Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 20:39, Robin wrote:
>> On 13/09/2021 20:09, Figaro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:33:40 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’m not sure I agree with you. This tallies with my understanding:
>>>>
>>>> In base 10, the most common numeration scheme worldwide, an increase
>>>> of one
>>>> order of magnitude is the same as multiplying a quantity by 10. An
>>>> increase
>>>> of two orders of magnitude is the equivalent of multiplying by 100,
>>>> or 102.
>>>> In general, an increase of n orders of magnitude is the equivalent of
>>>> multiplying a quantity by 10n. Thus, 2315 is one order of magnitude
>>>> larger
>>>> than 231.5, which in turn is is one order of magnitude larger than
>>>> 23.15.
>>>>
>>>> So 10 is not an order of magnitude greater than 9. But 90 is.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1 dex
>
> Doesn't agree with my understanding, which is as the Wikipedia article
> states. The phrase 'order of magnitude' when applied to differences
> between numbers is usually used when the figures are rather approximate
> anyway, and given this approximation it wouldn't make too much sense to
> say that A is 10^n times (implies some exactitude) greater than B. If
> you know with some meaningful exactitude that A is 10^n times greater
> than B, then that's what you'd say, if you only know that A is in the
> range of a factor 10^n times greater than B, then you'd probably say
> that A is n orders of magnitude greater than B.
>
> So, according to common scientific parlance, strictly speaking 10 is an
> order of magnitude greater than 9, it's just that the expression
> wouldn't usually be used in that context, partly because the numbers are
> known exactly, mainly because it would create a misleading expression to
> use that expression for two numbers so close together.
>

I think Wikipedia is wrong. Every reference to order of magnitude I find,
other than Wikipedia, tallies with my understanding. From the Cambridge
dictionary:

MATHEMATICS specialized
a level in a system used for measuring something in which each level is ten
times larger than the one before:
These processor speeds have recently increased by two orders of magnitude
(= by a hundred times).

From the AWE (academic writing in English)

The phrase order of magnitude is sometimes used (often in the plural)
loosely to mean 'a lot' - "he is bigger than me, by several orders of
magnitude." The use of the phrase is perhaps felt to give an air of
impressive scientific authority, or to draw on the strength of the
impressions of enormous size that modern science gives.

The problem is that the term order of magnitude has a precise meaning. The
casual speaker probably misunderstands it completely. In academic writing,
only use the phrase in its proper meaning. Properly, order of magnitude
means, in our mathematics based on the decimal system of numbers, "an
increased (integral) power of ten". Less mathematically stated, "the column
into which you put the digit of a figure". A hundred, for example, is an
order of magnitude bigger than ten, and an order of magnitude smaller than
a thousand.

OED defines it, very carefully, as "approximate number or magnitude in a
scale in which equal steps correspond to a fixed multiplying factor (usu.
taken as 10); a range between one power of 10 and the next."

When speaking in a University context, or writing academic papers, only use
order of magnitude in its mathematically correct sense.

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:shobvf$jo2$1@dont-email.me...
> I think Wikipedia is wrong. Every reference to order of magnitude I find,
> other than Wikipedia, tallies with my understanding. From the Cambridge
> dictionary:
>
> MATHEMATICS specialized
> a level in a system used for measuring something in which each level is
> ten
> times larger than the one before:
> These processor speeds have recently increased by two orders of magnitude
> (= by a hundred times).
>
> From the AWE (academic writing in English)
>
> The phrase order of magnitude is sometimes used (often in the plural)
> loosely to mean 'a lot' - "he is bigger than me, by several orders of
> magnitude." The use of the phrase is perhaps felt to give an air of
> impressive scientific authority, or to draw on the strength of the
> impressions of enormous size that modern science gives.
>
> The problem is that the term order of magnitude has a precise meaning. The
> casual speaker probably misunderstands it completely. In academic writing,
> only use the phrase in its proper meaning. Properly, order of magnitude
> means, in our mathematics based on the decimal system of numbers, "an
> increased (integral) power of ten".

I agree with this. It implies a ratio of 10:1 of any pair of numbers,
whether 1 and 10, 2 and 20, ..., 9 and 90.

> Less mathematically stated, "the column
> into which you put the digit of a figure".

I don't agree with this (in all cases) because it would allow 10 to be
regarded as an order of magnitude greater than 9.

