temperature, it doesn't work. A pan of boiling
water (100 degrees C) might seem at first thought to be twice as hot as
one at fifty degrees, but when you measure in Fahrenheit it's only
around 1.73 times as hot (212 / 122 degrees F). I'm sure there's a
simple explanation for this, but I can't put my finger on it. (It's not
the 32-degree offset either; it still doesn't work out.)
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Peter Moylan]

It's the 273-degree offset. "Twice as hot" makes sense if you use
absolute temperatures. Celsius and Fahrenheit both share the fault (if
you can call it a fault) of setting their zero at an arbitrarily chosen
point.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <dadsto...@mid.individual.net>,

GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>But when it comes to temperature, it doesn't work. A pan of boiling
>water (100 degrees C) might seem at first thought to be twice as hot as
>one at fifty degrees, but when you measure in Fahrenheit it's only
>around 1.73 times as hot (212 / 122 degrees F). I'm sure there's a
>simple explanation for this, but I can't put my finger on it. (It's not
>the 32-degree offset either; it still doesn't work out.)

For Fahrenheit vs Celsius, it *is* the 32 degree offset.

100C is 212F which is 180 degrees above 32F.
50C is 122F which is 90 degrees above 32F.

-- Richard

[GordonD]

I must have calculated wrongly when I was trying to convert. Thanks,
Richard, I knew it was something simple!

[RH Draney]

In survey analysis, we are taught names for several types of scales, and
that certain operations can be carried out on the more advanced kinds of
scales that don't work on the simpler ones...the hierarchy is as follows:

nominal scale - (lowest type)
ordinal scale (adds the properties of higher or lower values)
interval scale (adds the properties of equal-sized steps between values)
ratio scale (highest type, adds a non-arbitrary zero point)

Temperature in anything other than an absolute system (such as Kelvin or
Rankine) is an interval scale...it is meaningless on such a scale to say
that one temperature is x times another, but it is still possible to say
that one temperature *increase* is x times another....r

[Charles Bishop]

In article <n1sgs8$1orc$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

But the higher one doesn't have twice as much heat as the other. For
that you have to use an absolute measure of temperature, starting at
absolute zero, rather than a made up one.

--
charles

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ctbishop-BF6F0E...@news.individual.net>,

Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>In article <n1sgs8$1orc$1...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

>> In article <dadsto...@mid.individual.net>,
>> GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >But when it comes to temperature, it doesn't work. A pan of boiling
>> >water (100 degrees C) might seem at first thought to be twice as hot as
>> >one at fifty degrees, but when you measure in Fahrenheit it's only
>> >around 1.73 times as hot (212 / 122 degrees F). I'm sure there's a
>> >simple explanation for this, but I can't put my finger on it. (It's not
>> >the 32-degree offset either; it still doesn't work out.)

>> For Fahrenheit vs Celsius, it *is* the 32 degree offset.
>>
>> 100C is 212F which is 180 degrees above 32F.
>> 50C is 122F which is 90 degrees above 32F.

>But the higher one doesn't have twice as much heat as the other.

I was addressing only Gordon's point that I quoted.

> For
>that you have to use an absolute measure of temperature, starting at
>absolute zero, rather than a made up one.

"Heat" is not used in physics as a term for the energy in an object.
A more precise term is "internal energy", but absolute temperature is
not a direct measure of that either. In particular, the internal
energy increases when a substance melts without increasing its
temperature.

For an ideal gas, the internal energy would be proportional to the
absolute temperature.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3:35:04 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:

> For an ideal gas, the internal energy would be proportional to the
> absolute temperature.

How about for a pretty good gas, which is the kind they'd have in Lake Wobegon?

[Mike Barnes]

GordonD wrote:
> I've been trying to get my head round something.
>
> A box which weighs 4.4 pounds is twice as heavy as one which weighs 2.2
> pounds, and that's true no matter what units you use - 2 kilograms as
> opposed to 1 kilo.
>
> The same holds for time - a one-hour TV show is twice the length of a
> half-hour one, and it's the same if you measure them in minutes.
>
> But when it comes to temperature, it doesn't work. A pan of boiling
> water (100 degrees C) might seem at first thought to be twice as hot as
> one at fifty degrees, but when you measure in Fahrenheit it's only
> around 1.73 times as hot (212 / 122 degrees F). I'm sure there's a
> simple explanation for this, but I can't put my finger on it. (It's not
> the 32-degree offset either; it still doesn't work out.)

