You were not arguing about substantive correctness. You were saying that EB articles are written by the foremost experts. Empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case.
It means they go out and find the foremost experts (recognized as such within their field, e.g. Nobel prize winners etc.) and then ask them to produce an article which goes on to be peer-reviewed.
Really? They went to the foremost expert on Frank Zappa, and got an article that didn't get his first name right? And that factual error got through peer review? How'd that happen?
They went to the foremost expert on Alexander Pushkin, and got an article that said that he frequently visited Bohemia during a period in which he never left Russia? How'd that happen?
They went to the foremost expert on Pink Floyd, and he got Roger Waters birthdate wrong? How did that happen?
They went to the foremost expert on transfinite numbers, and he got the definition of Aleph-1 wrong?
I rather think this idea of using "foremost experts" has more basis in Britannia's publicity machine than any verifiable fact.
What does authoritative mean in this context? Always right? Usually right?
Taking Nature's study on face value, its science articles are not more reliable than Wikipedia's, so what does it mean for Britannia to be "authoritative"? That it has a good reputation?
No, it means good programmers can use any language they like, but there'd better be a good reason for using C and "I'm such a good programmer I never make mistakes" isn't a particularly good (or honest) reason.
And yes, bad programmers should avoid C like the plague. Because of unchecked pointer dereferencing and the lack of array bounds checking, there are very few bugs in C code that can't become security holes. Sandboxing is good, and C makes sandboxing very hard work. It's a buffer overflow waiting to happen.
Well that's strictly true, but you know what he's saying. The string handling functions of the standard C library make it very easy to write unsafe code.
Similarly, a car with very bad brakes isn't intrinsically unsafe, as long as the cautious driver is prepared to take alternative precautions on ever bend. But if the driver makes an error (and everyone, yes, even you, will eventually make an error), he's going to end up wrapped around a tree.
Even though other cars aren't safe in the hands of a bad driver, given that you will make mistakes, you'll have far fewer horrific crashes in a car with ABS.
That's where the USA came in. Saddam surrendered and signed a peace treaty, the violation of which legally allows the USA to continue the previous war as though it had never ended.
That's an opinion. However, it's not one shared by any experts in International Law, except those employed by the Bush Administration, and certainly not that of the UN (under whose aegis and specific license Operation Desert Storm was fought [by a genuinely multilateral force, I should add]).
Your repetition of that as an uncontrovertible facts tells us all we need know about where you get you information from, and how critically you care to look at that information.
Some null sets are uncountable (as has been pointed out above). The transcendentals are not null, however, because the transcendentals are the complement of a set which is countable (and null) (the algebraics).
The Cantor set is the canonical uncountable set of measure zero.
I agree. But this wasn't the point that was being corrected. I'd already been corrected on that fact.
Too repeat myself for the reading impaired : The post adds nothing non-obvious to this post, which is its direct parent, except the observation that the union of dense set with an uncountable set is both dense and uncountable.
Well, someone else mentioned zero-measure uncountable sets. The existence of a dense countable set is well known.
Given these facts, (and the vacuously true observation that the measure of a union is not greater than the sum of the two measures) do you really think its a tricky leap to find a dense, uncountable set of measure zero?
Well they mean "almost everywhere", which has a very precise meaning. i.e. except at a set of measure zero (finite or countably infinite set of points.) Of course, that countable set could theoretically be the rationals, so I don't know whether I'd call it negligible.
Young people today. You tell them about a deep result in real analysis, and the only thing they're interested in is how it relates to their iPod. And get off my lawn.
There's a quote in "The Bluffers Guide To Maths" that say
If a five-piece jazz band can play 'Honeysuckle Rose' in six minutes, you might think a ten-piece could play it in three minutes. In fact, it would take at least 12, because everybody's got to have time to take a solo
Don't forget that "up to 60%" is a synonym for "less than 60%". And a very useful synonym it is, especially when a) a journalist wishes to appear to more knowledgeable than they are. b) they want to create a lot of page impressions / ad revenue.
Tommy needs discounts from Sewing machine companies
No he doesn't. Most Hilfiger garments are made in sweatshops, and so really don't cost very much. Although, the fact the people making the clothes are earning a pittance does make the mark-up even more obscene. It's also ironic, given Bill Gates genuine concern about third world poverty.
As to her moral code, it may be out of whack with yours, but not with her own. Please be specific.
Oh, OK. If you really want to know I steer you towards "The Passion Of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Brande, or the chapter on Rand in "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. [FWIW : I think Shermer's characterisation of Objectivism as a cult is wrong, but the article does provide excellent background information on Rand's private behaviour]. In brief, Rand preached the triumph of rationality, whereas in her private life, she was hyper-emotional, and prone to a peculiar mix of sexual jealousy and egotism. (Ask the Brandens.)
