Poll
Question:
What's your first answer to this problem?
Option 1: [spoiler]Answer A[/spoiler]
votes: 17
Option 2: [spoiler]Answer B[/spoiler]
votes: 15
Option 3: Other?
votes: 6
The problem:
1+4=5
2+5=12
3+6=21
8+11=?
A: [spoiler]96[/spoiler]
B: [spoiler]40[/spoiler]
I am curious because both answers work but I guess which one you go to first tells something about how you think.
Answer B
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
To get answer A, translate x+y=C into [spoiler]x + xy = C[/spoiler]. I'm curious how to get B, but not enough to keep looking.
[spoiler]You just keep adding the numbers to get B. So 1+4(=5)+2+5(=12)+3+6(=21)+8+11=40[/spoiler]
8 + 11 = [spoiler]19[/spoiler], you morons.
Lulz MAFFLETE GOLD
I got the 96 answer really quick and even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
Reflecting on CdM's comment, are all Polish arithmetic papers like this?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 27, 2016, 01:42:59 PM
I got the 96 answer really quick and even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
Reflecting on CdM's comment, are all Polish arithmetic papers like this?
:P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 27, 2016, 01:42:59 PM
even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
[spoiler]He's keeping a running tally of the totals of all the numbers on the left side of the four "equations"[/spoiler]
I guess the answer A is more of a "nerd answer", as it spots the pattern that works on its own in each equation, even if the others do not exist.
Answer B is simpler but also one for people who see the broader picture. Sort of a "humanist answer".
I picked A, like most Languishites.
There's also many others:
[spoiler]
1+(1*4)=5
2+(2*5)=12
3+(3*6)=21
8+(4*11)=52 [/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1!/0!+4*1=5
2!/1!+5*2=12
3!/2!+6*3=21
8!/3!+11*4= 6764[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1!/0!+4*1=5
2!/1!+5*2=12
3!/2!+6*3=21
8!/3!+11*8= 6808[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1*(four+ne)-1=5
2*(five+two)-2=12
3*(three+six)-3=21
4*(eleven+ight)-4= 36[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1*(fur+ne)=5
2*(five+two-1)=12
3*(three+six)=21
4*(lvn+ight-1)= 24[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
1*(fur+ne)=5
2*(five+two-1)=12
3*(three+six)=21
8*(lvn+ight-1)= 48[/spoiler]
Since the mathematical expressions aren't used in their normal meaning I'm pretty sure there are innumerable different results that could be considered to "work".
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 27, 2016, 01:42:59 PM
I got the 96 answer really quick and even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
Reflecting on CdM's comment, are all Polish arithmetic papers like this?
HP calculators use something called reverse Polish notation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation). For the longest time I thought that was simply a generic put-down aimed at Pollocks.
fur? ne? wut?
Other, 52
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2016, 02:00:03 PM
I guess the answer A is more of a "nerd answer", as it spots the pattern that works on its own in each equation, even if the others do not exist.
Answer B is simpler but also one for people who see the broader picture. Sort of a "humanist answer".
I picked A, like most Languishites.
As an engineer I prefer the solution that uses the least amount of numbers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
A+B=C is A*B+A=C.
Other, 52
Quote from: viper37 on April 27, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
A+B=C is A*B+A=C.
That's my point. "+" already has a narrowly defined meaning.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2016, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 27, 2016, 01:42:59 PM
even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
[spoiler]He's keeping a running tally of the totals of all the numbers on the left side of the four "equations"[/spoiler]
Well that's pretty silly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 27, 2016, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2016, 01:56:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 27, 2016, 01:42:59 PM
even when I looked at the spoiler couldn't see where the 40 came from :hmm:
[spoiler]He's keeping a running tally of the totals of all the numbers on the left side of the four "equations"[/spoiler]
Well that's pretty silly.
Why? When you look at the totals always going up that is the obvious solution :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2016, 03:19:51 PM
Why? When you look at the totals always going up that is the obvious solution :hmm:
There are 4 equations listed.
The first one listed is correct.
The next two equations are incorrect--those are problems, but the problem "why can't Marti do basic addition?" Is not the problem that is asked to be solved.
The last equation--the one with the "?"--is the only problem to solve.
Therefore, the answer to 8 + 11 = ? is 19, as ? = 19.
Talk about an obvious solution. :rolleyes:
That is one way of looking at it. However, if we assume Marty is asking us to solve for the system and not just the equation, those two faulty equations need to be dealt with.
CdM fights the system.