Others have provided an explanation. ObUsage: I think that's why we say
"degrees Fahrenheit" and "degrees Celsius" not "Fahrenheits" and
"Celsiuses" (or even "Celsii").

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:03:36 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net>
wrote:

Statisticians want "equal intervals" between scale points
because the assumption of equal-error-of-residual across
the range of a scale lies behind the statisticial tests
that we perform.

That is why it is very desirable to start a model with the
"right" scaling for variables. With ratio variables, it is
possible to take the log or maybe the reciprocol to find
the right scaling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement
points out that this conventional hierarchy (which I use, too)
is not universally praised. To the extent that it is used to suggest
workable transformations for data analysis, the biggest omission
is "bounded at both ends" (implying a symmetric transformation,
like the Logit transformation which is conventionally used for
proportions).

>
>Temperature in anything other than an absolute system (such as Kelvin or
>Rankine) is an interval scale...it is meaningless on such a scale to say
>that one temperature is x times another, but it is still possible to say
>that one temperature *increase* is x times another....r

I find "IQ" or "smart" as being really a tough example for "twice as"
to make sense.

Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
point, just as your parenthesis requires.

In another switch of context: "Dollars" are typically modeled by
economists as equal-interval data; however, you should not say that
"income-measured-in-dollars" shows equal intervals for measuring
social outcomes, since adding $50K to $10K is not at all the same
in social implications as adding $50K to $1M.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Richard Tobin]

In article <h1u44b96a8m44011d...@4ax.com>,

Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:

>Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
>of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
>have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
>point, just as your parenthesis requires.

From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
choose water?

-- Richard

[Lewis]

In message <dadsto...@mid.individual.net>

Weights are all based on an absolute value (the weight is more than
zero, and everyone agrees what zero is). Time works that way because we
all use the same units. However, consider a month. Is a month exactly
half the length of two months? Nope, not in the common calendar. January
and Feb are 59 days, July and August are 62 days.

Temperatures do not work that way. A zero in F, C, and K are very
different.


--
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period
of time.

[Lewis]

In message <n1tvop$2hdi$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Several reasons. Here are three.

1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.

2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
states of matter naturally on the planet.

3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
every form of life on the planet.


--
I believe you can joke about anything. -- George Carlin

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnn457kp....@amelia.local>,

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>>Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
>>>of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
>>>have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
>>>point, just as your parenthesis requires.

>> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
>> choose water?

>Several reasons. Here are three.
>
>1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.
>
>2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
> states of matter naturally on the planet.
>
>3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
> every form of life on the planet.

That's a geocentric viewpoint, not a scientific one.

-- Richard

[Lewis]

In message <n1vhkp$9ko$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Yes. The geo is the planet every human has lived on.

> not a scientific one.

Sure it is. We are living creatures that require water, it makes sense
to use a temperature scale that is related to water.

Even Kelvin is a system based on water's freezing and boiling
temperatures.

--
'It must have been Fate that brought you here,' said Twoflower. 'Yes,
it's the sort of thing he likes to do,' said Rincewind.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnn46ilf....@amelia.local>,

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> That's a geocentric viewpoint,
>
>Yes. The geo is the planet every human has lived on.

>> not a scientific one.
>
>Sure it is. We are living creatures that require water, it makes sense
>to use a temperature scale that is related to water.

It makes sense, but it is arbitrary from a scientific viewpoint.

>Even Kelvin is a system based on water's freezing and boiling
>temperatures.

Yes. Unlike the zero point, the size of Kelvin degrees is arbitrary.

-- Richard

[Charles Bishop]

In article <n1vhkp$9ko$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

It is scientific to the extent that the scale was chosen to be useful on
this planet. This was an answer to the question up in the > >> text.

--
charles

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

It is scientific in that it is based on scientific observations that can
be repeated independently. Without two "fixed" points, the freezing
point of water and the boiling point of water, it would be difficult to
impossible to define a scale. It not like a measure of length or
distance where a physical item such as a metre-long item or two posts a
mile apart can be taken as a standard that can them be copied.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

There are lots of things it doesn't work for, such as pH: a pH of 8 is
neither twice as acid nor twice as alkaline as one of 4.

Problems always arise when you measure things from an arbitrary datum.
It's just the same for distances along the road. If I say that Paris is
more than twice as far as Lyon that makes perfectly good sense if I'm
in Marseilles and the person I'm talking to is as well, but as a
general statement it makes no sense.


