Help needed....

[Sandra]

I came across an ambiguous sentence below

--snip
John proposed the use of steel cables that would be six times stronger than needed to support the bridge. In addition, he planned to build two large stone towers to hold up the bridge’s road and allow people to walk across it.

-snip
As for "the use of cables that would be six times stronger than needed to~,
can it be paraphrased as "~six times stronger than the strength that is needed"?

Or how about "~six times stronger than the cables that were needed to support~"?

I'd like to know what can be put between "than" and "needed".

Thanks in advance
Best regards
Sandy

[Peter Moylan]

You don't need to put anything at all between "than" and "needed".

If you insist on adding redundant words, perhaps "were" could be
inserted, but it's not really necessary.

I assume you know that engineering designs always include a safety
factor, as a margin for unforeseen events. A safety factor of 6 sounds
very conservative, but for a bridge you can't predict how much bigger
future trucks will be. Besides, steel cables will rust in the long run.

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

[spains...@gmail.com]

As Peter has said, that part of the paragraph is fine. What I find curious is the
second sentence. Surely the "two large stone towers" would be laid down first, with
the cables suspended between them? Not plonked in as an afterthought to
allow pedestrian access.

The first suspension bridge ever followed that pattern:

<https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/11-facts-about-the-concorde-2733402>

[J. J. Lodder]

spains...@gmail.com <spains...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 7:06:44 AM UTC+1, Sandra wrote:
> > I came across an ambiguous sentence below
> >
> > --snip
> > John proposed the use of steel cables that would be six times stronger
> > than needed to support the bridge. In addition, he planned to build two
> > large stone towers to hold up the bridge's road and allow people to walk
> > across it.
> >
> > -snip
> > As for "the use of cables that would be six times stronger than needed
> > to~, can it be paraphrased as "~six times stronger than the strength
> > that is needed"?
> >
> > Or how about "~six times stronger than the cables that were needed to
> > support~"?
> >
> > I'd like to know what can be put between "than" and "needed".
>
> As Peter has said, that part of the paragraph is fine. What I find curious
> is the second sentence. Surely the "two large stone towers" would be laid
> down first, with the cables suspended between them? Not plonked in as an
> afterthought to allow pedestrian access.

It is about John Roebling, and Brooklyn Bridge.
Do look at some pictures.
The road really does rest on 'the large stone towers',
(and is suspended between the towers)

The text as cited seems to come from a language lesson.
https://likasuni.tistory.com/3608

It is not surprising that it is isolated sentences
without much coherence.
There is little point in trying to improve on it,

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Nothing is ambiguous in that sentence. Your rewrite is grammatical
but highly awkward.

Also, it's nonsense as a description of the Brooklyn Bridge.

[Peter Moylan]

On 02/09/21 17:06, Sandra wrote:

> I came across an ambiguous sentence below
>
> --snip John proposed the use of steel cables that would be six times
> stronger than needed to support the bridge. In addition, he planned
> to build two large stone towers to hold up the bridge’s road and
> allow people to walk across it.

I guess we've covered the topic of "stronger than needed", a perfectly
normal English construct.

The term "six times stronger" is questionable, though. Some people read
that as meaning "seven times as strong", but some others read it as
meaning "six times as strong" [1], so in a sense it's ambiguous.

[1] But only those who believe that
x + 6x = 6x

[Mark Brader]

"Sandra" quotes:
> ...John proposed the use of steel cables that would be six times

> stronger than needed to support the bridge. In addition, he planned
> to build two large stone towers to hold up the bridge's road and
> allow people to walk across it.

I presume we're talking about the Brooklyn Bridge, designed by John
Roebling: it was the first large bridge to use steel cables. But
there's more to the story.

At the time when the contract for the steel wires was awarded, the
leading manufacturer of steel wire was the John A. Roebling's Sons
company. But John's son Washington Roebling had been the chief
engineer on the bridge since John's death, and someone -- no doubt
having been paid off -- expressed the thought that no company connected
to the chief engineer should be supplying materials to the bridge.

Washington Roebling promptly sold off his $300,000 holding in John
A. Roebling's Sons, but other companies were still allowed to bid --
including one owned by Lloyd Haigh, whose reputation was less than
honest. And, yes, in the end Haigh got the contract. Roebling
decided to have every delivery of wire tested to make sure that the
steel had the specified strength -- and quite a bit of it didn't.

But what they didn't think of at first was to verify that only the
wire that passed the testing went into the bridge. It turned out
that Haigh's people were doing things like switching the loads of
steel wire so that rejected loads kept going into the cables and
good ones would come back to pass inspection again.

By the time the fraud was exposed, over 200 tons of the inferior
steel wire had gone into the cables, where it could not be readily
replaced.

But Washington Roebling had a solution. The inferior steel, he said,
was still good enough that the cables would still be 5 times as strong
as needed. So, to bring them up to the desired 6 times, all they
needed to do was increase the number of wires in each cable -- at
the contractor's expense.

Fixed!

The bridge company decided to hush up the fraud, so Haigh kept the
contract and was never punished; but 18 months later he was bankrupt.

(Source: "The Great Bridge" by David McCullough.)
--
Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build,
Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed."
m...@vex.net | -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster"

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Moylan:

> The term "six times stronger" is questionable, though.
> Some people read that as meaning "seven times as strong",
> but some others read it as meaning "six times as strong"
> [1], so in a sense it's ambiguous.
> [1] But only those who believe that
> x + 6x = 6x

I do not believe that, yet insist that the meaning of this
construction is stricty multiplicative, i.e.:

x is four times heavier than y: x = 2y
x is five times lighter than y: 4x = y

For the other meaning, I should say:

x is heavier than y by four times its weight:
x = y + 4y = 5y

I think you will not find an instance of your first (n+1)
interpretation in any good book on Algebra such as Crys-
tal's:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp36404

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[Ken Blake]

Sometimes that's true. If x = 0, I believe it.


--
Ken

[Lewis]

In message <sgs73b$1vn$1...@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 02/09/21 17:06, Sandra wrote:

>> I came across an ambiguous sentence below
>>
>> --snip John proposed the use of steel cables that would be six times
>> stronger than needed to support the bridge. In addition, he planned
>> to build two large stone towers to hold up the bridge’s road and
>> allow people to walk across it.

> I guess we've covered the topic of "stronger than needed", a perfectly
> normal English construct.

> The term "six times stronger" is questionable, though. Some people read
> that as meaning "seven times as strong", but some others read it as
> meaning "six times as strong" [1], so in a sense it's ambiguous.

Hmm. I run into that with percentages, but not with "times"

600% more often means 500% more, or 6 times as much, but that is because
people don't learn math(s) in school.

The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a Florida restaurant
that said:

LUNCH $150
(GET 95% OFF WITH
VACC CARD!)

F*** DESANTIS

While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will be unable to
figure out how much lunch cost.

I doubt the picture is real, actually.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, you'd think [Lyndon Johnsonwould] have left room
for baby-kissing, wouldn't you?"

[Anton Shepelev]

Lewis:

> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
> Florida restaurant that said:
>
> LUNCH $150
> (GET 95% OFF WITH
> VACC CARD!)
>
> F*** DESANTIS
>
> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.

Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-09-03 17:14:36 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:

> Lewis:
>
>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>
>> LUNCH $150
>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>> VACC CARD!)
>>
>> F*** DESANTIS
>>
>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.
>
> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?

Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that he
thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.