> A hundred, for example, is an
> order of magnitude bigger than ten, and an order of magnitude smaller than
> a thousand.
>
> OED defines it, very carefully, as "approximate number or magnitude in a
> scale in which equal steps correspond to a fixed multiplying factor (usu.
> taken as 10); a range between one power of 10 and the next."
>
> When speaking in a University context, or writing academic papers, only
> use
> order of magnitude in its mathematically correct sense.

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:shoco2$otp$1@dont-email.me...
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:shobvf$jo2$1@dont-email.me...
>> I think Wikipedia is wrong. Every reference to order of magnitude I find,
>> other than Wikipedia, tallies with my understanding. From the Cambridge
>> dictionary:
>>
>> MATHEMATICS specialized
>> a level in a system used for measuring something in which each level is
>> ten
>> times larger than the one before:
>> These processor speeds have recently increased by two orders of magnitude
>> (= by a hundred times).
>>
>> From the AWE (academic writing in English)
>>
>> The phrase order of magnitude is sometimes used (often in the plural)
>> loosely to mean 'a lot' - "he is bigger than me, by several orders of
>> magnitude." The use of the phrase is perhaps felt to give an air of
>> impressive scientific authority, or to draw on the strength of the
>> impressions of enormous size that modern science gives.

I'd tend to avoid the phrase "an order of magnitude" and use "(about) ten
times" to avoid any misunderstanding about definitions of the phrase. JJ was
probably unwise (even if strictly correct) to refer to 10 as being an order
of magnitude greater than 9.

In the same way, I don't refer to dates as "10/12/2021" because that can
mean different things depending on whether you use the DD/MM/YYYY or
MM/DD/YYYY convention (*). I always spell the month out because 10 Dec 2021
means the same thing either side of the Atlantic, even if Americans might
write it Dec 10 2021. It's the art of "defensive writing" - writing so as to
avoid misunderstandings.

(*) Neither can be confused with the ISO YYYY/MM/DD convention that is also
prevalent, but if the century was omitted 10/12/21 could be valid (but
different) in any of the three conventions ;-)

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shoco2$otp$1@dont-email.me...
>> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:shobvf$jo2$1@dont-email.me...
>>> I think Wikipedia is wrong. Every reference to order of magnitude I find,
>>> other than Wikipedia, tallies with my understanding. From the Cambridge
>>> dictionary:
>>>
>>> MATHEMATICS specialized
>>> a level in a system used for measuring something in which each level is
>>> ten
>>> times larger than the one before:
>>> These processor speeds have recently increased by two orders of magnitude
>>> (= by a hundred times).
>>>
>>> From the AWE (academic writing in English)
>>>
>>> The phrase order of magnitude is sometimes used (often in the plural)
>>> loosely to mean 'a lot' - "he is bigger than me, by several orders of
>>> magnitude." The use of the phrase is perhaps felt to give an air of
>>> impressive scientific authority, or to draw on the strength of the
>>> impressions of enormous size that modern science gives.
>
> I'd tend to avoid the phrase "an order of magnitude" and use "(about) ten
> times" to avoid any misunderstanding about definitions of the phrase. JJ was
> probably unwise (even if strictly correct) to refer to 10 as being an order
> of magnitude greater than 9.
>
> In the same way, I don't refer to dates as "10/12/2021" because that can
> mean different things depending on whether you use the DD/MM/YYYY or
> MM/DD/YYYY convention (*). I always spell the month out because 10 Dec 2021
> means the same thing either side of the Atlantic, even if Americans might
> write it Dec 10 2021. It's the art of "defensive writing" - writing so as to
> avoid misunderstandings.
>
> (*) Neither can be confused with the ISO YYYY/MM/DD convention that is also
> prevalent, but if the century was omitted 10/12/21 could be valid (but
> different) in any of the three conventions ;-)
>
>

In 40 years of working in science and engineering I’ve never come across
anyone who would think 10 is an order of magnitude bigger than 9.