Agree with Seedy on this. The way Marti presents it, all 4 equations are independent; there is nothing to indicate that the answer to the 4th equation is dependent any information contained in the other 3. There are ways to state it such that each equation is dependent on those which precede it, but Marti didn't do so.
Well, when I see a question mark at the end of a basic addition problem, I answer the question mark. That's MY policy. [/frankdrebin]
Seedy is smarter then you all :lol:
Answer A. Couldn't figure out how to get answer B on my own.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2016, 12:49:59 PM
The problem:
1+4=5
2+5=12
3+6=21
8+11=?
A: [spoiler]96[/spoiler]
B: [spoiler]40[/spoiler]
I am curious because both answers work but I guess which one you go to first tells something about how you think.
A
Answer B. Wouldn't even think of the first approach until I saw the number, and then realized what I had to do given its magnitude.
What would be the proper way to notate the question?
I was thinking f(1,4)=5, etc, but that would rule out the sequence, wouldn't it?
Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2016, 06:13:23 PM
Answer B. Wouldn't even think of the first approach until I saw the number, and then realized what I had to do given its magnitude.
I was the reverse. I couldn't figure out how to get to B without reading this thread. The procedure for calculating A jumped out as the obvious solution to the third proposition.
Actually, the "obvious" answer is that the equations are not using base-ten numbering. That the problem relied on false statements never even occurred to me.
I also didn't try to go so far as to figure out what wacky numerical base would yield those answers (I don't think a fractional number base is possible).
I like frunck's answer best: recognizing that it is a false problem, the answer one gives depends on what you consider the falsehood to be.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2016, 06:44:19 PM
Actually, the "obvious" answer is that the equations are not using base-ten numbering. That the problem relied on false statements never even occurred to me.
I also didn't try to go so far as to figure out what wacky numerical base would yield those answers (I don't think a fractional number base is possible).
I like frunck's answer best: recognizing that it is a false problem, the answer one gives depends on what you consider the falsehood to be.
Agreed. Frunk's answer is best. I am not as fluent in math as the rest of you so I just relied on the little I knew and assumed the problem required identifying the missing procedure.
5
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 06:13:42 PM
What would be the proper way to notate the question?
I was thinking f(1,4)=5, etc, but that would rule out the sequence, wouldn't it?
Oh, geez. It's been forever since I've had a math class. I think it's something like
A: (1+4=5), A: (2+5=12), A:(3+6=21); A: 8+11=X
How do you get to A?!
Oh I get it, how can this come to someone before seeing the additions?!
Quote from: frunk on April 27, 2016, 02:00:59 PM
There's also many others:
[spoiler]
1+(1*4)=5
2+(2*5)=12
3+(3*6)=21
8+(4*11)=52 [/spoiler]
Since the mathematical expressions aren't used in their normal meaning I'm pretty sure there are innumerable different results that could be considered to "work".
That was my first line of thinking.
My first answer was "hell no, I ain't doing that math shit". :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 28, 2016, 12:34:20 AM
My first answer was "hell no, I ain't doing that math shit". :P
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-07/28/14/enhanced/webdr02/enhanced-buzz-11690-1438109302-10.jpg)
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 27, 2016, 08:28:47 PM
How do you get to A?!
Oh I get it, how can this come to someone before seeing the additions?!
Took me longer than I'd like to admit to come up with B...A came naturally. :wacko:
I got B almost without thinking. I had to read the thread to figure out A. But you all know my feeling on math.... :P
Got A first, but after looking at B I figured it out too without reading the thread further.
Nice to see that mathematics has been relegated to the equivalent of horseshoes and hand grenades.
I got B almost immediately. My test scores go like this: Spatial comprehension> Math > Verbal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
It's using a different grammar. The question is, what is the grammar that makes it correct. It's less a math problem and more a linguistics problem, although you can solve it mathematically as I suspect frunk did.
And as he said, there are probably an infinite number of grammars that would fit, including ones where the numerals have different values.
Still no goddamned vowels, though.
Quote from: Maximus on April 28, 2016, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
It's using a different grammar. The question is, what is the grammar that makes it correct. It's less a math problem and more a linguistics problem, although you can solve it mathematically as I suspect frunk did.
And as he said, there are probably an infinite number of grammars that would fit, including ones where the numerals have different values.
It's not a different grammar (unless grammar means something different in Canadian English); it is using an existing language incorrectly. If I were to say "Seedy sucks donkey dicks" and Seedy got offended, I couldn't argue that I was just using a different "grammar" in which "sucks" means "likes" and "donkey dicks" means "cats."