I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 19:31:08 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2021-09-03 17:14:36 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:
>
>> Lewis:
>>
>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>>
>>> LUNCH $150
>>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>>> VACC CARD!)
>>>
>>> F*** DESANTIS
>>>
>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.
>>
>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>
>Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that he
>thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.
>
>I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.

I do wonder who Lewis hangs out with that leads him to think "most"
people can't do that sum in their heads.

--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Ken Blake]

It seems real to me. What they are essentially saying is that lunch is
$7.50, but if you haven't been vaccinated you're not welcome here.


--
Ken

[Lewis]

In message <20210903201436.107c0543547e78635a71b02f@g{oogle}mail.com> Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
> Lewis:

>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>
>> LUNCH $150
>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>> VACC CARD!)
>>
>> F*** DESANTIS
>>
>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.

> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?

And you think most people would be able to figure that out?

Most people can't figure out 10%.


--
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

[Lewis]

In message <ipf4eu...@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-09-03 17:14:36 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:

>> Lewis:
>>
>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>>
>>> LUNCH $150
>>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>>> VACC CARD!)
>>>
>>> F*** DESANTIS
>>>
>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.
>>
>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?

> Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that he
> thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.

> I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.

I did 150 divided by 10 then divided by 2.

--
My real name is Fat Patricia

[Ken Blake]

Athel said "sum" and that's no surprise since he grew up with BrE. But
I'm surprised to see you use the term. Do you often use it or were you
just quoting Athel?

It's rare that I have a prefernce for the American way of saying
something or the British wash, but "sum" always feels wrong to me. Why
call the result of a multiplication or division a "sum"? As far as I'm
concerned, a sum is the result of an addition.

And by the way, I didn't do it either Anton's way or Athel's. If it's
95%, off that leaves 5% to be charged, so I simply mutiplied $150 by .05


--
Ken

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:11:59 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
wrote:

For those who might not know DeSantis is the Governor of Florida.

Florida is a state where you can count on extreme views from either
side of an issue.

The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-09-03 18:18:26 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <20210903201436.107c0543547e78635a71b02f@g{oogle}mail.com>
> Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>> Lewis:
>
>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>>
>>> LUNCH $150
>>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>>> VACC CARD!)
>>>
>>> F*** DESANTIS
>>>
>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.
>
>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>
> And you think most people would be able to figure that out?
>
> Most people can't figure out 10%.

Experience leads me to think you may be correct.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:21:13 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
wrote:

>On 9/3/2021 11:10 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 19:31:08 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2021-09-03 17:14:36 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:
>>>
>>>> Lewis:
>>>>
>>>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>>>> Florida restaurant that said:
>>>>>
>>>>> LUNCH $150
>>>>> (GET 95% OFF WITH
>>>>> VACC CARD!)
>>>>>
>>>>> F*** DESANTIS
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>>>>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.
>>>>
>>>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>>>
>>>Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that he
>>>thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.
>>
>> I do wonder who Lewis hangs out with that leads him to think "most"
>> people can't do that sum in their heads.
>
>
>Athel said "sum" and that's no surprise since he grew up with BrE. But
>I'm surprised to see you use the term. Do you often use it or were you
>just quoting Athel?

That is normal wording for me. I don't think of it as BrE term.

What I do think of as a BrE term is "sums" as in "Do your sums".

>
>It's rare that I have a prefernce for the American way of saying
>something or the British wash, but "sum" always feels wrong to me. Why
>call the result of a multiplication or division a "sum"? As far as I'm
>concerned, a sum is the result of an addition.

To me, the "sum" is the result of a calculation.

>
>And by the way, I didn't do it either Anton's way or Athel's. If it's
>95%, off that leaves 5% to be charged, so I simply mutiplied $150 by .05

I am not good at mental math, but this would be easy for me. I would
do it differently though. $150 x 10% = $15.00 divided by two = $7.50.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yet neither of the Europeans got it right. It's unlikely that the
sort of place that had a $7.50 lunch would list it as "7.5" on
the menu -- but the sort of place that would charge 7.5 for,
perhaps, a side salad, would not write it as $7.5 .

I went to Burger King for the first time in a year and a half today.
I was shocked that a Bacon Whopper Combo (small soda and
small fries, no less) came to $11.99+tax. But then it turned out to
be a Double Whopper, so the price may be explicable, but it was
more than I wanted.

[Jerry Friedman]

Americans. My experience is similar. Not that I'm happy about it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

What is that about? Nothing was said in the post about what was
listed on the menu, much less the $7.5 amount.

The figure $150 was the only dollar figure mentioned that the
restaurant listed. The $7.5 was the calculated net amount to be paid.

You wouldn't know this because you don't check out what you post
about, but the story is false and has been debunked by Snopes.

The photo did appear online, but it's a photo made by a site that
generates fake Chinese restaurant signs.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-restaurant-sign-desantis/


There's a surge of anti-DeSantis articles - from factual to fanciful -
online because he's just announced that businesses that require proof
of vaccination will be fined $5,000.

He seems to be doing everything in his power to spread, rather than
control, COVID-19 cases.

[Lewis]

In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
> DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
> that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.

Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.


--
Do not worry about me. I know I’ve been a little bit off; blame it on the
moonbrain. I promise I’m fine.

[Ken Blake]

What is the sum of six plus seven?

Would you say "what is the sum of six times seven"? I never would.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sum and especially note
5a, which says "the result of adding numbers."


--
Ken

[Richard Heathfield]

On 03/09/2021 19:21, Ken Blake wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, a sum is the result of an addition.

But they're all basically the same thing. Subtraction is just addition
in reverse gear; multiplication is addition on acid, and division is
keep subtracting until something breaks.

What, after all, is 1234 * 5678?

$ dc -e '1234 5678 * p'
7006652

Clearly multiplication. But wait...

$ log 2 1234
10.269127
$ log 2 5678
12.471167
$ dc -e '10.269127 12.471167 + p'
22.740294
$ antilog 2 22.740294
7006652

Now it's less clear. And what if we write (1234 times) 5678?

5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678
+ 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678 + 5678

= 7006652

Some sum!

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 13:30:50 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>

I can't say I would or wouldn't. Using "sum" in that sentence would
be perfectly normal, but so would "What is six times seven?". What
pops to mind, pops to mind.

Same with "What is the sum of six plus seven?". It could pop out at
"What is six plus seven?" or "What is the sum of six plus and seven?".

It isn't whether it's addition or muliplication.

>See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sum and especially note
>5a, which says "the result of adding numbers."

I've told you what comes naturally to me.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:06:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
>> DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
>> that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.
>
>Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.

No, I didn't. That's why it made the news.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >Yet neither of the Europeans got it right. It's unlikely that the
> >sort of place that had a $7.50 lunch would list it as "7.5" on
> >the menu -- but the sort of place that would charge 7.5 for,
> >perhaps, a side salad, would not write it as $7.5 .
>
> What is that about? Nothing was said in the post about what was
> listed on the menu, much less the $7.5 amount.
>
> The figure $150 was the only dollar figure mentioned that the
> restaurant listed. The $7.5 was the calculated net amount to be paid.

Do you really think that < $7.5 > is a valid/legitimate substitute
for < $7.50 > ?