On 13/09/2021 21:22, NY wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shoamp$oag$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
>> So, according to common scientific parlance, strictly speaking 10 is
>> an order of magnitude greater than 9, it's just that the expression
>> wouldn't usually be used in that context, partly because the numbers
>> are known exactly, mainly because it would create a misleading
>> expression to use that expression for two numbers so close together.
>
> I think it's stretching a point to regard 10 as an order of magnitude
> greater than 9 - while it may technically be correct according to the
> definition, it is inviting lots of criticism from people who don't know
> about a definition which sounds a bit counter-intuitive to me. I'd
> regard an order of magnitude as implying a ratio of between 5:1 and 50:1
> (ie 10:1 with some latitude either way).

[snip reasonable and similar points]

The situation of 10 & 9 is an artificially chosen one simply because our
resident viral troll didn't want to admit to being wrong, in actual
practice it would never arise for the reasons that I've already given,
viz: the figures are known exactly not approximately, and more
importantly it would create a deliberately misleading impression.

The original figures being discussed were as follows ...

On 19/03/2021 18:04, Java Jive wrote:
>
> On 19/03/2021 16:59, MrSpook_okcmvv_A@3gxxrrco.com wrote:
>>
>> "An estimated 43,900 excess winter deaths occurred in England and
>> Wales in 2014/15"
>>
>> [childish abuse snipped]
>
> But to return to the substantive argument, even if you include the
> entire 43,900, it's still an order of magnitude less than the 135,000
> killed by covid-19 in around a year.

.... which was a perfectly valid use of the expression, because both
figures are somewhat approximate and subject to definition problems, and
because in the early days of the pandemic there was insufficient testing
to catch all the cases, and therefore in the first wave the true number
of covid-19 deaths was generally accepted as being significantly higher
than the available figures suggested; nevertheless our resident troll
thought he knew better, which gave rise to the linking to the Wikipedia
article, and the artificial use of 10 & 9 in an attempt to discredit it.

I can't help it if others don't like it, but AFAIAC the Wikipedia
definition is correct, and I see no real fault with either the
definition given there or the way that the expression would normally be
used in common scientific parlance, as exampled above.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/09/2021 21:23, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't agree with my understanding, which is as the Wikipedia article
>> states. The phrase 'order of magnitude' when applied to differences
>> between numbers is usually used when the figures are rather approximate
>> anyway, and given this approximation it wouldn't make too much sense to
>> say that A is 10^n times (implies some exactitude) greater than B. If
>> you know with some meaningful exactitude that A is 10^n times greater
>> than B, then that's what you'd say, if you only know that A is in the
>> range of a factor 10^n times greater than B, then you'd probably say
>> that A is n orders of magnitude greater than B.
>>
>> So, according to common scientific parlance, strictly speaking 10 is an
>> order of magnitude greater than 9, it's just that the expression
>> wouldn't usually be used in that context, partly because the numbers are
>> known exactly, mainly because it would create a misleading expression to
>> use that expression for two numbers so close together.
>
> I think Wikipedia is wrong. Every reference to order of magnitude I find,
> other than Wikipedia, tallies with my understanding. From the Cambridge
> dictionary:
>
> MATHEMATICS specialized
> a level in a system used for measuring something in which each level is ten
> times larger than the one before:
> These processor speeds have recently increased by two orders of magnitude
> (= by a hundred times).

That's a rather questionable self-contradiction ...
'MATHEMATICS specialized'
.... implies something theoretically exact, but then the example is from
the field of electrical engineering, which is precisely the sort of
place where I'd expect the phrase to be used according to Wikipedia's
common scientific parlance definition.

> From the AWE (academic writing in English)
>
> The phrase order of magnitude is sometimes used (often in the plural)
> loosely to mean 'a lot' - "he is bigger than me, by several orders of
> magnitude." The use of the phrase is perhaps felt to give an air of
> impressive scientific authority, or to draw on the strength of the
> impressions of enormous size that modern science gives.

Yes, that is how it is sometimes (ab)used.

> The problem is that the term order of magnitude has a precise meaning. The
> casual speaker probably misunderstands it completely. In academic writing,
> only use the phrase in its proper meaning. Properly, order of magnitude
> means, in our mathematics based on the decimal system of numbers, "an
> increased (integral) power of ten".

I would go further than that: "In academic writing, don't use an
approximate expression of that nature unless the figures being stated
are only approximate anyway; if you have exact figures, use them exactly."

> Less mathematically stated, "the column
> into which you put the digit of a figure". A hundred, for example, is an
> order of magnitude bigger than ten, and an order of magnitude smaller than
> a thousand.

