Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

[theprestige]

What's the conspiracy though ?

That's what I wanted to know.

 

[MBDK]

As I advised you, the issue of the hull is a non sequitur and as such qualifies as a logical fallacy. Therefore, I see no reason to discuss the hull any further unless you can explain what it has to do with a vessel listing 45° to starboard and the point at which it will almost certainly capsize.

The issue of the hull in regards to the Estonia is NOT the issue, rather the thinly veiled masking you portray of your true character. The involves the basic concepts of cognition, and how they relate to your ability to make valid, unbiased conclusions. You have unequivocally made a mistake with your claim that port and starboard do not apply inside the hull. The context of that declaration is irrelevant to its absolute falsehood. You also allege to be quite opposed to making such falsehoods. Furthermore, you argue that you are reasonable enough to admit to any occasions when you do make such a mistake.

Yet, when your actual actions are considered, you have made a false contention, have done nothing but attempt to deflect from that fact, and have shown no indication of any willingness to admit that error. These are manifestations of an individual that is not only a liar, but deceptive, irrational, and ultimately of poor moral reliability. Now would be a good time to refrain from using smoke and mirrors, and focus on honesty and integrity.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I agree. It is more of a conspiracy. We all conspired against Vixen.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I agree. It is more of a conspiracy. We all conspired against Vixen.

Not only us. Apparently all our teachers, the textbook writers and Wikipedia were in on it too!

 

[Vixen]

The issue of the hull in regards to the Estonia is NOT the issue, rather the thinly veiled masking you portray of your true character. The involves the basic concepts of cognition, and how they relate to your ability to make valid, unbiased conclusions. You have unequivocally made a mistake with your claim that port and starboard do not apply inside the hull. The context of that declaration is irrelevant to its absolute falsehood. You also allege to be quite opposed to making such falsehoods. Furthermore, you argue that you are reasonable enough to admit to any occasions when you do make such a mistake.

Yet, when your actual actions are considered, you have made a false contention, have done nothing but attempt to deflect from that fact, and have shown no indication of any willingness to admit that error. These are manifestations of an individual that is not only a liar, but deceptive, irrational, and ultimately of poor moral reliability. Now would be a good time to refrain from using smoke and mirrors, and focus on honesty and integrity.

Please get into context. I made a quip that port was on one side and starboard on the other 'and ne'er the twain shall meet'. Some wag came along and said they met in the middle and that they were joined by the hull.

My questions to you:

• Are you seriously trying to browbeat me into "admitting" as you call it, a tautology?
• Are you really wasting time and bandwidth trying to force me to 'admit that error'?
• Do you often hurl calumnies at people you don't know just because they don't bend to your will?
• Do you think that is nice?

 

[junkshop]

Please get into context. I made a quip that port was on one side and starboard on the other 'and ne'er the twain shall meet'. Some wag came along and said they met in the middle...

Which they do. _{^{ETA: more correctly, they both originate from the centre line, and extend laterally from there}}

....and that they were joined by the hull.

I can't recall anyone saying that. Got a link?

 

[JayUtah]

Are you really wasting time and bandwidth trying to force me to 'admit that error'?

Yes. We've explained several times the value we place on intellectual honesty. If you don't share that value, you may be in the wrong place. It's our time to waste, and bandwidth is cheap.

Do you often hurl calumnies at people you don't know just because they don't bend to your will?

You're being asked to bend to fact, not someone's will. If you won't, you may be in the wrong place.

Do you think that is nice?

Debate is civil, not nice. Debate sometimes requires holding people's feet to the fire until they acknowledge fact. You've been treated civilly and you generally haven't returned the favor. You might want to sit this part out.

 

[Vixen]

1) Everyone is well aware that primes have been used to notate time units. We also know that the use of primes for time is now considered arcane and is essentially never used in science or engineering.