It's possible that you only frequent trendy restaurants that eschew
the dollar sign and the zero, but they eschew both, not one, of those
characters.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 5:14:50 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 13:30:50 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 9/3/2021 11:30 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:21:13 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
> >> wrote:

(I had to decide how many of Blake's reiterations to include)

> >>>It's rare that I have a prefernce for the American way of saying
> >>>something or the British wash, but "sum" always feels wrong to me. Why
> >>>call the result of a multiplication or division a "sum"? As far as I'm
> >>>concerned, a sum is the result of an addition.
> >> To me, the "sum" is the result of a calculation.
> >What is the sum of six plus seven?
> >Would you say "what is the sum of six times seven"? I never would.
>
> I can't say I would or wouldn't. Using "sum" in that sentence would
> be perfectly normal, but so would "What is six times seven?". What
> pops to mind, pops to mind.
>
> Same with "What is the sum of six plus seven?". It could pop out at
> "What is six plus seven?" or "What is the sum of six plus and seven?".

I should hope not. "What is the sum of six and seven?"

> It isn't whether it's addition or muliplication.
>
> >See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sum and especially note
> >5a, which says "the result of adding numbers."
>
> I've told you what comes naturally to me.

Because you are an Anglomaniac.

In American English, "sum" refers to the result of addition.

In British English "sum" refers to any problem of simple arithmetic
and perhaps to the result of any of the four basic processes.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:29:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >Yet neither of the Europeans got it right. It's unlikely that the
>> >sort of place that had a $7.50 lunch would list it as "7.5" on
>> >the menu -- but the sort of place that would charge 7.5 for,
>> >perhaps, a side salad, would not write it as $7.5 .
>>
>> What is that about? Nothing was said in the post about what was
>> listed on the menu, much less the $7.5 amount.
>>
>> The figure $150 was the only dollar figure mentioned that the
>> restaurant listed. The $7.5 was the calculated net amount to be paid.
>
>Do you really think that < $7.5 > is a valid/legitimate substitute
>for < $7.50 > ?

It is in a usenet post. It could be deliberate or could be just a
typo. Hardly something worth commenting on.

The figure that was written that way was posted by Anton Shepelev. He
may not be used to posting US $ figures.

[Snidely]

Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :

That problem should take care of itself, but I've seen a headline that
Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
be vaccinated.

/dps

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 15:50:51 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:06:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
>>>> DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
>>>> that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.
>>>
>>> Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.
>>
>> No, I didn't. That's why it made the news.
>
>That problem should take care of itself,

Possibly, but I don't really want to wait until all the people with
that attitude die off.

> but I've seen a headline that
>Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
>insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
>be vaccinated.

Isn't stupidity a "pre-existing condition"?

[Peter Moylan]

On 04/09/21 12:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2021 15:50:51 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:06:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>> <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony
>>>> Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The news story is no longer available, but there's a
>>>>> restaurant in DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that
>>>>> has a sign on the door that says they will not serve anyone
>>>>> who has been vacinnated.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. That's why it made the news.
>>
>> That problem should take care of itself,
>
> Possibly, but I don't really want to wait until all the people with
> that attitude die off.

It would be a long wait. If you do the calculations with typical
numbers, you'll find that it will be many generations before a
significant number of anti-vaxers have died.

Unfortunately.

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

[Peter Moylan]

On 03/09/21 22:35, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter Moylan:

>
>> The term "six times stronger" is questionable, though.
>> Some people read that as meaning "seven times as strong",
>> but some others read it as meaning "six times as strong"
>> [1], so in a sense it's ambiguous.

>> [1] But only those who believe that
>> x + 6x = 6x
>
> I do not believe that, yet insist that the meaning of this
> construction is stricty multiplicative, i.e.:
>
> x is four times heavier than y: x = 2y
> x is five times lighter than y: 4x = y

(I'll assume that there are a couple of typos in those last two lines.)

Consider "A is 10% bigger than B". Does that mean that A is 10% the size
of B, or 110%?

Now change it to "A is 99% bigger than B". Most people would agree that
the factor in that case is 1.99, not 0.99.

Change it to "A is 100% bigger than B", and most people would agree that
that means "double".

It's only when you get to "A is 101% bigger than B" that confusion arises.

[CDB]

On 9/3/2021 1:31 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Anton Shepelev said:
>> Lewis:

>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>> Florida restaurant that said:

>>> LUNCH $150 (GET 95% OFF WITH VACC CARD!)

>>> F*** DESANTIS

>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will be
>>> unable to figure out how much lunch cost.

>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?

> Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that he
> thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.

> I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.

I subtracted 90% by taking away the zero and then halved the rest, but
I'm hopeless at math.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 6:02:09 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 14:29:58 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> >Yet neither of the Europeans got it right. It's unlikely that the
> >> >sort of place that had a $7.50 lunch would list it as "7.5" on
> >> >the menu -- but the sort of place that would charge 7.5 for,
> >> >perhaps, a side salad, would not write it as $7.5 .
> >> What is that about? Nothing was said in the post about what was
> >> listed on the menu, much less the $7.5 amount.
> >> The figure $150 was the only dollar figure mentioned that the
> >> restaurant listed. The $7.5 was the calculated net amount to be paid.
> >Do you really think that < $7.5 > is a valid/legitimate substitute
> >for < $7.50 > ?
>
> It is in a usenet post. It could be deliberate or could be just a
> typo. Hardly something worth commenting on.

Try to remember that remark the next time you "comment on" something.
It's quite revealing that you didn't understand the "comment" until it was
explained to you at considerable length.

> The figure that was written that way was posted by Anton Shepelev. He
> may not be used to posting US $ figures.

And by someone else, someone who claims to have lived in the US
several times.

[Lewis]

In message <mn.1bb67e5944f3c876.127094@snitoo> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:06:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
>>>> DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
>>>> that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.
>>>
>>> Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.
>>
>> No, I didn't. That's why it made the news.

> That problem should take care of itself, but I've seen a headline that
> Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
> insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
> be vaccinated.

I would like to know the name of that restaurant so I can avoid it if
we're ever in the DisneyWorld area. As it is, I'll just remember to
avoid DeLand, FL.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain NARF, but don't camels spit a lot?"

[Lewis]

That's just exactly what I did, and I am not hopeless with math.

--
I'm from a predominately black family --Eddie Murphy

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 15:57:46 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>In message <mn.1bb67e5944f3c876.127094@snitoo> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tony Cooper was thinking very hard :
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 20:06:06 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>> <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <egp4jg546dacerulp...@4ax.com> Tony Cooper
>>>> <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The news story is no longer available, but there's a restaurant in
>>>>> DeLand FL - right up the road from me - that has a sign on the door
>>>>> that says they will not serve anyone who has been vacinnated.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing would surprise me, but I hope you left out a 'not'.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. That's why it made the news.
>
>> That problem should take care of itself, but I've seen a headline that
>> Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
>> insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
>> be vaccinated.
>
>I would like to know the name of that restaurant so I can avoid it if
>we're ever in the DisneyWorld area. As it is, I'll just remember to
>avoid DeLand, FL.

I don't suggest that. DeLand, other than this particular restaurant,
is an interesting town. Stetson University is just a few blocks from
the central downtown area. The main downtown street has a number of
interesting antique shops, several good restaurants, an art museum,
and quite a bit of "wall art" on the buildings.

It's a big barrel, and one bad apple hasn't ruined the rest of it.

People who come to Florida to see the Mouse House are more familiar
with the city of Kissimmee, but they are rarely in the city center.
Kissimmee has extended the city limits to increase their tax base to
include the hotels and restaurants in the Disney area.
Nothing to see but motels, restaurants, and tee shirt shops, but
unless you stay on Disney property your hotel will have a Kissimmee
address.