Yes, that's just the Wikipedia definition again, which how I think most
people would understand it.

> OED defines it, very carefully, as "approximate number or magnitude in a
> scale in which equal steps correspond to a fixed multiplying factor (usu.
> taken as 10); a range between one power of 10 and the next."
>
> When speaking in a University context, or writing academic papers, only use
> order of magnitude in its mathematically correct sense.

Or even better, as I've suggested above, don't use a vague term when
exactitude is required, or else at least be quite explicit as to how you
are defining the term.

But, anyway, no-one here is writing academic papers, the original
context was deaths from disease and in that context my use of 'order of
magnitude' as defined by Wikipedia was correct and perfectly acceptable use.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/09/2021 22:05, Tweed wrote:
>
> In 40 years of working in science and engineering I’ve never come across
> anyone who would think 10 is an order of magnitude bigger than 9.

Did you ever stop to ask any of them *exactly* what they meant when they
used the expression 'order of magnitude'? I, and no-one else who was
honest, would ever in real life *use* the expression in such a context,
because it would be grossly misleading, so I bet nothing has ever arisen
that would have brought such a possibility to your notice, but your
surprise at this doesn't mean the Wikipedia definition is wrong, and I
don't believe that it is.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 13/09/2021 23:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 22:05, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> In 40 years of working in science and engineering I’ve never come across
>> anyone who would think 10 is an order of magnitude bigger than 9.
>
> Did you ever stop to ask any of them *exactly* what they meant when they
> used the expression 'order of magnitude'?  I, and no-one else who was
> honest, would ever in real life *use* the expression in such a context,
> because it would be grossly misleading, so I bet nothing has ever arisen
> that would have brought such a possibility to your notice, but your
> surprise at this doesn't mean the Wikipedia definition is wrong, and I
> don't believe that it is.
>

That Wikipedia article cites
<https://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrderofMagnitude.html> as authority for
its definition. You'll find there:

"Two quantities A and B which are within about a factor of 10 of each
other are then said to be "of the same order of magnitude," written A∼B."

And even the Wikipedia article's over-precise formula gives 9 and 10 the
same order of magnitude (1). If you doubt that see the table where
1,000 and 999 are both shown as 3.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:21:36 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

>That Wikipedia article cites
><https://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrderofMagnitude.html> as authority for
>its definition. You'll find there:
>
>"Two quantities A and B which are within about a factor of 10 of each
>other are then said to be "of the same order of magnitude," written A?B."

Keeping strictly and pedantically to this definition, a number near
the top of one order of magnitude and another number near the bottom
of the next one will occupy different orders of magnitude, even though
the ratio between the numbers themselves could be quite small.

However this is only because they are immediately either side of an
arbitrary boundary, like nextdoor neighbours with different postcodes
(because boundaries have to go somewhere) and assuming this to mean
the same as "an order of magnitude apart" would be misleading. I think
most people would assume you were talking about the relationship
between the actual numbers rather than the boundaries. Those nextdoor
neighbours may officially live in different districts, but it would be
misleading to describe their situation as such because they still live
next door to each other.

On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0jo0kgpbd07g6bjkl3dpivie7b9cd1q7uh@4ax.com...
> However this is only because they are immediately either side of an
> arbitrary boundary, like nextdoor neighbours with different postcodes
> (because boundaries have to go somewhere) and assuming this to mean
> the same as "an order of magnitude apart" would be misleading. I think
> most people would assume you were talking about the relationship
> between the actual numbers rather than the boundaries. Those nextdoor
> neighbours may officially live in different districts, but it would be
> misleading to describe their situation as such because they still live
> next door to each other.

Yes, the problem is that "order of magnitude" is apparently defined with
reference to *fixed* boundaries of 10, 100, 1000, rather than with reference
to movable boundaries due to the ratio of the two values being compared. Any
comparison system which allows very close numbers such as 9 and 10 to be
regarded as an order of magnitude apart because they are either side of a
fixed boundary fails the common-sense test.

I regard an order of magnitude as being a factor of 10 between the numbers,
irrespective of what the absolute values of those numbers are, which would
automatically disqualify absurdities such as 9 and 10 but would allow 2 and
20, 3 and 30 etc.