2) it’s simply a 100% falsehood to claim that ‘ has ever been (correctly) used to notate hours and/or that “ has ever been (correctly) used to notate minutes. You’re either misremembering what you were taught, or you were taught incorrectly (rather unlikely) or you’re not telling the truth.

To hammer in once again: if primes are ever used to notate time, the single prime ‘ ALWAYS notates minutes (and always has done, without exception), and the double prime “ ALWAYS notates seconds (and always has done, without exception).

I am glad to see that you have now done some homework having a couple of weeks ago swore blind to the entire world that you had never come across this in your entire life and nor had you known anyone who had.


Google has been your friend. Well done.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, I challenge you to find any quote in this thread of someone specifically saying that they were unaware that prime notation could be used for time.

I certainly never said such a thing. To claim that others have stated such is either a lie, or reveals a lack of ability to read for understanding.

What everyone HAS said is that your usage of it is non-standard.

You claimed it was a standard that you were taught at school.
When called out on that you reeled it back to say that it was a format you and others used in school and were never corrected on, even hinting that you were aware that it was non-standard but that your teachers seemed not to care.

Unfortunately for you there are other people in this thread, myself included, who were taught the same syllabus as you, at about the same time as you, and in my case even in a school under the same educational authority as you. I trained as a science and maths teacher under that very same system in schools in the very same educational authority.

Your usage of prime notation was NEVER standard.

A good maths or science teacher would NEVER have let it go unremarked.

I never said it was formal but it is a recognised standard as it can be found in dictionaries of mathematics.

An ex- who has a maths PhD advises me of the following:

"I may be able to help. Primes use apostrophes to represent different units such as ‘ and “ and ‘“ and “” (without spaces in between) used for hours, minutes, seconds and so on…"

So the fact you personally never heard of it should not lead you to the logical fallacy that nobody has.

 

[zooterkin]

I am glad to see that you have now done some homework having a couple of weeks ago swore blind to the entire world that you had never come across this in your entire life and nor had you known anyone who had.

No, he said he was never taught it, not that he had never encountered it.

Regardless, your particular usage was incorrect. Are you going to accept that 35" never means 35 minutes?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's education seems to have been a bit earlier than mine; Middlesex County Council was abolished in 1965.

My first school was in Hampton, Mddx and then all the way up to grammar school. It did change to Greater London at some point but Middlesex still exists. (For those across the pond, the '-sex' refers to the old anglo-saxon '-saexe' and also refers to its short sheath sword c.o.a. [alas, nothing to do with transgender]). I did edit the MCC out but it seems Mojo wants to talk about postcodes.

 

[jimbob]

Vixen,

Can you please provide any evidence of other people using prime notation to denote units of time as you did?

I must admit that I wouldn't want to sit through your interpretation of probably the most famous example of prime notation, which is Cage's 4'33".

 

[Vixen]

No, he said he was never taught it, not that he had never encountered it.

Regardless, your particular usage was incorrect. Are you going to accept that 35" never means 35 minutes?

I will not state as true something I consider to not be true. No amount of browbeating will do it.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

Can you please provide any evidence of other people using prime notation to denote units of time as you did?

I must admit that I wouldn't want to sit through your interpretation of probably the most famous example of prime notation, which is Cage's 4'33".

As I stated:

An ex- who has a maths PhD advises me of the following:

"I may be able to help. Primes use apostrophes to represent different units such as ‘ and “ and ‘“ and “” (without spaces in between) used for hours, minutes, seconds and so on…"


He is contemporaneous to myself (went to school in South Wales; London Physics & Philosophy, Masters Statistics & Maths PhD Warwick, PGCE Mathematics).

 

[jimbob]

Maybe
I should have qualified my request with, "beyond unevidenced anecdote"

Also I'm struggling to think of a less relevant qualification than a doctorate in maths. And that includes not only engineering or scientific qualifications, but also English literature qualifications.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. We've explained several times the value we place on intellectual honesty. If you don't share that value, you may be in the wrong place. It's our time to waste, and bandwidth is cheap.