--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-11-11 01:46:56 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <n1tvop$2hdi$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article <h1u44b96a8m44011d...@4ax.com>,
>> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
>>> of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
>>> have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
>>> point, just as your parenthesis requires.
>
>> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
>> choose water?
>
> Several reasons. Here are three.
>
> 1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.

A basic requirement, maybe, but not the basic requirement.

>
> 2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
> states of matter naturally on the planet.

Not by any means as common as silica, or, if we take the planet all the
way to its centre, as iron.

>
> 3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
> every form of life on the planet.

"Just about every"? You're forgetting about hyperthermophiles (at least
up to 120°C) and psychrophiles (at least down to -15°C). You're also
forgetting (surprisingly for someone who lives in Denver) that the
conditions under which water freezes at 0°C and boils at 100°C are
highly artificial and don't apply everywhere.


--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-11-06 22:56:01 +0000, the Omrud said:

> On 06/11/2015 22:05, RH Draney wrote:
>> On 11/6/2015 12:52 PM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> On Friday, 6 November 2015 18:49:55 UTC, GordonD wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2015 18:38, the Omrud wrote:

>>>>> On 06/11/2015 14:06, Jim Newton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, I hate this sort of formation. I'm forever hearing "X is ten
>>>>> times
>>>>> smaller than Y". I know what they mean of course, but it's surely
>>>>> meaningless when analysed.
>>
>> I'm willing to let the present example slide, on the premise that I too
>> know what they mean...I'm less forgiving when someone says tomorrow's
>> weather will be "twice as cold"....
>
> Quite. And 20 degrees C is not "twice as hot" as 10 degrees C. You
> have to move to Kelvins

kelvins: units named after people don't have capital initials, though
their symbols do: 273 K but 273 kelvins.


> to have any change of this making sense.


--
athel

[Richard Tobin]

In article <g2v64b9nt7qi8fau8...@4ax.com>,

Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>>> That's a geocentric viewpoint, not a scientific one.

>>It is scientific to the extent that the scale was chosen to be useful on
>>this planet. This was an answer to the question up in the > >> text.

>It is scientific in that it is based on scientific observations that can
>be repeated independently.

The question wasn't about whether the scale was scientific. It was
about whether it was arbitrary. Using the triple point of water is
arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint, no matter how scientifically that
point is determined.

-- Richard

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-11-07 01:22:37 +0000, Robert Bannister said:

> On 6/11/2015 10:06 PM, Jim Newton wrote:
>> I saw an article in Newsweek which which had a sentence something like
>> the following:

>>
>> This material is 10 times lighter than aluminium.
>>

>> Does that sentence bother anyone? What are the units of lightness?
>
> It doesn't bother me at all, but I suppose it should be
> "is 10 times as light as".

It doesn't bother me either, as it's perfectly clear what it means.
Maybe it bothers me a very tiny bit, whereas 10-fold lighter wouldn't
bother at all. Is there any basis for regarding "10 times lighter"
differently from "10-fold lighter".


--
athel

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

But was there something less arbitrary available at the time?

[Lewis]

In message <dahf4d...@mid.individual.net>

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2015-11-11 01:46:56 +0000, Lewis said:

>> In message <n1tvop$2hdi$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
>> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <h1u44b96a8m44011d...@4ax.com>,
>>> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
>>>> of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
>>>> have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
>>>> point, just as your parenthesis requires.
>>
>>> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
>>> choose water?
>>
>> Several reasons. Here are three.
>>
>> 1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.

> A basic requirement, maybe, but not the basic requirement.

I would tend to disagree. As far as we know, the formation of life is
impossible without water.

>> 2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
>> states of matter naturally on the planet.

> Not by any means as common as silica, or, if we take the planet all the
> way to its centre, as iron.

Neither of which occur naturally in all three common states of matter.

>> 3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
>> every form of life on the planet.

> "Just about every"? You're forgetting about hyperthermophiles

No I'm not. I didn't say "every single form of life" did I?

> (at least up to 120°C) and psychrophiles (at least down to -15°C).
> You're also forgetting (surprisingly for someone who lives in Denver)
> that the conditions under which water freezes at 0°C and boils at
> 100°C are highly artificial and don't apply everywhere.

I do not think altitude affects freezing temperature.