I once heard someone refer to "half an order of magnitude" and I imagine he
was referring to a ratio of (about) 3, since antilog(0.5) is approximately 3
and antilog(1.5) is approximately 30.

(I discovered a "funny" with Windows Calculator when I was confirming the
antilog: you'd think that "Inv"+"log" would give you the antilog but the
"Inv is ignored. You have to use the "10^x" button instead.)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:10:29 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 13/09/2021 12:01, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...
>>
>> Ok, humble bragging then. Its still lame boasting.
>
>Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
>anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
>obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
>the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand
>the heat, stay out of the kitchen!

Not a case of not liking it, I simply don't believe it. If you got a first
in maths it must've been from the Mail Order University of Upper Congo.

> >>> ROTFL!! As it happens, I have a First Class Honours Degree in
>Maths >>> & Computing.
>>
>> Err, you do realise YOU wrote the above? LOL! you dumb muppet :)
>
>Of course, it certainly couldn't've been you, because, as your general
>scientific ignorance has proven many times throughout your history of
>trolling here, you know SFA about maths in particular and science in
>general.

Thankis for tacitly acknowledging you can't even remember your own boasting.

>> Still not admitting you can't get the basics right? I suppose you think 10
>> is an order of magnitude larger than 9 just because it uses 2 digits instead
>> of 1? You fucking pratt.
>
>However much you may dislike it and be determined not to admit it, in
>common scientific parlance, it is, and you're the fucking pratt for not

It is not in any parlance other than fantasy maths you seem wedded to.

>>> Your behaviour here belies that, in that, as shown above, you are doing
>>> all the the things that you falsely claim others are doing.
>>
>> Stop looking in that mirror.
>
>At least when I do, I don't see shit like you.

Sooner that than some lying old risk averse twat.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:06:55 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:shntpl$40p$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> It's an extreme case, but in common scientific parlance as described
>> above, 10, having two digits, is an order of magnitude greater than 9,
>> having one. That's the way it works. The rest of the world doesn't care
>> however much it galls you to admit that you're wrong, and your failure to
>> admit that you're wrong won't change that accepted nomenclature for the
>> rest of the world. If you want to discuss things with the rest of the
>> world, you have to use the rest of the world's terminology, which is as
>> I've described above.
>
>I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is regarded
>as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official definition,
>I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1 for
>an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a bit
>out of step with common sense.

Its not out of step, its just that Mr Jive is deliberately (or he really is
just as thick as he appears) conflating the order of magnitude of a number with
the order of magnitude *difference* of 2 numbers. 10 is not an order of
magnitude larger than 9 just because it has an extra digit, 90 however is.

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/order-of-magnitude

"An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the value
of a quantity or unit."

On 14/09/2021 10:11, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 07:21:36 +0100, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> That Wikipedia article cites
>> <https://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrderofMagnitude.html> as authority for
>> its definition. You'll find there:
>>
>> "Two quantities A and B which are within about a factor of 10 of each
>> other are then said to be "of the same order of magnitude," written A?B."

[Interestingly, I've no idea why, the original tilde appears as a
question mark when quoted by Roderick Stewart.]

Again, though, we have a lack of unity, to me the phrase y ~ x means
something very different, that y is proportional to x, in other words
that an equation linking them can be written as y = mx + c, where m is
the constant of proportionality, or gradient, and c is the intercept on
the y-axis.

I wonder if some of this disparity is a UK vs US thing, like 'billion'
used to be?

> Keeping strictly and pedantically to this definition, a number near
> the top of one order of magnitude and another number near the bottom
> of the next one will occupy different orders of magnitude, even though
> the ratio between the numbers themselves could be quite small.

Yes, that's the point. As I said up thread, "it's an extreme case",
and, as I've also said up thread, no-one honest in their right mind
would actually use an order of magnitude comparison for two numbers one
unit apart. The phrase is meant for when numbers, which are probably
fairly approximate anyway, differ by a large amount, to give an idea of
the scale of the difference.

> However this is only because they are immediately either side of an
> arbitrary boundary, like nextdoor neighbours with different postcodes
> (because boundaries have to go somewhere) and assuming this to mean
> the same as "an order of magnitude apart" would be misleading. I think
> most people would assume you were talking about the relationship
> between the actual numbers rather than the boundaries. Those nextdoor
> neighbours may officially live in different districts, but it would be
> misleading to describe their situation as such because they still live
> next door to each other.