Once one accepts that the formulas are wrong, though, you are correct that there are an infinite number of ways in which it could be wrong.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
Quote from: Maximus on April 28, 2016, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
It's using a different grammar. The question is, what is the grammar that makes it correct. It's less a math problem and more a linguistics problem, although you can solve it mathematically as I suspect frunk did.
And as he said, there are probably an infinite number of grammars that would fit, including ones where the numerals have different values.
It's not a different grammar (unless grammar means something different in Canadian English); it is using an existing language incorrectly. If I were to say "Seedy sucks donkey dicks" and Seedy got offended, I couldn't argue that I was just using a different "grammar" in which "sucks" means "likes" and "donkey dicks" means "cats."
Once one accepts that the formulas are wrong, though, you are correct that there are an infinite number of ways in which it could be wrong.
It can mean something different than your understanding, yes. See: Definition 4.
QuoteFull Definition of grammar
1
a : the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence
b : a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection and syntax
2
a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language
b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language
3
a : a grammar textbook
b : speech or writing evaluated according to its conformity to grammatical rules
4
: the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>; also : a set of such principles or rules
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
Quote from: Maximus on April 28, 2016, 01:45:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
Surely the plus sign should be replaced with another symbol.
It's using a different grammar. The question is, what is the grammar that makes it correct. It's less a math problem and more a linguistics problem, although you can solve it mathematically as I suspect frunk did.
And as he said, there are probably an infinite number of grammars that would fit, including ones where the numerals have different values.
It's not a different grammar (unless grammar means something different in Canadian English); it is using an existing language incorrectly. If I were to say "Seedy sucks donkey dicks" and Seedy got offended, I couldn't argue that I was just using a different "grammar" in which "sucks" means "likes" and "donkey dicks" means "cats."
Once one accepts that the formulas are wrong, though, you are correct that there are an infinite number of ways in which it could be wrong.
That is a pretty narrow use of the word grammar to simply make two insults in one post ;)
Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2016, 10:26:18 AM
It can mean something different than your understanding, yes. See: Definition 4.
QuoteFull Definition of grammar
1
a : the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence
b : a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection and syntax
2
a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language
b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language
3
a : a grammar textbook
b : speech or writing evaluated according to its conformity to grammatical rules
4
: the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>; also : a set of such principles or rules
I don't see how definition 4 applies, but acknowledge that Canadian English isn't always the same as American English. Thus, your understanding may include "grammar" to mean for "incorrect usage" (as in "the principals or rules of the art of incorrect usage, I suppose) while mine does not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
That is a pretty narrow use of the word grammar to simply make two insults in one post ;)
Congrats on seeing insults even where not present? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
That is a pretty narrow use of the word grammar to simply make two insults in one post ;)
Congrats on seeing insults even where not present? :huh:
I guess you are so used to be an abrasive jerk that it doesn't register for you anymore :console:
Languish has not yet perished.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:55:20 AM
Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2016, 10:26:18 AM
It can mean something different than your understanding, yes. See: Definition 4.
QuoteFull Definition of grammar
1
a : the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence
b : a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection and syntax
2
a : the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language
b : a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language
3
a : a grammar textbook
b : speech or writing evaluated according to its conformity to grammatical rules
4
: the principles or rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>; also : a set of such principles or rules
I don't see how definition 4 applies, but acknowledge that Canadian English isn't always the same as American English. Thus, your understanding may include "grammar" to mean for "incorrect usage" (as in "the principals or rules of the art of incorrect usage, I suppose) while mine does not.
I'd forgotten how limited your scope is with the English Language. :) Never mind then.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
Languish has not yet perished.
So long as we still live.
What the alien force has taken from us,
We shall retrieve with a sabre.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
It's not a different grammar (unless grammar means something different in Canadian English); it is using an existing language incorrectly. If I were to say "Seedy sucks donkey dicks" and Seedy got offended, I couldn't argue that I was just using a different "grammar" in which "sucks" means "likes" and "donkey dicks" means "cats."
Sure you could. Grammar is a technical term: in linguistics as I mentioned.
As a non-linguist I can excuse your ignorance; as an academic I can not excuse your professing that ignorance to be "truth".