The downtown area is well-off the path of tourists. It used to be
interesting because just south of the city is the huge Deseret cattle
ranch, and cowboys on horses used to be regular sight downtown.
Now the cowboys ride 4-wheelers.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 06:24:56 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

You were the one left with egg foo young on your face when you
mistakenly assumed the "$7.5" amount appeared on a menu. That number
was used only in Anton's post regarding the calculation. Others used
his usage, but you were the one who was nasty enough to try to
embarass a non-native speaker.

The place a dollar amount appeared ($150) was on a faked sign for a
Chinese restaurant.

And, yes, you can get lunch at the Garden State Chinese Restaurant in
Jersey City for less than $7.50. There are several items at less
than that amount on their menu, and they aren't side salads.

https://www.beyondmenu.com/21132/jersey-city/garden-state-chinese-restaurant-jersey-city-07307.aspx?utm_source=satellite&utm_medium=menu_group&pk_vid=ef8b16833b53db06163077514773d468#group_3110503
The budget eater's choice when you can't afford Burger King.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Strop inventing bullshit, moron.

What I said was that it would NOT appear on a menu (but a version
without the dollar sign occasionally does).

You get disgustingly desperate when you make a stupid mistake.

> was used only in Anton's post regarding the calculation. Others used
> his usage, but you were the one who was nasty enough to try to
> embarass a non-native speaker.

No. moron, I was only embarrassing _you_.

> The place a dollar amount appeared ($150) was on a faked sign for a
> Chinese restaurant.
>
> And, yes, you can get lunch at the Garden State Chinese Restaurant in
> Jersey City for less than $7.50. There are several items at less
> than that amount on their menu, and they aren't side salads.
>
> https://www.beyondmenu.com/21132/jersey-city/garden-state-chinese-restaurant-jersey-city-07307.aspx?utm_source=satellite&utm_medium=menu_group&pk_vid=ef8b16833b53db06163077514773d468#group_3110503
> The budget eater's choice when you can't afford Burger King.

What do you think you accomplish when you attempt to distract
the audience from your idiocies by spending a great deal of time
studying establishments that you find by googling "Jersey City"?

Doubtless if I had any interest in your attempts at "local color,"
or whatever they are, I would find that your "discoveries" are years
out of date and probably no longer exist.

The simple fact is that you WERE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE that
< $7.5 > is not a legitimate way of writing a price in US dollars.
I've no idea how they do rubles-and-kopeks, but it's not unlikely
that both of the persons involved have seen euros-and-cents
prices listed.

https://www.amazon.fr/Exploration-Writing-Peter-T-Daniels/dp/1781795290/

https://www.amazon.fr/Fundamentals-Enzyme-Kinetics-Athel-Cornish-Bowden/dp/3527330747/

[Lewis]

The risk of eating at the bad apple is to great for me. I do not ever
want to do business with any anti-vaxx shitheads. I also do not want to
do business with people who torture gay children, support other religious
hate groups, or voted for Trump in 2020.

--
This story shall the good man teach his son; And Crispin Crispian
shall ne'er go by, From this day to the ending of the world, But
we in it shall be remember'd;

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 18:12:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Then the whole of Florida should be off-limits to you. It would be
almost impossible to not be around someone who voted for Trump if you
come to Florida.

How do you avoid the 1,364,607 Colorado voters for Trump in 2020?

[charles]

In article <232ce72c-6d3a-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Snip]

> The simple fact is that you WERE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE that
> < $7.5 > is not a legitimate way of writing a price in US dollars.
> I've no idea how they do rubles-and-kopeks, but it's not unlikely
> that both of the persons involved have seen euros-and-cents
> prices listed.

X

It isn't a legitimate way of writing an amount in UK Pounds either, but
some pretentious restaurants do just that; I've also seen £7½ on menus.
(again not a legitimate way)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Ken Blake]

On 9/4/2021 11:12 AM, Lewis wrote:

> The risk of eating at the bad apple is to great for me. I do not ever
> want to do business with any anti-vaxx shitheads. I also do not want to
> do business with people who torture gay children, support other religious
> hate groups, or voted for Trump in 2020.

You and I don't agree on many things, but I strongly agree with you on
all of those.


--
Ken

[Sam Plusnet]

On 03-Sep-21 23:50, Snidely wrote:

> That problem should take care of itself, but I've seen a headline that
> Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
> insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
> be vaccinated.
>

Does that accord with common practice in the US medical insurance field?

Do they refuse to pay for treatment if a driver wasn't wearing a
seatbelt, or when some idiot falls off of a cliff whilst taking a selfie?

I can see the logic behind this sort of approach, but can see how it
might rapidly get out of hand.


--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Lewis]

Florida is only a red state because of a decades long campaign of intense
voter suppression.

> It would be
> almost impossible to not be around someone who voted for Trump if you
> come to Florida.

That is quite different from "doing business with"

> How do you avoid the 1,364,607 Colorado voters for Trump in 2020?

Easily?


--
“You are failing us, but the young people are starting to understand your
betrayal.” Greta Thunberg

[Sam Plusnet]

On 04-Sep-21 19:30, charles wrote:
> In article <232ce72c-6d3a-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>> The simple fact is that you WERE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE that
>> < $7.5 > is not a legitimate way of writing a price in US dollars.
>> I've no idea how they do rubles-and-kopeks, but it's not unlikely
>> that both of the persons involved have seen euros-and-cents
>> prices listed.
> X
>
> It isn't a legitimate way of writing an amount in UK Pounds either, but
> some pretentious restaurants do just that; I've also seen £7½ on menus.
> (again not a legitimate way)
>

Both the above examples defy the convention, but calling them
illegitimate seems like a stretch to me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, September 4, 2021 at 2:44:16 PM UTC-4, charles wrote:
> In article <232ce72c-6d3a-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [Snip]
> > The simple fact is that you WERE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE that
> > < $7.5 > is not a legitimate way of writing a price in US dollars.
> > I've no idea how they do rubles-and-kopeks, but it's not unlikely
> > that both of the persons involved have seen euros-and-cents
> > prices listed.
> X
>
> It isn't a legitimate way of writing an amount in UK Pounds either, but
> some pretentious restaurants do just that; I've also seen £7½ on menus.
> (again not a legitimate way)

Now that one I've never encountered Over Here.

Sometimes I wrote checks that way (only 1/2 or 1/4) in the spell-it-out
line), and it was only questioned once.

Was it just a coincidence that they no longer wanted to be associated
with LSD after the Swingin' Sixties?

[Peter T. Daniels]

We didn't. "not legitimate" =/= "illegitimate."

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2021 20:30:30 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

>On 03-Sep-21 23:50, Snidely wrote:
>
>> That problem should take care of itself, but I've seen a headline that
>> Covid-19 hospitalization averages (or modes) to around $22,000 and that
>> insurers are becoming inclined to not pay for it if you have refused to
>> be vaccinated.
>>
>
>Does that accord with common practice in the US medical insurance field?
>
>Do they refuse to pay for treatment if a driver wasn't wearing a
>seatbelt, or when some idiot falls off of a cliff whilst taking a selfie?

Two different insurance coverage situations. The insurance company
that pays for the care after an automobile accident is the automobile
insurance provider. And, yes, not wearing a seat belt can result in a
reduction of benefits.

If injured falling off a cliff, the insurance company that pays for
the care is the person's health insurance provider.