--
Looking into Granny's eyes was like looking into a mirror. What you saw
looking back at you was yourself, and there was no hiding place.

[Robert Bannister]

Doesn't that apply equally to the metre or the foot or the litre or most
other measures?

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:25:57 +0000 (UTC), ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

That was my point being referred to, and I argue that that
the "non-arbitrary" nature of using zero at freezing or boiling
(for given pressures, if you prefer) is obvious when you want
to describe the behavior and properties of H20 when approaching
or leaving the values.

Those scales might be ratio relative to those zeroes. Whether
"ratio" works or not, you certainly do not want to treat the
temperatures on opposite sides of the values as "equal
intervals" on the same scale.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Lewis]

In message <dai3kp...@mid.individual.net>

Of course.

They really blew it when they redefined the meter, they should have made
it exactly 1/300,000 of a light second. It's not like anyone would need
to shave bits off a meter stick.


--
Train Station: where the train stops. Work Station: ...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-11-11 23:24:52 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <dahf4d...@mid.individual.net>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2015-11-11 01:46:56 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>>> In message <n1tvop$2hdi$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
>>> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <h1u44b96a8m44011d...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
>>>>> of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
>>>>> have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
>>>>> point, just as your parenthesis requires.
>>>
>>>> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
>>>> choose water?
>>>
>>> Several reasons. Here are three.
>>>
>>> 1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.
>
>> A basic requirement, maybe, but not the basic requirement.
>
> I would tend to disagree. As far as we know, the formation of life is
> impossible without water.

Nobody said anything to disagree with that. My preference for "a" over
"the" is based on the existednce of other requirements.

>
>>> 2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
>>> states of matter naturally on the planet.
>
>> Not by any means as common as silica, or, if we take the planet all the
>> way to its centre, as iron.
>
> Neither of which occur naturally in all three common states of matter.
>
>>> 3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
>>> every form of life on the planet.
>
>> "Just about every"? You're forgetting about hyperthermophiles
>
> No I'm not. I didn't say "every single form of life" did I?

No, you said "just about …": not so different.

>
>> (at least up to 120°C) and psychrophiles (at least down to -15°C).
>> You're also forgetting (surprisingly for someone who lives in Denver)
>> that the conditions under which water freezes at 0°C and boils at
>> 100°C are highly artificial and don't apply everywhere.
>
> I do not think altitude affects freezing temperature.


--

athel

[Jim Newton]

>
> Do you think "three times heavier" would mean "300% heavier"?
>
> But it would be clearer to say "3 times as heavy" or "10 times as
> light".
>

No 3 times heavier is 300% heavier, i.e., 400% as heavy.
One tenth as heavy is clear, and 1 tenth lighter would be 90% as heavy.
10 times as light has no meaning, in my opinion.

[Lewis]

In message <93cfa6e2-34d6-487a...@googlegroups.com>

Jim Newton <jimka...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Do you think "three times heavier" would mean "300% heavier"?
>>
>> But it would be clearer to say "3 times as heavy" or "10 times as
>> light".
>>

> No 3 times heavier is 300% heavier, i.e., 400% as heavy.

A 3 kilo ball is three times heavier than a 1 kilo ball. Anyone
insisting it is only two times heavier is either being pedantic for
attention, or is sowing confusion and discord.


--
'You've got the loudest silences I ever did hear from anyone who wasn't
dead!' --Lords and Ladies

[Jim Newton]

> A 3 kilo ball is three times heavier than a 1 kilo ball. Anyone
> insisting it is only two times heavier is either being pedantic for
> attention, or is sowing confusion and discord.
>

A 3 kg ball is 300% as heavy, and it is 200% heavier than a 1kg ball.

And a 2kg ball is twice as heavy as a 1kg ball.

And a 3kg ball is twice heaver than a 1kg ball.

So it is difficult for me to accept that it could be twice heaver and also twice as heavy at the same time without being 0kg.

Likewise it is difficult for me to accept that a 2kg ball is both 1 time heaver and two times heaver than a 1kg ball. It is unarguably 1 time (100%) heaver, in the same sense that a 1kg ball is zero times heaver than another 1kg ball.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 10:05:37 AM UTC-5, Jim Newton wrote:
> > A 3 kilo ball is three times heavier than a 1 kilo ball. Anyone
> > insisting it is only two times heavier is either being pedantic for
> > attention, or is sowing confusion and discord.
> >
>
> A 3 kg ball is 300% as heavy, and it is 200% heavier than a 1kg ball.
>
> And a 2kg ball is twice as heavy as a 1kg ball.
>
> And a 3kg ball is twice heaver than a 1kg ball.