That's a good analogy.

> On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
> on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
> intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
> dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
> if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
> are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?

To me it would be reduce to one tenth, and I'm surprised at the
dictionary definition, but looking it up in my Oxford Illustrated of a
decimated age compared with mine(!), it agrees with your dictionary.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/09/2021 11:34, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:06:55 +0100
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:shntpl$40p$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> It's an extreme case, but in common scientific parlance as described
>>> above, 10, having two digits, is an order of magnitude greater than 9,
>>> having one. That's the way it works. The rest of the world doesn't care
>>> however much it galls you to admit that you're wrong, and your failure to
>>> admit that you're wrong won't change that accepted nomenclature for the
>>> rest of the world. If you want to discuss things with the rest of the
>>> world, you have to use the rest of the world's terminology, which is as
>>> I've described above.
>>
>> I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is regarded
>> as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official definition,
>> I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1 for
>> an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a bit
>> out of step with common sense.
>
> Its not out of step, its just that Mr Jive is deliberately (or he really is
> just as thick as he appears) conflating the order of magnitude of a number with
> the order of magnitude *difference* of 2 numbers. 10 is not an order of
> magnitude larger than 9 just because it has an extra digit, 90 however is.

No, I'm just sticking to the accepted definition, see below ...

> https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/order-of-magnitude
>
> "An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the value
> of a quantity or unit."

Which doesn't mention the word 'difference', so that merely restates the
Wikipedia definition, and you are misreading it. I read that as ...
9 is 9 x 1,
10 is 1 x 10,
.... so 10 is an order of magnitude greater than one.

It's not a *useful* thing to say, I grant, but then that's because you
are deliberately trying to abuse the concept.

See Rod's postcode analogy.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 14/09/2021 11:28, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 17:10:29 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2021 12:01, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>>> So that's yet another lie you've been caught out in, see below ...
>>>
>>> Ok, humble bragging then. Its still lame boasting.
>>
>> Nonsense, you precipitated the exchange by claiming that I didn't know
>> anything about maths, to which, given the actual truth, I gave the
>> obvious retort. If you didn't like the result, you shouldn't've begun
>> the exchange in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't stand
>> the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
>
> Not a case of not liking it, I simply don't believe it. If you got a first
> in maths it must've been from the Mail Order University of Upper Congo.

You were given a link to anonymised versions of my degree certificate
and my academic record, so you're just bullshitting as usual.

> Thankis for tacitly acknowledging you can't even remember

On the contrary, I remembered the exchange well enough to be able to
find it in my posting history and so expose your lie.

> your own boasting.

As above, I wasn't boasting, merely stating the truth in reply to
something you had started - if you're not prepared to accept the
results of unnecessarily personalising a debate by doubting someone's
academic ability, don't start the conversation in the first place. If
you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

>>> Still not admitting you can't get the basics right? I suppose you think 10
>>> is an order of magnitude larger than 9 just because it uses 2 digits instead
>>> of 1? You fucking pratt.
>>
>> However much you may dislike it and be determined not to admit it, in
>> common scientific parlance, it is, and you're the fucking pratt for not
>
> It is not in any parlance other than fantasy maths you seem wedded to.

Funny how my fancy maths is supported by both Wikipedia and the link
you've quoted elsewhere.

>>>> Your behaviour here belies that, in that, as shown above, you are doing
>>>> all the the things that you falsely claim others are doing.
>>>
>>> Stop looking in that mirror.
>>
>> At least when I do, I don't see shit like you.
>
> Sooner that than some lying old risk averse twat.

I'm not the liar here, that's you, nor am I risk averse, I've done
plenty of dangerous sports like hang-gliding and skiing in my time, and
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that you're risk averse too,
because there seems to be a pattern developing here of you turning out
to have all the faults that you accuse others of.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:shqtqv$hr2$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> Again, though, we have a lack of unity, to me the phrase y ~ x means
> something very different, that y is proportional to x, in other words that
> an equation linking them can be written as y = mx + c, where m is the
> constant of proportionality, or gradient, and c is the intercept on the
> y-axis.

I wonder if your newsreader has mangled the "proportional to" symbol or you
really *did* mean a tilde. For "proportional to", I would use Unicode
Character “∝” (U+221D) which looks like an infinity symbol with the right
hand lobe not a closed loop.