>
>I can see the logic behind this sort of approach, but can see how it
>might rapidly get out of hand.
--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Moylan to Anton Shepelev:

> (I'll assume that there are a couple of typos in those last two
> lines.)

Do.

> Consider "A is 10% bigger than B". Does that mean that A is 10%
> the size of B, or 110%?

The latter.

> Now change it to "A is 99% bigger than B". Most people would
> agree that the factor in that case is 1.99, not 0.99.

Yes, and rightly.

> Change it to "A is 100% bigger than B", and most people would
> agree that that means "double".

Ditto.

> It's only when you get to "A is 101% bigger than B" that
> confusion arises.

I see no confusion: A is 201% of B. Do you hint that the "percent"
comparison has some connection with the "times" comparison? I don't
think so. "A exceeds B by 10%" is the same as "A is 110% of B". "A
is 1.1 times greater than B" means that A exceeds B by a factor of
1.1 . Have any printed evidence to the contrary?

I see why it may seem illogical: one need only substitute
"two times" for "200%" to see that the meaning is not always
preserved. Perhaps the ambiguity may be avoided by saying "A is by
10% greater than B", or "A is 110% of B".

Many people, including good and native speakers of English, while
accepting "three times faster than" as a literate and literary
expression, object vehemently to "three times slower than",
insisting that it be ameded to "one third as fast." But I have yet
to learn their argumentation.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[Anton Shepelev]

Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> > Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>
> Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that
> he thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.

Yes, but he said _most_ peoply wouldn't figure that out, which I
found improbable and demonstrated how simple it is.

> I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.

I tried to do it in the most direct, stupid, literal, and
straing-forward way, using the original quantities in the
expression. To reckon the answer in my mind, I simplified the
expression to yours.

See also:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/BogdanovBelsky_UstnySchet.jpg

[Anton Shepelev]

Ken Blake:

> What is the sum of six plus seven?

The sum of six plus seven is a tautology. The sum of six and seven,
however, is the devil's dozen.

[Anton Shepelev]

Lewis:

> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a Florida
> restaurant that said:
>
> LUNCH $150
> (GET 95% OFF WITH
> VACC CARD!)

A coffee booth here had roughly the following price list:

Coffee -- 180 rubles
One coffee, please -- 140 rubles
Hello, one cofffee, please -- 100 rubles

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/09/21 08:48, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter Moylan to Anton Shepelev:

>> It's only when you get to "A is 101% bigger than B" that confusion
>> arises.
>
> I see no confusion: A is 201% of B. Do you hint that the "percent"
> comparison has some connection with the "times" comparison? I don't
> think so. "A exceeds B by 10%" is the same as "A is 110% of B". "A is
> 1.1 times greater than B" means that A exceeds B by a factor of 1.1 .
> Have any printed evidence to the contrary?

I agree with your interpretation, but some people think that "101%
bigger" means the same as "1% bigger". They are the same people who
think that "six times more" means the same as "six times as much". They
see the multiplication but not the addition implied by "more".

> Many people, including good and native speakers of English, while
> accepting "three times faster than" as a literate and literary
> expression, object vehemently to "three times slower than", insisting
> that it be ameded to "one third as fast." But I have yet to learn
> their argumentation.

To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If one car is
travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going three times slower is
travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h. That is, in the other direction.

[Peter Moylan]

On 05/09/21 05:30, charles wrote:
> In article <232ce72c-6d3a-4e8b...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
>> The simple fact is that you WERE UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE that < $7.5 >
>> is not a legitimate way of writing a price in US dollars. I've no
>> idea how they do rubles-and-kopeks, but it's not unlikely that both
>> of the persons involved have seen euros-and-cents prices listed.
> X
>
> It isn't a legitimate way of writing an amount in UK Pounds either,
> but some pretentious restaurants do just that; I've also seen £7½ on
> menus. (again not a legitimate way)

I too have seen that sort of thing on a menu. It became fashionable in
the last decade or two, as far as I know.

And it's perfectly legitimate in any country where the minor currency
unit is worth one hundredth of the major currency unit. A price of $7.5
is perfectly understandable, at least to those of us who learnt in
primary school that trailing zeros can be omitted after the decimal point.

[Peter Moylan]

Different logic in different countries. You and I see medical subsidies
as a normal part of what the public purse supports. It's in the same
category as something like the postal system.

In the US medical coverage is handled by insurance companies, and
insurance companies consider that their primary duty is to find any
possible excuse to avoid paying out.

Having said that, I must admit that covid-19 is redefining the playing
field. There is some sentiment here for refusing hospital treatment to
anyone who participated in an anti-lockdown protest.

[Peter Moylan]

Nice.

I've witnessed a case where a child failed to say "please", and the
parent asked "What's the magic word?" After some thought, the child said
"Abracadabra".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Of course. What the objector seems UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE is that 7.5 and
7.50 are equivalent ways of writing the exact same number.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Richard Heathfield]

One might argue that they carry different claims of precision. 7.5
claims a precision of only one decimal place, whereas 7.50 is precise to
two decimal places. *BUT* thus quoth Wikipedia:

"Trailing zeros [are not significant figures] when they are merely
placeholders. For example, the trailing zeros in 1500 m as a length
measurement are not significant if they are just placeholders for ones
and tens places as the measurement resolution is 100 m. In this case,
1500 m means the length to measure is close to 1500 m rather than saying
that the length is exactly 1500 m."

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Snidely]

Remember Saturday, when Athel Cornish-Bowden asked plainitively:

I don't think that's his objection at all. His objection is that it is
*against convention* to write fractional USD without specifying the
hundreths (even if empty) as well as the tenths. In fact, convention
is that even if the tenths are empty, 2 decimal places are shown:
$7.00, for example.

But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and b) it's the
hoity-toity restaurants that violate the convention, not the downmarket
ones or the fast food emporiums.

/dps "or even the emporia"


--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

[Snidely]

Anton Shepelev noted that:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
>>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>>
>> Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that
>> he thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.
>
> Yes, but he said _most_ peoply wouldn't figure that out, which I
> found improbable and demonstrated how simple it is.

It doesn't matter how simple it is, the eyes glaze over for many people
here at anything they can't do by counting on their fingers. Their
nightmares aren't giving a speech in front of an audience and realizing
that they are the only unclothed person present, their nightmares are
their 3rd grade teacher showing up and demanding the recitation of the
times tables.

>
>> I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.
>
> I tried to do it in the most direct, stupid, literal, and
> straing-forward way, using the original quantities in the
> expression. To reckon the answer in my mind, I simplified the
> expression to yours.
>
> See also:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/BogdanovBelsky_UstnySchet.jpg

You overestimate many people.

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

[CDB]

On 9/4/2021 11:59 AM, Lewis wrote:
> CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>>> Anton Shepelev said:
>>>> Lewis:

>>>>> The does remind me, a friend send me a picture from a
>>>>> Florida restaurant that said:

>>>>> LUNCH $150 (GET 95% OFF WITH VACC CARD!)

>>>>> F*** DESANTIS

>>>>> While I agree with the sentiment, I think most people will
>>>>> be unable to figure out how much lunch cost.

>>>> Why, it cost $150 * ( 100% - 95% ) / 100% = $7.5, didn't it?
>>> Lewis didn't say that _he_ couldn't do this simple sum, but that
>>> he thought that _most people_ wouldn't be able to do it.

>>> I wouldn't do it your way: I'd do $150/20 =$7.5.

>> I subtracted 90% by taking away the zero and then halved the rest,
>> but I'm hopeless at math.