"Twice heavier"? Maybe that's one of your Mississippiisms.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <dai3kp...@mid.individual.net>,

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>> The question wasn't about whether the scale was scientific. It was
>> about whether it was arbitrary. Using the triple point of water is
>> arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint, no matter how scientifically that
>> point is determined.

>Doesn't that apply equally to the metre or the foot or the litre or most
>other measures?

Yes. The zero point of the Kelvin scale is one of the few that are
*not* arbitrary.

-- Richard

[Jim Newton]

> "Twice heavier"? Maybe that's one of your Mississippiisms.
>

If one car costs $50k, and another one costs 10% more, how much does the second one cost?
Does it cost $5k? or does it cost $55K?
I think most people would agree it is $55K.
Similarly if the 2nd car costs 10% less, then I'd think it costs $45K.
If it costs 0% more, it would e $50K. If 100% more, then it would be $100K. And if it
is 200% more it would be $150K. What is twice a price if it is not 200% of the price?

Unfortunately most people disagree with me, that's why I do poorly on standardized tests.

[Mark Brader]

Richard Tobin:

>>> The question wasn't about whether the scale was scientific. It was
>>> about whether it was arbitrary. Using the triple point of water is
>>> arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint, no matter how scientifically that
>>> point is determined.

Robert Bannister:

>> Doesn't that apply equally to the metre or the foot or the litre or most
>> other measures?

Richard Tobin:
> Yes.

Indeed.

> The zero point of the Kelvin scale is one of the few that are
> *not* arbitrary.

Only "few" if you're talking about temperature scales. When you
start comparing temperatures in kelvins to lengths or volumes in
meters, feet, or liters, as Robert was, there's no difference in
the treatment of the zero point.

As noted elsethread, there are some non-temperature scales whose
zero points are arbitrary -- pH for example -- but for most
measurements zero actually does mean zero.

The *size* of the unit, on the other hand, is almost always
"arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The cure of the typo has struck again."
m...@vex.net --Peter Young

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-5, Jim Newton wrote:

> > "Twice heavier"? Maybe that's one of your Mississippiisms.
>
> If one car costs $50k, and another one costs 10% more, how much does the second one cost?
> Does it cost $5k? or does it cost $55K?
> I think most people would agree it is $55K.
> Similarly if the 2nd car costs 10% less, then I'd think it costs $45K.
> If it costs 0% more, it would e $50K. If 100% more, then it would be $100K. And if it
> is 200% more it would be $150K. What is twice a price if it is not 200% of the price?

Does that make it "twice pricier"?

> Unfortunately most people disagree with me, that's why I do poorly on standardized tests.

You didn't address the "twice heavier" question.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Mike Barnes:

> GordonD wrote:
>> I've been trying to get my head round something.
>>
>> A box which weighs 4.4 pounds is twice as heavy as one which weighs 2.2
>> pounds, and that's true no matter what units you use - 2 kilograms as
>> opposed to 1 kilo.
>>
>> The same holds for time - a one-hour TV show is twice the length of a
>> half-hour one, and it's the same if you measure them in minutes.
>>
>> But when it comes to temperature, it doesn't work. A pan of boiling
>> water (100 degrees C) might seem at first thought to be twice as hot as
>> one at fifty degrees, but when you measure in Fahrenheit it's only
>> around 1.73 times as hot (212 / 122 degrees F). I'm sure there's a
>> simple explanation for this, but I can't put my finger on it. (It's not
>> the 32-degree offset either; it still doesn't work out.)
>

> Others have provided an explanation. ObUsage: I think that's why we say
> "degrees Fahrenheit" and "degrees Celsius" not "Fahrenheits" and
> "Celsiuses" (or even "Celsii").

If you insist on "Celsii", then be ready to be addressed as
"Barnis" unless accompanied by family.

--
Q: What do computer engineers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Mark Brader:

> Richard Tobin:
>>>> The question wasn't about whether the scale was scientific. It was
>>>> about whether it was arbitrary. Using the triple point of water is
>>>> arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint, no matter how scientifically that
>>>> point is determined.
>
> Robert Bannister:
>>> Doesn't that apply equally to the metre or the foot or the litre or most
>>> other measures?
>
> Richard Tobin:
>> Yes.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> The zero point of the Kelvin scale is one of the few that are
>> *not* arbitrary.
>
> Only "few" if you're talking about temperature scales. When you
> start comparing temperatures in kelvins to lengths or volumes in
> meters, feet, or liters, as Robert was, there's no difference in
> the treatment of the zero point.