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:shqvjf$4ii$1@dont-email.me...
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shqtqv$hr2$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> Again, though, we have a lack of unity, to me the phrase y ~ x means
>> something very different, that y is proportional to x, in other words
>> that an equation linking them can be written as y = mx + c, where m is
>> the constant of proportionality, or gradient, and c is the intercept on
>> the y-axis.
>
> I wonder if your newsreader has mangled the "proportional to" symbol or
> you really *did* mean a tilde. For "proportional to", I would use Unicode
> Character “∝” (U+221D) which looks like an infinity symbol with the right
> hand lobe not a closed loop.

Ah! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) says that
either of ~ or ∝ can be used, and doesn't make any distinction between the
use of the two symbols. I've learned something today - the use of ~ to mean
proportional.

On 14/09/2021 21:14, NY wrote:
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
> news:shqvjf$4ii$1@dont-email.me...
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:shqtqv$hr2$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> Again, though, we have a lack of unity, to me the phrase y ~ x means
>>> something very different, that y is proportional to x, in other words
>>> that an equation linking them can be written as y = mx + c, where m
>>> is the constant of proportionality, or gradient, and c is the
>>> intercept on the y-axis.
>>
>> I wonder if your newsreader has mangled the "proportional to" symbol
>> or you really *did* mean a tilde. For "proportional to", I would use
>> Unicode Character “∝” (U+221D) which looks like an infinity symbol
>> with the right hand lobe not a closed loop.
>
> Ah! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) says
> that either of ~ or ∝ can be used, and doesn't make any distinction
> between the use of the two symbols. I've learned something today - the
> use of ~ to mean proportional.

Thanks for saving me looking that one up as well! As per Wiki, I've
seen both symbols used.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:40:13 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>>> "Two quantities A and B which are within about a factor of 10 of each
>>> other are then said to be "of the same order of magnitude," written A?B."
>
>[Interestingly, I've no idea why, the original tilde appears as a
>question mark when quoted by Roderick Stewart.]

It also appears on my screen as a question mark in the first posting
here before anyone has quoted it. I've no idea why either.

Rod.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:11:33 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
>on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
>intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
>dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
>if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
>are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?
>
>Rod.

"Decimate" means to reduce BY one tenth. My Chambers and COD agree.
The word dates from Roman days, when, as a punishment for mutiny or
cowardice, one man in ten was killed.

It's an example of how words seem no longer to mean what they used to.
Another example of this trend is "electrocute".

And the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" appears
to be dying out too.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:22:57 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:11:33 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
>>on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
>>intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
>>dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
>>if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
>>are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?
>>
>>Rod.
>
>"Decimate" means to reduce BY one tenth. My Chambers and COD agree.
>The word dates from Roman days, when, as a punishment for mutiny or
>cowardice, one man in ten was killed.
>
>It's an example of how words seem no longer to mean what they used to.
>Another example of this trend is "electrocute".
>
>And the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" appears
>to be dying out too.

Agreed, and if I hear yet another TV pesenter (usually American)
calling something "very unique" I switch to something else.

Rod.

"John Armstrong" <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4773kg9eo8oh9t0524v7qf4lim2se0fmds@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:11:33 +0100, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
>>on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
>>intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
>>dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
>>if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
>>are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?
>
>
> "Decimate" means to reduce BY one tenth. My Chambers and COD agree.
> The word dates from Roman days, when, as a punishment for mutiny or
> cowardice, one man in ten was killed.

Yes, it's interesting how the meaning has mutated over time. Maybe a
reduction to 90% of something's original value is not regarded as very
noteworthy, whereas a reduction to 10% is very newsworthy. Ah, "desecrate" -
yes, I hadn't thought of that word to express the reduce-to-one-tenth"
meaning.

I'm guilty of using decimate wrongly - but at least I do it by accident and
then correct myself. It's like the Latin word "tango": when I was doing
Latin O level yonks ago I always had to remind myself that it does *not*
mean "dance" - it means "touch" as in the phrase "noli me tangere" - "don't
touch me - get your -ing hands off me".

> It's an example of how words seem no longer to mean what they used to.
> Another example of this trend is "electrocute".

The English language really could do with single-word verb (not
"electrocute") which means "receive a severe but non-fatal electric shock".