> That's just exactly what I did, and I am not hopeless with math.

I distinguish math from mental arithmetic. I'm more hopeful with that,
thanks to mrs Patterson in Grade 7, who emphasized it. Made me learn my
times tables too, at last.

[CDB]

On 9/4/2021 8:41 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

At least you could be ready to move them out of the ICU if an accident
victim needs the bed.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What this incredibly stupid person is unable to comprehend is that < $7.5 >
is not a legitimate way of notating a price in US dollars, whereas < 7.5 >,
marginally, is.

[Ken Blake]

What's the price if you say "Hello, one coffee, abracadabra"?


I don't know why, but that reminds me of the time I was on a cruise ship
one halloween and there was a costume contest in the auditorium.

A young contestant (5 or 6) came up on the stage dressed as a pirate.
The MC asked, "Are you a pirate?"

He replied "yes."

The MC asked, "If you're a pirate, where's your booty?"

The kid hesitated for moment, then looked down at his feet and replied.
"Sometimes pirates wear sandals too."

--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

You say "times table." Although you're not the first person I know who
says that, to me it's always been the "multiplication table." So I'm
just curious, how do others here say it?


--
Ken

[Lewis]

They were called 'times tables' when I was in elementary school, though
I can't say it is something I say much at all. The schools emphasized the
most boring aspects of math at that point (rote memorization and speed)
and I was already far beyond what my classmates were doing (calculating
volumes and surface areas of conical slices and spheres in 4th and 5th
grade and learning how to graph curves, things some of my classmates
never learned).

My impression is that 'times table' is the most frequent phrase among
school children, and that it doesn’t come up enough with adults who
aren't elementary teachers for me to have any sense of if adults prefer
one or the other.


--
I've always had a flair for stage directions.

[Ken Blake]

Speaking of being ahead of classmates, when I was 10 and living in
Tucson (for the first time), my parents and I went to NYC for my two
week Christmas vacation to visit my aunt and uncle.

My uncle taught algebra in a hgh school, and I had no idea what algebra
was, so I asked him. He started to explain it and explaining it quickly
became teaching it. By the end of the two weeks he had taught me his
entire ninth grade curriculum, and given me all the tests he gave his
students. I scored 100% on all the tests.

It turned out that I had a real aptitude for math, and I had never
realized it before. I read a lot about it by myself. I went through four
years of high school always knowing whatever was being taught before we
got to it, never bothering to open a textbook, and scoring 100% on
almost all the tests.

I started college as a math major and started with a calculus class. I
went through the first two weeks of the calculus class already knowing
everything, and as was my habit, I hardly ever looked at the textbook.

After the first two weeks my knowledge ran out, and although I needed to
start doing homework, studying the textbook, and working at learning
what was new to me, I didn't do it. Old habits die hard.

I barely passed calculus with a D. I did what was perhaps the stupidest
thing I ever did: I gave up math, switched my major to English (and
later to art).

Sigh. Who knows what I could have accomplished if I stayed with what I
had the most aptitude for.


--
Ken

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

My grandson in Paris started primary school on Thursday. He reported
after the first day that they'd been doing mathematics, but it didn't
involve numbers. We have yet learned what that meant, but somehow I
don't think it was algebra or set theory.

> He started to explain it and explaining it quickly became teaching it.
> By the end of the two weeks he had taught me his entire ninth grade
> curriculum, and given me all the tests he gave his students. I scored
> 100% on all the tests.
>
> It turned out that I had a real aptitude for math, and I had never
> realized it before. I read a lot about it by myself. I went through
> four years of high school always knowing whatever was being taught
> before we got to it, never bothering to open a textbook, and scoring
> 100% on almost all the tests.
>
> I started college as a math major and started with a calculus class. I
> went through the first two weeks of the calculus class already knowing
> everything, and as was my habit, I hardly ever looked at the textbook.
>
> After the first two weeks my knowledge ran out, and although I needed
> to start doing homework, studying the textbook, and working at learning
> what was new to me, I didn't do it. Old habits die hard.
>
> I barely passed calculus with a D. I did what was perhaps the stupidest
> thing I ever did: I gave up math, switched my major to English (and
> later to art).
>
> Sigh. Who knows what I could have accomplished if I stayed with what I
> had the most aptitude for.


--

[Mark Brader]

Ken Blake:

> You say "times table." Although you're not the first person I know who
> says that, to me it's always been the "multiplication table." So I'm
> just curious, how do others here say it?

"Times table" if I'm in Grade 1. "Multiplication table" if I'm being
an adult.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It's never too late to learn what "opsimath" means.
m...@vex.net | --James Hogg

[Lewis]

In message <SoOdnWu3-tydr6j8...@giganews.com> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
> Ken Blake:
>> You say "times table." Although you're not the first person I know who
>> says that, to me it's always been the "multiplication table." So I'm
>> just curious, how do others here say it?

> "Times table" if I'm in Grade 1. "Multiplication table" if I'm being
> an adult.

We didn't have times tables in grade 1. Multiplication didn't come around
until 5th grade (officially, that is). For the advanced students,
Alegebra was 7th and 8th grade, geometry was 9th and 10th, Alegrab II in
11, and Trig in 12th.

VERY advanced students would take Trig in 11th grade and pre-calculus in
12th.

At least that's the best of my recollection of what the usual track, it
was no the order I took.

Form 7th grade on I did Algebra, "third year" algebra, geometry, calculus,
calculus, and Algebra II my last year, which I took because there was no
more math available but I had to have 4 years and I liked the teacher.
It was a waste of time, but it was also fun.

I do have some holes in my math knowledge because of this hoping about
between tracks and also different school (for example, I had almost no
experience with logs and matrices in school. I have found some use for
logs since school, but never needed to learn matrices).

However, I did not like Calculus at the college level.


--
I AM SO VERY TIRED Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF20

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/09/21 05:56, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> My grandson in Paris started primary school on Thursday. He reported
> after the first day that they'd been doing mathematics, but it didn't
> involve numbers. We have yet learned what that meant, but somehow I
> don't think it was algebra or set theory.

While staying with my grandparents I found an old mathematics textbook
belonging to one of my uncles. I started reading it with great interest,
to find out what algebra was all about.

I must have been too young to understand it, though. What I took away
from that study was that "x" was a symbol meaning 23. Somehow the whole
notion of "variable" went over my head.

[Peter Moylan]

It was always times tables where I went to school. In the early grades
we also did addups and takeaways.

The tables were pre-printed on the back of our exercise books. What I
remember is that I had them all memorised by grade 4, except for columns
6 and 7. Obviously I had picked the easiest ones to learn first.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-09-05 18:56:27 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
> My grandson in Paris started primary school on Thursday. He reported
> after the first day that they'd been doing mathematics, but it didn't
> involve numbers. We have

haven't

> yet learned what that meant, but somehow I don't think it was algebra
> or set theory.
>

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/09/21 16:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-09-05 18:56:27 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>
>> My grandson in Paris started primary school on Thursday. He
>> reported after the first day that they'd been doing mathematics,
>> but it didn't involve numbers. We have
>
> haven't
>
>> yet learned what that meant, but somehow I don't think it was
>> algebra or set theory.

One of my sisters went through the poison air system. At least, that's
what she called it; the official name was Cuisenaire. That's where you
play with coloured blocks, and learn things like red+red=green. That
experience more or less guaranteed that she would never be good at
arithmetic.