12
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2016, 11:11:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2016, 10:56:22 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 29, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
That is a pretty narrow use of the word grammar to simply make two insults in one post ;)
Congrats on seeing insults even where not present? :huh:
I guess you are so used to be an abrasive jerk that it doesn't register for you anymore :console:
And you are moaning that
I am the one who is being insulting? :lmfao:
Quote from: Maximus on April 29, 2016, 12:11:37 PM
Sure you could. Grammar is a technical term: in linguistics as I mentioned.
As a non-linguist I can excuse your ignorance; as an academic I can not excuse your professing that ignorance to be "truth".
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
In hindsight, this being Languish, I guess I should have included another poll option "Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2016, 11:53:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2016, 11:29:07 AM
Languish has not yet perished.
So long as we still live.
What the alien force has taken from us,
We shall retrieve with a sabre.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 01, 2016, 10:01:53 AM
In hindsight, this being Languish, I guess I should have included another poll option "Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". :lol:
That's precisely what I thought of when confronted with the idea that different grammars use different word meanings - if that were true, then a different grammar would allow any definition of "grammar" that is allowed by that grammar. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2016, 11:53:15 AM
We shall retrieve with a sabre.
...which should be no problem, with such a luxurious passenger cabin and spacious trunk.
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/buick/lesabre/1994/oem/1994_buick_lesabre_sedan_limited_fq_oem_1_300.jpg)
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
As a mathematician, I think it was fairly obvious that a plus sign was a redefined operator. As a person with common sense, I just assumed that it was easier to overload the plus operator than to invent a new operator and then figure out how to type it. As a human being, I can understand why normally polite posters snap at grumbler: he is Languish's Ted Cruz, applying his intellect only to make himself a constant nuisance to others.
The answer is still 19, muttskis.
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 02:28:50 PM
As a mathematician, I think it was fairly obvious that a plus sign was a redefined operator. As a person with common sense, I just assumed that it was easier to overload the plus operator than to invent a new operator and then figure out how to type it.
I think that it was fairly obvious that the plus sign was a ruse, designed to make people think that the formulas were mathematical, as Yi pointed out. For the test to be honest, it would have needed to avoid using known language incorrectly. The + in this case isn't really an operator, it is a stand in for an operator and a variable.
QuoteAs a human being, I can understand why normally polite posters snap at grumbler: he is Languish's Ted Cruz, applying his intellect only to make himself a constant nuisance to others.
As a human being, I understand why you feel the need, since you have no intellectual argument to make, to resort to petty insults even when they make no sense whatever. If "insulting" me makes you feel better, knock yourself out. What you babble about me is of no consequence to me, any more than CC's moaning is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2016, 02:34:46 PM
The answer is still 19, muttskis.
I thought we knew that the answer was 42, and we just didn't know what the question was. That's what I read in a book, anyway.
7
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:55:10 PM
As a human being, I understand why you feel the need, since you have no intellectual argument to make, to resort to petty insults even when they make no sense whatever. If "insulting" me makes you feel better, knock yourself out. What you babble about me is of no consequence to me, any more than CC's moaning is.
It didn't make me feel better or worse, but it had to be done. "Human beings" like you need to be denounced regularly.
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 05:05:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:55:10 PM
As a human being, I understand why you feel the need, since you have no intellectual argument to make, to resort to petty insults even when they make no sense whatever. If "insulting" me makes you feel better, knock yourself out. What you babble about me is of no consequence to me, any more than CC's moaning is.
It didn't make me feel better or worse, but it had to be done. "Human beings" like you need to be denounced regularly.
Okay, champ. You just do your duty and "denounce" away. :lmfao:
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 02:28:50 PM
As a mathematician, I think it was fairly obvious that a plus sign was a redefined operator.
Heh, when I first saw people having difficulty with the "+" sign meaning something than simple addition, I found myself thinking
Of course the plus can mean different thing in different systems. Most of those are pretty advanced, but it's XOR in digital logic; they should have encountered that in their sophomore intro computer engineering class... :unsure: oh, right :Embarrass:Seriously though, everyone should know that "+" can mean something other than simple addition. For instance 3 + 4i isn't a summation; looking at magnitude in that case 3 + 4 = 5. You should have encountered that in your intro calculus... :unsure: oh, right. :Embarrass:
;)
Quote from: Savonarola on May 02, 2016, 09:55:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 02:28:50 PM
As a mathematician, I think it was fairly obvious that a plus sign was a redefined operator.