Rrright ... but there is something different to it. Yes: that
there *is* a non-arbitrary zero point to the temperature scale had
to be scientifically established; for the other measurements, it
is trivial.

And that's exactly the reason why many temperature scales have an
arbitrary zero point, while this would be quite unusual for a
scale of length. OK, I thought of one: the UK and US shoe size
scales have arbitrary zero points, whereas the European or
Japanese scales don't: there, size 0 is 0 cm long.

--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 4:27:11 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> In message <dahf4d...@mid.individual.net>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > On 2015-11-11 01:46:56 +0000, Lewis said:

...

> >> 3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
> >> every form of life on the planet.
>
> > "Just about every"? You're forgetting about hyperthermophiles
>
> No I'm not. I didn't say "every single form of life" did I?
>
> > (at least up to 120°C) and psychrophiles (at least down to -15°C).
> > You're also forgetting (surprisingly for someone who lives in Denver)
> > that the conditions under which water freezes at 0°C and boils at
> > 100°C are highly artificial and don't apply everywhere.
>
> I do not think altitude affects freezing temperature.

In principle it does, but the difference between the freezing points
at sea level and in Denver is probably too small to measure, from what
I can find out.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

There's nothing arbitrary about 0 m or 0 ft or 0 l. Temperature scales
(apart from the absolute temperature scales like Kelvin) are among the
few scales where the zero point is arbitrary.

You might be thinking of the scaling: how the numbers go up as a
quantity increases. That is arbitrary for practically any units you can
think of. It is, however, irrelevant to the question of what "double"
means. If you double a length as measured in metres, you will find that
it has also doubled as measured in feet. If two linear scales (of
anything you might want to measure) agree on their zero point then they
will have a constant ratio.

The "linear" qualification matters here because some scales are not
linear. The pH of an acid, for example, is measured on a logarithmic
rather than a linear scale.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Nov-13 00:58, Lewis wrote:
> In message <93cfa6e2-34d6-487a...@googlegroups.com>
> Jim Newton <jimka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you think "three times heavier" would mean "300% heavier"?
>>>
>>> But it would be clearer to say "3 times as heavy" or "10 times as
>>> light".
>>>
>
>> No 3 times heavier is 300% heavier, i.e., 400% as heavy.
>
> A 3 kilo ball is three times heavier than a 1 kilo ball. Anyone
> insisting it is only two times heavier is either being pedantic for
> attention, or is sowing confusion and discord.

The confusion and discord have already been sown by those who claim that
"times as heavy" and "times heavier" are synonyms.

[Peter Moylan]

The people who disagree with you (and me) believe that the meaning of
"x% more" suddenly changes as x increases beyond 100. They will agree
with you (and with all mathematicians) for x<100, but will switch to a
different definition for x>100.

Did many people always have this dual definition? I suspect not. It was
something that was introduced by advertisers.

[RH Draney]

On 11/12/2015 3:37 PM, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>
> And that's exactly the reason why many temperature scales have an
> arbitrary zero point, while this would be quite unusual for a
> scale of length. OK, I thought of one: the UK and US shoe size
> scales have arbitrary zero points, whereas the European or
> Japanese scales don't: there, size 0 is 0 cm long.

Those would be dancing shoes for angels....r

[Jim Newton]

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 10:23:52 PM UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:23:49 AM UTC-5, Jim Newton wrote:
>
> > > "Twice heavier"? Maybe that's one of your Mississippiisms.
> >
>

> > Unfortunately most people disagree with me, that's why I do poorly on standardized tests.
>
> You didn't address the "twice heavier" question.

Not sure what the question is. Is it whether the expression comes from Mississippi or is the question what it means?
I'm not sure whether it comes from Mississippi or from mathematics. But what it means is what it literally means. Twice heaver is 200% heavier. I.e. X + 200% of X.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That could work if "heavier" meant 'as heavy', but it doesn't. It's unlikely
that a mathematician would say that "-er" means 'equal to'!

