Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Dennis on 28 Dec 2009 23:42 zzbunker netscap .net wrote: > But, the French are also one of the main reasons that the people > who understand post > lighting rod engineering invented communication satellites, weather > satellites, gps, > atomic clock wristwatches, light sticks, optical computers, desktop > emulators, > desktop publishing, holographics, digital books, cyber batteries, > self-replicating machines, > self-assembling robots, laser disks, xml, hdtv, blue ray, home > broadband, data fusion, UAVs, > Post ASCII Cruise Missiles, USB, Digital Terrain Mapping, > Phalanx, Thermo-Electric Cooling, > Microwave Cooling, mp3, mpeg, all-in-one printers, on-line > publishing, and the 21st Century. Ah, good to see you here, zz! Can anyone here on sci lang explain how zz works? I'd be interested in hearing what kind of algorithm he uses. Dennis
From: PaulJK on 28 Dec 2009 23:54 garabik-news-2005-05(a)kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk wrote: > In sci.lang Peter T. Daniels <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> Is "continent" a technical term in geography? > > Dunno. It is, however, widely used. > >> Was "planet" a technical term in astronomy? > > Yes. Not formally defined (except by enumeration), though. I don't know about modern astronomy, but in the old days a "planet" was a well established term for all "wanderers". They were all heavenly bodies (apart from the Sun?) that kept constantly changing their position on the celestial globe. Even today my Cartes du Ciel lists the Moon as one of the planets. pjk >> (Apparently it is now.) > > ...except of extrasolar planets, which by this definition are not > planets... > > To which extent does a terminology make a part of the language of > science? And what about informal, but widely used terminology? It is an > open question for which I have no answer. > > However, let's not leave out mathematics: many interesting fields, rings > and groups are defined by enumeration of their members, operations and > rules (see Boolean algebra for a simple one). Heck, even natural numbers > are defined by their "enumeration" in a sense (Peano axioms). > >> Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | >> __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. > Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
From: Harlan Messinger on 29 Dec 2009 00:04 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 28, 5:51 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>> On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger >>> <hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> I wonder if you aren't being intentionally ironic and a troll. It's >>>> funny that someone would invent the word "Eng" and then complain about >>>> people doing what they want with the language. The anomaly is compounded >>>> by your use of "butcher" as a verb, >>> What's wrong with butcher (v.)? It's been around since 1562 (M-W). >> Why are you asking *me* what's wrong with it? I'm turning Marvin's >> reasoning back on *him*. > > I didn't see that Marvin cited anything that could be parodied with > "butcher (v.)." It's not even one of the Miss Fidditch shibboleths > like "contact is not a verb." He is using the word "idiot" to describe anyone who uses anything in English in a manner different from however it was originally "meant" to be used (because he evidently thinks that all words came into English with an official prescribed meaning). Yet his own message contained several examples of just such "idiocy".
From: PaulJK on 29 Dec 2009 00:18 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 28, 5:01 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:40:47 +1300, PaulJK >> <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in >> <news:hh9nbf$ejq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.lang,alt.usage.english,alt.philosophy: >> >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> On Dec 27, 3:49 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>> True, though some linguists would argue that the [ ]~[ ] >>>>> distinction still isn't phonemic, since the distribution is >>>>> predictable (albeit the conditioning isn't phonological). >> >> [...] >> >>>> Whatever you recently did to "fix" your encoding has >>>> resulted in blank spaces where you typed funny letters. >>> No, it's posted with Content-Type: text/plain; >>> charset="iso-8859-1" I don't think the problem was caused >>> by his last mod farther down the list of formats. >> >> It's almost certainly a problem with Google Groups. If >> Peter would break down and get a decent news client, he'd >> not have the problem. > > Yet somehow Google Groups managed to show the letters a few minutes > later. > > None of the newsgroup-snobs has ever explained what's _wrong_ with > google groups. Do you realize you sound like Franz Gneadiger? Most of the users of Usenet client utilities have tried Google and worked out their own reasons for not using it. The reasons are many and varied. Some of them have also been discussed in this group over the past several years. There are specific Usenet groups for people wanting to talk pros and cons of various client utilities. You yourself have problems with google groups. Yet, like Franz, you stick to your belief that somebody else is causing them. > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank > diskettes to people.) Internet snobs usually discuss and explain technical aspects of usenet and internet in user groups dedicated to such discussions. There are zillions of them dedicated to many relevant subjects. pjk
From: Marvin the Martian on 29 Dec 2009 01:02
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:39:04 -0800, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> > What ape has "acquired language"? >> >> Washo, for one.- > > No one was ever allowed to interact with Washoe except her own trainers, > who, like the attendants of the Oracle of Delphi, carried her messages > back to the observers. Signers who got to see rare unedited clips of her > gestural activity reported that it was nothing like signing. So, you're saying it is all fraud to get funding? Given the AGW fraud, that wouldn't surprise me one bit. I don't know that, though. |