You're being asked to bend to fact, not someone's will. If you won't, you may be in the wrong place.



Debate is civil, not nice. Debate sometimes requires holding people's feet to the fire until they acknowledge fact. You've been treated civilly and you generally haven't returned the favor. You might want to sit this part out.

Look. I will not debate semantics, sophistry and non sequitur logical fallacies with the poster concerned.

If I were to quip 'East is east and west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet', should I be drawn into a five page discussion on whether or not they do actually meet at some point?


No, I shall not.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am glad to see that you have now done some homework having a couple of weeks ago swore blind to the entire world that you had never come across this in your entire life and nor had you known anyone who had.


Google has been your friend. Well done.

Oh FFS. Your continuing straw man misrepresentation of my posts is as tiresome as it is dishonest. Or are your fundamental comprehension “skills” really that atrocious?

Go back and read what I actually wrote. You’ll see that I’ve constantly and consistently stated four things:

1. I know full well (and always have done) that prime notation can be used for time units.

2. I also know that in my entire extensive personal experience in the fields of science, engineering and finance, I have never encountered anyone actually using primes for time units*

3. My knowledge of (2) means that it was most notable and telling when you (attempted to ) use(d) primes for numbers in this thread - it immediately told me you had no proper grounding in the relevant subject fields. Presumably your (ham-fisted) attempt at primes for number units was intended to impress? It backfired horribly.

4. And this was amusingly confirmed by my knowledge of (1), because I know full well (and always have done) that if one did** choose to represent time units using primes, minutes of time are always (with zero exception) notated with the single prime ‘ and seconds of time are always (without exception) notated with the double prime ‘’


* Note the crucial difference between “I’ve never seen primes used for time notation in my entire working life” and “I am/was unaware that primes could even conceivably be used for time notation”.

** As I say though, nobody actually does use prime notation for time durations in scientific/engineering debate - which is precisely how/why your attempt to do so stuck out like a sore thumb. Even more so when you got it fundamentally wrong, and refused to admit your mistake

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As I stated:



An ex- who has a maths PhD advises me of the following:



"I may be able to help. Primes use apostrophes to represent different units such as ‘ and “ and ‘“ and “” (without spaces in between) used for hours, minutes, seconds and so on…"





He is contemporaneous to myself (went to school in South Wales; London Physics & Philosophy, Masters Statistics & Maths PhD Warwick, PGCE Mathematics).

You appear to have snipped a portion of his message which is just sufficiently ambiguous that you can pretend he meant ' represented hours and " meant minutes.

You cannot find any supporting example because you're simply wrong. You are stubbornly defiant but reality disagrees with you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen,

Can you please provide any evidence of other people using prime notation to denote units of time as you did?

I must admit that I wouldn't want to sit through your interpretation of probably the most famous example of prime notation, which is Cage's 4'33".

Are you kidding?! 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence would be almost infinitely preferable to 4 minutes and 33 seconds of Vixen trying once again to claim that 35” could most definitely mean 35 minutes of time (provided that the, erm, context was clear….)


ETA Ahhhh I see now what you meant! But I’d still hold that 4 hours and 33 minutes of silence would be vastly preferable to 4 hours and 33 minutes of Vixen trying to claim that 4’33” could easily mean 4 hours and 33 minutes

 

[LondonJohn]

Look. I will not debate semantics, sophistry and non sequitur logical fallacies with the poster concerned.

If I were to quip 'East is east and west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet', should I be drawn into a five page discussion on whether or not they do actually meet at some point?


No, I shall not.

You’re so far out of your depth (pun intended). Stop continuously trying - incorrectly - to play the “logical fallacy” card. You clearly have little or no understanding of the matters being discussed in this thread, and (worse still) you appear to be pathologically unwilling and/or unable to even understand any error/misunderstanding on your part - let alone learn from it and move forward.