In my opinion, the _only_ way to become good at arithmetic is to learn a
lot of stuff by rote. That's the nature of the beast. Once you have that
part mastered, you can settle down to learning some real mathematics,
but there's no good way to skip the early stages.

[Snidely]

Peter Moylan submitted this gripping article, maybe on Sunday:

[...]

> In my opinion, the _only_ way to become good at arithmetic is to learn a
> lot of stuff by rote. That's the nature of the beast. Once you have that
> part mastered, you can settle down to learning some real mathematics,
> but there's no good way to skip the early stages.

Arithmetic is counting. All that memorization stuff is just for
shortcuts.

/dps

--
As a colleague once told me about an incoming manager,
"He does very well in a suck-up, kick-down culture."
Bill in Vancouver

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-09-06 07:41:41 +0000, Snidely said:

> Peter Moylan submitted this gripping article, maybe on Sunday:
>
> [...]
>> In my opinion, the _only_ way to become good at arithmetic is to learn a
>> lot of stuff by rote. That's the nature of the beast. Once you have that
>> part mastered, you can settle down to learning some real mathematics,
>> but there's no good way to skip the early stages.
>
> Arithmetic is counting. All that memorization stuff is just for shortcuts.

Not really. You _could_ calculate 239 x 4649 by arranging 4649 rows of
239 beads and counting them, but it would be an awful lot of work and
you'd probably lose count. (As it happens that is an example that I did
memorize when I was about 15.)

[Anton Shepelev]

Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> You _could_ calculate 239 x 4649

Oh my, and how does one do it? --

239 * 4649 =
(240 - 1) * (4650 - 1) =
24 * 465 * 100 - 239 + 4649 + 1 =
(465*(100/4 - 1 )) * 100 - 4889 =
(465/4*100 - 465)) * 100 - 4889 =
(11625 - 465 ) * 100 - 4889 =
1116000 - 4889 =
1111111

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

[Snidely]

Remember when Athel Cornish-Bowden bragged outrageously? That was
Monday:

I say again, arithmetic is counting. That you used the shortcuts
doesn't change that.

/dps

--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15

[J. J. Lodder]

Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
> > You _could_ calculate 239 x 4649
>
> Oh my, and how does one do it? --
>
> 239 * 4649 =
> (240 - 1) * (4650 - 1) =
> 24 * 465 * 100 - 239 + 4649 + 1 =
> (465*(100/4 - 1 )) * 100 - 4889 =
> (465/4*100 - 465)) * 100 - 4889 =
> (11625 - 465 ) * 100 - 4889 =
> 1116000 - 4889 =
> 1111111

Please write it in unary notation for clarity,

Jan

[CDB]

On 9/5/2021 5:09 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Ken Blake:

>> You say "times table." Although you're not the first person I know
>> who says that, to me it's always been the "multiplication table."
>> So I'm just curious, how do others here say it?

> "Times table" if I'm in Grade 1.

Grade 7 too, IME.

> "Multiplication table" if I'm being an adult.

Where's the fun in that?

[Anton Shepelev]

Snidely:

> But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and
> b) it's the hoity-toity restaurants that violate the
> convention, not the downmarket ones or the fast food
> emporiums.

Although ignorant of US conventions, I am of opinion that
writing currency and other amounts with a fixed number of
decimal places is a very good idea for any formal documents,
especially those involving tables or vertically aligned
lists of such amounts.

No, I didn't know that $7.5 is/was an illegal way to specify a
price in U.S.

[Anton Shepelev]

Peter Moylan:

> To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If
> one car is travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going
> three times slower is travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h.
> That is, in the other direction.

Following your logic, which I do not agree with, "three
times faster" should mean 60 + 3*60 = 240 (km/h), or four
times as fast. I wonder what Jerry will say to that...

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-09-06 12:42:51 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:

> Peter Moylan:
>
>> To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If
>> one car is travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going
>> three times slower is travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h.
>> That is, in the other direction.
>
> Following your logic, which I do not agree with, "three
> times faster" should mean 60 + 3*60 = 240 (km/h), or four
> times as fast. I wonder what Jerry will say to that...

Logic aside, I think most people who say "three times faster" mean
three times as fast.

What they mean by "twice as hot", on the other hand, is anyone's guess.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Snidely:

> > But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and
> > b) it's the hoity-toity restaurants that violate the
> > convention, not the downmarket ones or the fast food
> > emporiums.
>
> Although ignorant of US conventions, I am of opinion that
> writing currency and other amounts with a fixed number of
> decimal places is a very good idea for any formal documents,
> especially those involving tables or vertically aligned
> lists of such amounts.
>
> No, I didn't know that $7.5 is/was an illegal way to specify a
> price in U.S.

Not "illegal," but illegitimate.

Can you drop a zero in rubles.kopeks?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 8:42:55 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter Moylan:

> > To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If
> > one car is travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going
> > three times slower is travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h.
> > That is, in the other direction.
>
> Following your logic, which I do not agree with, "three
> times faster" should mean 60 + 3*60 = 240 (km/h), or four
> times as fast. I wonder what Jerry will say to that...

Neither "three times as fast" nor "three times faster" is a
precise expression. Both mean 'pretty fast'.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 15:38:54 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>Snidely:
>
>> But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and
>> b) it's the hoity-toity restaurants that violate the
>> convention, not the downmarket ones or the fast food
>> emporiums.
>
>Although ignorant of US conventions, I am of opinion that
>writing currency and other amounts with a fixed number of
>decimal places is a very good idea for any formal documents,
>especially those involving tables or vertically aligned
>lists of such amounts.
>
>No, I didn't know that $7.5 is/was an illegal way to specify a
>price in U.S.

I don't think "illegal" was used, but I can see why you think so. PTD
was screeching that it is not a "legitimate" usage, and that was a
poor choice of words on his part. "Legitimate" is defined as
"conforming to the law", so someone might think that "not a legitimate
use" means an illegal use.

In everyday English, though, "legitimate" is used to mean
ordinary/acceptable/conventional.

To say something is "illegal" should be a statement of fact; there
should be an extant law prohibiting it. To say something is "not
legitimate" is usually a statement of opinion.

Some say that chiropractors are not legitimate doctors. Other say
that they are legitimate doctors because they hold a Doctor of
Chiropractic medicine licenses.

However, if they are properly licensed they are not claiming the title
illegally.


--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 11:23:47 PM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-09-05 18:56:27 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> >
> > My grandson in Paris started primary school on Thursday. He reported
> > after the first day that they'd been doing mathematics, but it didn't
> > involve numbers. We have
> haven't
> > yet learned what that meant, but somehow I don't think it was algebra
> > or set theory.

We did sets in kindergarten, though I don't think we called it math. The teacher
had a felt board on which she put pieces of colored felt for the elements of
sets and lengths of thick colored yarn for the boundaries. I don't remember
whether we did unions, intersections, or the axiom of choice.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:44:42 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2021-09-06 12:42:51 +0000, Anton Shepelev said:
>
> > Peter Moylan:
> >
> >> To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If
> >> one car is travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going
> >> three times slower is travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h.
> >> That is, in the other direction.
> >
> > Following your logic, which I do not agree with, "three
> > times faster" should mean 60 + 3*60 = 240 (km/h), or four
> > times as fast. I wonder what Jerry will say to that...
> Logic aside, I think most people who say "three times faster" mean
> three times as fast.
>
> What they mean by "twice as hot", on the other hand, is anyone's guess.