Heh, when I first saw people having difficulty with the "+" sign meaning something than simple addition, I found myself thinking Of course the plus can mean different thing in different systems. Most of those are pretty advanced, but it's XOR in digital logic; they should have encountered that in their sophomore intro computer engineering class... :unsure: oh, right :Embarrass:
Seriously though, everyone should know that "+" can mean something other than simple addition. For instance 3 + 4i isn't a summation; looking at magnitude in that case 3 + 4 = 5. You should have encountered that in your intro calculus... :unsure: oh, right. :Embarrass:
;)
But according to Grumbler the + symbol always indicates a summation - or we are all hopelessly lost :(
It saddens me that a person who claims to teach didn't understand the point Max was making. But I guess Grumbler never claimed to know anything about math.
Math is hard.
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2016, 10:09:22 AM
Math is hard.
Especially for a guy like Grumbler who takes on people like Max and DG who actually know about the subject.
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 05:05:06 PM
It didn't make me feel better or worse, but it had to be done. "Human beings" like you need to be denounced regularly.
I want to take this moment to denounce Benito Mussolini, Hirohito, Hugo Chavez, Dido, and the current roster of the New England Patriots.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2016, 10:07:00 AM
But according to Grumbler the + symbol always indicates a summation - or we are all hopelessly lost :(
:lmfao: I note that you are not quoting me there, but simply stating that I said something (something I never said, but I assume that you, like dguller, are more into "denouncing" than honesty).
QuoteIt saddens me that a person who claims to teach didn't understand the point Max was making. But I guess Grumbler never claimed to know anything about math.
I actually made Max's point before he did, and agreed with his point (barring a quibble about the use of the term 'grammar" to describe word/symbol meaning). it saddens me that someone who claims to be a lawyer is so poor at reading comprehension. :(
Quote from: derspiess on May 02, 2016, 10:09:22 AM
Math is hard.
The difficulty doesn't seem to be math, but rather reading.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
You might even say he is a cunning linguist? :)
Quote from: grumbler on May 02, 2016, 12:18:51 PM
but I assume that you, like dguller, are more into "denouncing" than honesty).
These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the reason I denounce you is precisely because I'm honest to a fault.
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2016, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
You might even say he is a cunning linguist? :)
Not the Back Room :mad:
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2016, 12:44:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2016, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
You might even say he is a cunning linguist? :)
Not the Back Room :mad:
:D
Did you really mean, "not the back door"? :P
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2016, 12:57:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2016, 12:44:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2016, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
You might even say he is a cunning linguist? :)
Not the Back Room :mad:
:D
Did you really mean, "not the back door"? :P
That wouldn't be very cunning :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on May 02, 2016, 12:43:32 PM
You might even say he is a cunning linguist? :)
I might, yes. :perv:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 02, 2016, 11:23:04 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 01, 2016, 05:05:06 PM
It didn't make me feel better or worse, but it had to be done. "Human beings" like you need to be denounced regularly.
I want to take this moment to denounce Benito Mussolini, Hirohito, Hugo Chavez, Dido, and the current roster of the New England Patriots.
Why Dido? She has a nice set of pipes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2016, 01:44:21 PM
Why Dido? She has a nice set of pipes.
Well she did make an oath that led to the Punic Wars.
What's wrong with Il Dolce?
23
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Quote from: merithyn on May 02, 2016, 12:40:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 01, 2016, 12:31:35 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2016, 09:52:22 AM
Grammar has a specific meaning in linguistics; it isn't a catch-all word that means whatever you want it to mean.
As a linguist, I can excuse your non-linguist misunderstanding of the term "grammar" (after all, you have probably seen a poster on the internet correct another poster's punctuation and seen them called "grammar police"). As an academic, I have to reject your misappropriation of the term "grammar" to describe a change in word meaning. Grammar involves syntax and morphology, not definitions. As a mathematician, I must reject your contention that there is a "grammar" that allows 2+5 to equal 12 in a base ten numbering system. As a Languish poster, I am not surprised that you want to double down on your mistake.
:console: I'm sorry your Linguistics for Dummies book took so long to arrive from Amazon. Too bad they don't have a kindle version.
Obviously, yours did arrive. Too bad it didn't explain to you what grammar was.
Not sure if you're aware, Grumbler, but Max actually is a linguist. It's his area of study for his Masters.
So is Grumbler. Along with being an admiral, a general, a doctor and a lawyer.
What career field does that benefit
Quote from: 11B4V on May 02, 2016, 06:15:23 PM
What career field does that benefit
Football. Taxidermy. Watch repair. Something along those lines.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2016, 07:18:28 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 02, 2016, 06:15:23 PM
What career field does that benefit
Football. Taxidermy. Watch repair. Something along those lines.
So, like humanities then.