Now, none of us are immune to those things, but only Rand professed to live a life governed by rationality, and told us that we were inferior to her because of it. And the veneer of rationality with which Rand continued to defend her affair with Nathaniel Branden makes absolutely hilarious reading. For example, in The Objectivist, 1968, Rand wrote:
Mr. Branden presented me with a written statement which was so irrational and so offensive to me that I had to break my personal association with him.... About two months later Mrs. Branden suddenly confessed that Mr. Branden had been concealing from me certain ugly actions and irrational behavior in his private life, which was grossly contradictory to Objectivist morality
What was this grossly irrational behaviour? Branden had broken off his affair with Rand, and commenced on an affair with another woman.
Slashdot Mirror
You were not arguing about substantive correctness.
You were saying that EB articles are written by the foremost experts.
Empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case.
They went to the foremost expert on Alexander Pushkin, and got an article that said that he frequently visited Bohemia during a period in which he never left Russia? How'd that happen?
They went to the foremost expert on Pink Floyd, and he got Roger Waters birthdate wrong? How did that happen?
They went to the foremost expert on transfinite numbers, and he got the definition of Aleph-1 wrong?
I rather think this idea of using "foremost experts" has more basis in Britannia's publicity machine than any verifiable fact.
Taking Nature's study on face value, its science articles are not more reliable than Wikipedia's, so what does it mean for Britannia to be "authoritative"? That it has a good reputation?
Pah! Penfold is the real talent. ... err ... frontperson .... frontmouse.
DM is just the attractive Milli-Vanilli-esque frontman
... because Mark Hammill is stuck doing porn these days, right?
No, it means good programmers can use any language they like, but there'd better be a good reason for using C and "I'm such a good programmer I never make mistakes" isn't a particularly good (or honest) reason.
And yes, bad programmers should avoid C like the plague.
Because of unchecked pointer dereferencing and the lack of array bounds checking, there are very few bugs in C code that can't become security holes. Sandboxing is good, and C makes sandboxing very hard work. It's a buffer overflow waiting to happen.
Well that's strictly true, but you know what he's saying.
The string handling functions of the standard C library make it very easy to write unsafe code.
Similarly, a car with very bad brakes isn't intrinsically unsafe, as long as the cautious driver is prepared to take alternative precautions on ever bend. But if the driver makes an error (and everyone, yes, even you, will eventually make an error), he's going to end up wrapped around a tree.
Even though other cars aren't safe in the hands of a bad driver, given that you will make mistakes, you'll have far fewer horrific crashes in a car with ABS.
Your repetition of that as an uncontrovertible facts tells us all we need know about where you get you information from, and how critically you care to look at that information.
Yeah. Neil Armstrong too : "This is one small step for a man ... but, like, totally beyond anything some lame chick could do."
I forgot the Cantor set too, but fortunately 712 people corrected me, with varying degrees of rudeness.
Some null sets are uncountable (as has been pointed out above). The transcendentals are not null, however, because the transcendentals are the complement of a set which is countable (and null) (the algebraics).
The Cantor set is the canonical uncountable set of measure zero.
I agree. But this wasn't the point that was being corrected.
I'd already been corrected on that fact.
Too repeat myself for the reading impaired : The post adds nothing non-obvious to this post, which is its direct parent, except the observation that the union of dense set with an uncountable set is both dense and uncountable.
My point is that that fact is completely obvious.
Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.
I believe so. At least, thats what this post implies. That'd be a seriously weird function, though.
Well, someone else mentioned zero-measure uncountable sets.
The existence of a dense countable set is well known.
Given these facts, (and the vacuously true observation that the measure of a union is not greater than the sum of the two measures) do you really think its a tricky leap to find a dense, uncountable set of measure zero?
Well, since we can have a dense countable set (a fairly unintuitive result), a dense, uncountable, zero-measure set should come as no surprise.
Ooops. You're right. In my defense, it's been 10 years since I did any real analysis.
Well they mean "almost everywhere", which has a very precise meaning. i.e. except at a set of measure zero (finite or countably infinite set of points.) Of course, that countable set could theoretically be the rationals, so I don't know whether I'd call it negligible.
Young people today. You tell them about a deep result in real analysis, and the only thing they're interested in is how it relates to their iPod. And get off my lawn.
Don't forget that "up to 60%" is a synonym for "less than 60%". And a very useful synonym it is, especially when
a) a journalist wishes to appear to more knowledgeable than they are.
b) they want to create a lot of page impressions / ad revenue.
Now, none of us are immune to those things, but only Rand professed to live a life governed by rationality, and told us that we were inferior to her because of it. And the veneer of rationality with which Rand continued to defend her affair with Nathaniel Branden makes absolutely hilarious reading. For example, in The Objectivist, 1968, Rand wrote:What was this grossly irrational behaviour? Branden had broken off his affair with Rand, and commenced on an affair with another woman.