On 8/19/21 11:13 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 6:56:14 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/18/21 4:43 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 10:56:20 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 8/17/21 6:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6:47:58 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/21 3:44 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17.8.2021. 23:04, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 5:55:17 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 21:37, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:31:56 PM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8.7.2021. 1:56, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 1:33:24 AM UTC-4, Mario Petrinovic
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/uyS1cXrsgIg
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, I watched the rest of it. And if the narrator is telling the
>>>>>>>>>>>> truth, it (and an even more absurd problem)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a sobering example of how all too many elementary school
>>>>>>>>>>>> students cannot recognize that there is not enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> information in a math problem to answer it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Either that, or they are so inhibited by the "authority figures"
>>>>>>>>>>>> they have for teachers that they cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> bring themselves to write that there isn't enough information
>>>>>>>>>>>> given to solve the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead, we are told, a lot of the students thought the "right
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer" could be found by adding
>>>>>>>>>>>> or subtracting or otherwise manipulating the numbers given in
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple ways. And so that was
>>>>>>>>>>>> what they turned in. IOW, they guessed that the teacher wanted an
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual answer and didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> care whether it really had anything logically to do with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, thinking it might improve their score on the test.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be a general lesson about human behavior in here
>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere, but I'm not going to spend any
>>>>>>>>>>>> more time trying to figure it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS I do see the way the title of your post is, in a satirical way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> a comment on all of the above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, those students can be, and, obviously, are, confused by many a
>>>>>>>>>>> things. One of the thing is that they think that the problem is
>>>>>>>>>>> solvable. There may also be a lot of other things which distracts them
>>>>>>>>>>> from seeing the answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, on the other hand, the problem is extremely simple, *everybody*
>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to solve it without problems. It is *obvious* that
>>>>>>>>>>> captain's age has nothing to do with sheep and goats.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, the video did give a clever way of theorizing that
>>>>>>>>>> the captain had to be at least 28 years old. So it could be argued that
>>>>>>>>>> the only thing wrong with the problem was that it didn't ask, "What is
>>>>>>>>>> the minimum age that the captain could be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, no. The whole "license" thing isn't part of the equation at
>>>>>>>>> all. Those variables aren't part of the test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong. To carry cargo beyond a certain low limit, one needs licensure.
>>>>>>>> This could then be a test question like so many other test questions
>>>>>>>> that ostensibly study intelligence, yet require specialized knowledge,
>>>>>>>> such as a vocabulary beyond
>>>>>>>> what the ordinary person knows. Here is one question from an
>>>>>>>> intelligence test that shows this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ocean : littoral : : river : _________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you answer it? I assure you, the word is only part of the
>>>>>>>> vocabulary of
>>>>>>>> maybe 1% of Americans, mostly those who have studied law or geography
>>>>>>>> on an advanced level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Creek? :) . Maybe, stream. Pond shouldn't be. Spring isn't
>>>>>>> there, yet. In Croatian it should be "potok".
>>>>>>> No, this (the original question) isn't a "trick" question, the
>>>>>>> question is for kids, the "license" thing is out of the scoop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the word Peter is looking for is "riparian".
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you miss the hints that I was NOT "looking for" the word
>>>>> but had it well in mind? Didn't my putting "law" in addition to
>>>>> "geography" tip you off?
>>>
>>>> You are misunderstanding what I said.
>>>
>>> Wrong. YOU are misunderstanding what you said.
>
>> You misunderstand simple English expressions and idioms.
>
> Wrong again. You changed "word" into "answer" and "you are" into "I'm" to broaden the connotations.

One has to ask if this is some special disability associated with
mathematicians.

> > "The answer I'm
>> looking for" is easily and commonly understood as implying that I know
>> the answer and are hoping you can also produce it.
>
> Irrelevant. When "you are" is used, the understanding is what you see with the following search page:

But nobody say "you are". Right? So even if you were correct about the
(sole) understanding, that would be irrelevant.

> https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrJ7J.ulh5hjpkAhwNXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2ItdG9wBGdwcmlkAzVLTFgwU1FvU0hTZ1BoMzFTZGN1QkEEbl9yc2x0AzAEbl9zdWdnAzQEb3JpZ2luA3NlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMwBHFzdHJsAzM4BHF1ZXJ5AyUyMnRoZSUyMGFuc3dlciUyMHlvdSUyMGFyZSUyMGxvb2tpbmclMjBmb3IlMjIlMjB1c2FnZQR0X3N0bXADMTYyOTM5NDY0OA--?p=%22the+answer+you+are+looking+for%22+usage&fr2=sb-top&fr=mcafee&type=E210US105G91483
>
> This usage is exemplified by an exchange that occurred when someone (whose name I forget) was
> praised by one of the blog regulars, named William, for his "excellent repost." To which I replied:
>
> [He] didn't repost anything, Willie. The word you are looking for is "riposte."

That's not even slightly relevant. You were correcting a misspelling,
not referring to a question. Context is important when interpreting
language.

>> Perhaps mathematicians have difficulties with idioms?
>
> Perhaps long-unemployed biologists have nothing better to do with their time
> than to ask mean-spirited questions.

Speaking of mean-spirited, why do you have to insert "long-unemployed"?

> By the way, does your wife still accuse you of having Aspergers?

Frequently, but again this seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous
attack. What the heck?

> I praised your courage for daring to let us know that your wife suspects
> something to which you have never admitted on Usenet, but your
> agenda forbids you to thank anyone like me for praise, and instead you claimed that it took no courage at all.

That's because it didn't take any courage, not because I'm unwilling to
accept praise from you. Praise away; just do it for something
legitimately praiseworthy.

> Which only seems to support her unconfirmed "diagnosis."

Or perhaps it supports nothing of the sort, given your ability to
misunderstand so much.

>>>> By "looking for" I meant "asking
>>>> you for". No implication that you didn't know the word, and in fact the
>>>> implication was that you did.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. If that was your intent, you should have said,
>>> "I believe the word Peter has in mind is "riparian."
>
> No attempt by you to refute this. Your moving of the goalposts above does
> not qualify as an attempt.

There's no need to refute it. It's just an unsupported claim. Can we at
least agree that you misunderstood what I meant to say? If so, you can
continue to believe that isn't what I actually said.

>>> But over a decade of putting the worst spin that you can
>>> think of [1] on thousands of things I say or do has probably clouded
>>> your mind to where you often don't realize that what you are saying is bullshit.
>>>
>>> And that's why I wrote "should" instead of "would" where I fixed your sentence for you.
>>>
>>> [1] A very notable exception was the oasis of civilization you agreed to
>>> in sci.bio.paleontology between June (or was it April? I'll have to check when I have more time)
>>> 1995 and early 1998. But you kept up that denigration full blast on talk.origins the
>>> whole time.
>
> No comment from you here either. You did make a few comments later on, but
> I have more urgent things to do than to spend more time on this post,
> so I'll hold off on the continuation until late tomorrow.

Would it surprise you to know that I don't comment on things that I
don't have any interest in? What sort of comment did you expect or desire?

Perhaps you should stop replying and try to get back to paleontology.