In both these cases, should one use the words "decimate" and "electrocute"
correctly (knowing that many people will misunderstand them) or should one
banish them from one's vocabulary and use an alternative phrase to express
the meaning that is intended?

> And the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" appears
> to be dying out too.

As is the distinction between the spellings licence (noun) and license
(verb) in British English. Likewise for practice/practise. US English uses
the -ise spelling for both noun and verb forms.

Many people cannot comprehend the concept of being interested in a topic
(take an interest - follow the subject) and yet being disinterested
(neutral, no influence, unbiassed, "on the fence") about it.

And then we get onto the hoary "inflammable" problem. "Inflammable" means
"capable of being inflamed (set alight)" and in this specific case, the "in"
does *not* (repeat one hundred times!) mean "not flammable". Official fire
brigade and health & safety documentation never uses "inflammable" nowadays
because it is liable to be misunderstood. It uses "flammable" and its
opposite "non-flammable".

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6pc3kgt7s3d4dc13cq2cr2tr8dejm9ejhq@4ax.com...
> Agreed, and if I hear yet another TV pesenter (usually American)
> calling something "very unique" I switch to something else.

I remember my headmaster at school taking me to task (but with a twinkle in
his eye) when I talked about having "three alternatives". "Alternative",
from the Latin "alter" (other), only relates to having *two* choices. I
think the ship may have already sailed on that one, but every time I hear
phrases like "there are four alternative ways we can solve this problem" I
think of Dr Evans and his friendly rebuke.

Is it correct to talk about "almost unique"? Or is it better to say "very
rare"?

Then there is the use of "literally" - as in "I was so scared I literally
died". No you didn't - you're still alive to tell the tale. It goes a bit
beyond hyperbole-to-make-a-point. OK, maybe I'm being pedantic ;-)

In message <4773kg9eo8oh9t0524v7qf4lim2se0fmds@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 10:11:33 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On a similar but related topic, what's the consensus (if there is one)
>>on the meaning of "decimate" which is often used with the apparently
>>intended meaning of "to reduce to one tenth", though the less dramatic
>>dictionary meaning is essentially "to reduce *by* one tenth". I wonder
>>if a lot of professional speakers and writers who should know better
>>are confusing "decimate" with "desecrate"?
>>
>>Rod.
>
>"Decimate" means to reduce BY one tenth. My Chambers and COD agree.
>The word dates from Roman days, when, as a punishment for mutiny or
>cowardice, one man in ten was killed.

It's not 'desecrate' that has been replaced/displaced by 'decimate' -
it's 'devastate'.

Some time ago, I read/heard that the occasional misuse of 'decimate'
actually began several centuries ago.
>
>It's an example of how words seem no longer to mean what they used to.
>Another example of this trend is "electrocute".
>
>And the distinction between "uninterested" and "disinterested" appears
>to be dying out too.

Another newcomer is 'disinformation' (which seems to date from the need
to describe deliberate misinformation about the Covid vaccine). Or is
there a difference?
--
Ian

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:49:59 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 14/09/2021 11:34, HorseyWorsey@the_stables.com wrote:
>>> I must admit I'm surprised (*) that the extreme case of 9 and 10 is regarded
>
>>> as an order of magnitude difference. Leaving aside the official definition,
>>> I think I'd probably expect a ratio of at least 5:1 if not the full 10:1 for
>
>>> an order of magnitude. 9/10 is probably a case of the definition being a bit
>
>>> out of step with common sense.
>>
>> Its not out of step, its just that Mr Jive is deliberately (or he really is
>> just as thick as he appears) conflating the order of magnitude of a number
>with
>> the order of magnitude *difference* of 2 numbers. 10 is not an order of
>> magnitude larger than 9 just because it has an extra digit, 90 however is.
>
>No, I'm just sticking to the accepted definition, see below ...

No you're not, you're conflating 2 different things.

>> "An order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1 in the
>value
>> of a quantity or unit."
>
>Which doesn't mention the word 'difference', so that merely restates the
>Wikipedia definition, and you are misreading it. I read that as ...
> 9 is 9 x 1,
> 10 is 1 x 10,
>.... so 10 is an order of magnitude greater than one.

9 is also 0.9 x 10

Whoops! Rather leaves your argument in tatters.