[Charles Bishop]

In article <dahf4d...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2015-11-11 01:46:56 +0000, Lewis said:
>

> > In message <n1tvop$2hdi$3...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
> > Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <h1u44b96a8m44011d...@4ax.com>,
> >> Rich Ulrich <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
> >>> of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
> >>> have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
> >>> point, just as your parenthesis requires.
> >
> >> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
> >> choose water?
> >
> > Several reasons. Here are three.
> >
> > 1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.
>
> A basic requirement, maybe, but not the basic requirement.

"A" is probably best.

> >
> > 2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
> > states of matter naturally on the planet.
>
> Not by any means as common as silica, or, if we take the planet all the
> way to its centre, as iron.

These are not germane though, are they? Silica and Iron may be more
common in the total composition of the earth, but water is a good choice
for those who live on the earth's surface.

> >
> > 3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
> > every form of life on the planet.
>

> "Just about every"? You're forgetting about hyperthermophiles (at least

> up to 120°C) and psychrophiles (at least down to -15°C). You're also
> forgetting (surprisingly for someone who lives in Denver) that the
> conditions under which water freezes at 0°C and boils at 100°C are
> highly artificial and don't apply everywhere.

Probably he didn't forget the extremes, but even if he did "just about
every" covers missing these.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <g2v64b9nt7qi8fau8...@4ax.com>,
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:43:00 -0800, Charles Bishop
> <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <n1vhkp$9ko$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
> > ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <slrnn457kp....@amelia.local>,

> >> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>Here is a point of context: If you take "temperature" in the context
> >> >>>of "difference from freezing" or "different from boiling", then you
> >> >>>have a new scale that is /ratio/ : it does have a non-arbitrary zero
> >> >>>point, just as your parenthesis requires.
> >>
> >> >> From a scientific viewpoint, those zeros are still arbitrary. Why
> >> >> choose water?
> >>
> >> >Several reasons. Here are three.
> >> >
> >> >1) It is the basic requirement for all life on the planet.
> >> >

> >> >2) Is is a common substance that exists in all three common
> >> > states of matter naturally on the planet.
> >> >

> >> >3) The range between freezing and boiling covers just about
> >> > every form of life on the planet.
> >>

> >> That's a geocentric viewpoint, not a scientific one.
> >
> >It is scientific to the extent that the scale was chosen to be useful on
> >this planet. This was an answer to the question up in the > >> text.
>
> It is scientific in that it is based on scientific observations that can

> be repeated independently. Without two "fixed" points, the freezing
> point of water and the boiling point of water, it would be difficult to
> impossible to define a scale. It not like a measure of length or
> distance where a physical item such as a metre-long item or two posts a
> mile apart can be taken as a standard that can them be copied.

As Athel has pointed out though, we need to add at STP[1] to the defined
temperature range.


[1] (standard temperature and pressure to foil some jokes)

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <n2017l$i8c$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

> In article <g2v64b9nt7qi8fau8...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >>> That's a geocentric viewpoint, not a scientific one.
>
> >>It is scientific to the extent that the scale was chosen to be useful on
> >>this planet. This was an answer to the question up in the > >> text.
>
> >It is scientific in that it is based on scientific observations that can
> >be repeated independently.
>

> The question wasn't about whether the scale was scientific. It was
> about whether it was arbitrary. Using the triple point of water is
> arbitrary from a scientic viewpoint, no matter how scientifically that
> point is determined.

Oh, well, then I was replying to " That's a geocentric viewpoint, not a
scientific one." above and missed the arbitrary reference.

--
charles

[grabber]

I haven't read the whole thread, which might be why I haven't noticed
and confusion or discord. But I find it hard to believe that native
speakes write "X is 3 times heavier than Y", expecting this to be
understood as "4 times as heavy". I think it is even less likely that
this is what people would understand this to mean. I understand why some
people might see an analogy to "300% heavier than", but I don't think
this analogy works.

Percentages are used to compare quantities in some ways that raw numbers
just aren't. In particular, the percentage change construction.

"300% more" refers to a percentage increase, which involves both scaling
and addition. 40 is 300% more than 10: it is 10 + 3.00 * 10.

"3 more" refers to addition only, 13 is 3 more than 10. 40 isn't

"3 times as much" refers to multiplication only. 30 is 3 times as much
as 10, but 40 isn't.

"3 times more" is less common, I think, but when used, I claim it is
used as a synonym for "3 times as much". A quick Google of actual uses
(ignoring the opinion pieces on what it ought to mean) seems to confirm
this.