Kelvin, obviously. Or Scoville.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "twice as hot" intending it
literally.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Cuisenaire rods didn't stop me or many of my classmates. We did go on
to rote memorization, though.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:08:36 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 15:38:54 +0300, Anton Shepelev
> <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Snidely:
> >
> >> But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and
> >> b) it's the hoity-toity restaurants that violate the
> >> convention, not the downmarket ones or the fast food
> >> emporiums.
> >
> >Although ignorant of US conventions, I am of opinion that
> >writing currency and other amounts with a fixed number of
> >decimal places is a very good idea for any formal documents,
> >especially those involving tables or vertically aligned
> >lists of such amounts.
> >
> >No, I didn't know that $7.5 is/was an illegal way to specify a
> >price in U.S.
>
> I don't think "illegal" was used, but I can see why you think so. PTD
> was screeching

"screeching"? Someone in his mid to late 80s is a lot more likely
to be a "screecher" than someone nearly 20 years his junior with
vocal training.

> that it is not a "legitimate" usage, and that was a
> poor choice of words on his part. "Legitimate" is defined as
> "conforming to the law", so someone might think that "not a legitimate
> use" means an illegal use.

There he goes, making up definitions again.

> In everyday English, though, "legitimate" is used to mean
> ordinary/acceptable/conventional.

That is what the word means, sort of.

> To say something is "illegal" should be a statement of fact; there
> should be an extant law prohibiting it. To say something is "not
> legitimate" is usually a statement of opinion.

There he goes again, claiming to speak for all English-speakers.

> Some say that chiropractors are not legitimate doctors. Other say
> that they are legitimate doctors because they hold a Doctor of
> Chiropractic medicine licenses.

That turns on the meaning of "doctor," not on the meaning of "legitimate."

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:42:56 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> Cuisenaire rods didn't stop me or many of my classmates. We did go on
> to rote memorization, though.

They were introduced for the class _after_ ours. We were jealous that
we didn't get to play with blocks in class, but at least we learned to
cipher (as they used to say in 'Murrican).

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 10:48:49 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 10:08:36 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2021 15:38:54 +0300, Anton Shepelev
>> <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Snidely:
>> >
>> >> But a) Anton may not be familiar with US convention, and
>> >> b) it's the hoity-toity restaurants that violate the
>> >> convention, not the downmarket ones or the fast food
>> >> emporiums.
>> >
>> >Although ignorant of US conventions, I am of opinion that
>> >writing currency and other amounts with a fixed number of
>> >decimal places is a very good idea for any formal documents,
>> >especially those involving tables or vertically aligned
>> >lists of such amounts.
>> >
>> >No, I didn't know that $7.5 is/was an illegal way to specify a
>> >price in U.S.
>>
>> I don't think "illegal" was used, but I can see why you think so. PTD
>> was screeching
>
>"screeching"? Someone in his mid to late 80s is a lot more likely
>to be a "screecher" than someone nearly 20 years his junior with
>vocal training.

One's written output has nothing to do with age or vocal training.
One's written output can be screeching or shrill without emitting
sound. As yours often is.

I have yet to reach my mid-80s although I do hope to do so.

>> that it is not a "legitimate" usage, and that was a
>> poor choice of words on his part. "Legitimate" is defined as
>> "conforming to the law", so someone might think that "not a legitimate
>> use" means an illegal use.
>
>There he goes, making up definitions again.

Lexico, 'powered by Oxford" defines it as "conforming to the law or to
rules".

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/legitimate

>> In everyday English, though, "legitimate" is used to mean
>> ordinary/acceptable/conventional.
>
>That is what the word means, sort of.
>
>> To say something is "illegal" should be a statement of fact; there
>> should be an extant law prohibiting it. To say something is "not
>> legitimate" is usually a statement of opinion.
>
>There he goes again, claiming to speak for all English-speakers.

Yes, that it is usually a statement of opinion is true of all

English-speakers.
>
>> Some say that chiropractors are not legitimate doctors. Other say
>> that they are legitimate doctors because they hold a Doctor of
>> Chiropractic medicine licenses.
>
>That turns on the meaning of "doctor," not on the meaning of "legitimate."
>

No, because those who feel chiropractors are not legitimate doctors
are questioning if being a Doctor of Chiropractic medicine qualifies
the person to be considered to be a medical practitioner. Without
"legitimate" in the sentence, it would merely question whether or not
the DC has obtained the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic medicine.

>> However, if they are properly licensed they are not claiming the title
>> illegally.

[Ken Blake]

Nor have I. "Twice a hot as..." is almost almost used to mean just "It's
a lot hotter than..."


--
Ken

[Ken Blake]

On 9/5/2021 5:17 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/09/21 02:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 9/5/2021 5:28 AM, CDB wrote:
>
>>> I distinguish math from mental arithmetic. I'm more hopeful with
>>> that, thanks to mrs Patterson in Grade 7, who emphasized it. Made
>>> me learn my times tables too, at last.
>>
>> You say "times table." Although you're not the first person I know
>> who says that, to me it's always been the "multiplication table." So
>> I'm just curious, how do others here say it?
>
> It was always times tables where I went to school. In the early grades
> we also did addups and takeaways.

I've never heard of "addups" before, and the only takeways I've seen
were from restaurants.


--
Ken

[Lewis]

In message <20210906125045.37e27f25d7c9af16e5a23488@g{oogle}mail.com> Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden:

>> You _could_ calculate 239 x 4649

> Oh my, and how does one do it? --

> 239 * 4649 =
> (240 - 1) * (4650 - 1) =
> 24 * 465 * 100 - 239 + 4649 + 1 =
> (465*(100/4 - 1 )) * 100 - 4889 =
> (465/4*100 - 465)) * 100 - 4889 =
> (11625 - 465 ) * 100 - 4889 =
> 1116000 - 4889 =
> 1111111

I would start with 2(00) x 46(00) = 92(0000)
2(00) x 49 = 98(00)

That gets me to 929800 very quickly and almost certainly eliminated two
of the wrong answers on the standardized test, and if I'm lucky, three
of the four. It also tells me the range of the answer is going to be
over a million, but not a lot over, and just looking at the numbers I
can guess it's going to be round about 1.1 million.

Granted, if I had to have the exact answer, I would not try to do it in
my head, but the next step is 3(0) x 46(00) and that is easy enough, and
gives me a total of 1 067 800, which surely is close enough for any
purpose I am likely to have. I'd look at that and round it to 1 100 000
and be assured I was close enough, knowing a calculator would give me
the exact answer and faster if I really really need it. But in day to
day life, I never need an exact number, I need a number within ± 5%, or
more often, 10%.

Only a fool buys exactly as much tile as is needed to cover the floor.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain. Just make sure we don't swallow each other's
bubbles!"

[Lewis]

In message <20210906154251.7f8f84d7dfaca07c433eeff1@g{oogle}mail.com> Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
> Peter Moylan:

>> To me, "three times" implies a mathematical operation. If
>> one car is travelling at 60 km/h, then one that is going
>> three times slower is travelling at 60 - 3*60 = -120 km/h.
>> That is, in the other direction.

> Following your logic, which I do not agree with, "three
> times faster" should mean 60 + 3*60 = 240 (km/h), or four
> times as fast. I wonder what Jerry will say to that...

3 timed faster than 60 is 180, something anyone without a math degree
understands. "Three times faster " is exactly the same as "three times
as fast".

--
'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are
the good people and the bad people,' said the man [Vetinari].
'You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad
people, but some of them are on opposite sides.'