Split Thread Conspiracy theories about unconventional usage of notation

[JayUtah]

I have been advised by my expert pal...

No. You continue to ignore the evidence that you are not consulting with an expert. You continue to substitute the non-credible statements of this purported expert in lieu of the evidence that would prove your claim. No one is obliged to entertain your anonymous and clearly bogus hearsay.

...that one can use Microsoft Equation Editor to format maths symbols.

That is a true statement, but it does nothing to address my rebuttals or to advance your argument.

He's not going to do it in a WhatsApp message.

Asked and answered. When using methods that do not allow or easily facilitate the proper symbols, there is an accepted system of substitutions using plain IEC 8859-1 characters. We all know them. We all use them. We have done so the same way for decades. When approximating multiple primes, we do not combine single- and double-quotes in any form. We use exclusively single quotes.

When using smart input devices that rewrite characters, we do not allow them to rewrite notation to be wrong. We are sometimes forgiving if the glyph is close enough, but if the glyph is rewritten to resemble a wrong symbol, that is not allowed. Again, correcting this has been second nature for a decade. This is especially important when the purpose of the message is to instruct the receiver in what the proper notation looks like, not to communicate a separate idea using the notation.

Your purported expert did use WhatsApp, and committed two beginner's mistakes while using it to write mathematical notation. These are long-solved problems, and long-established conventions. It's not as if mathematicians, physicists, scientists, and engineers don't use WhatsApp and other messaging systems to communicate mathematically-notated things. We've always used every medium that is available, and we've always followed the conventions that we've evolved to cope with the limitations and frustrations of those media. You're posturing your advisor as someone who necessarily would have been part of that community, and therefore learned and practiced these conventions.

There is no expert who confirmed your ″-for-minutes usage. Give it up.

 

[JayUtah]

My expert source explains that 'It is WhatsApp formatting' and that most formatting system insist in adding a space after either a single apostrophe or a double one.

Obviously, when you are sending a WhatsApp message you are not writing a peer reviewed paper.

Since this thread is about the proper use of notation, and since your "expert" seems willing to address the points I raise (i.e., to participate in this debate), I suggest you invite him to come here and post directly. I'm experienced in notation and its history. You're claiming he should be considered a similar expert. Therefore there's no point in letting an unqualified lay person like you stand between the experts hashing this out.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It goes to show there is no one convention. Maybe Grammarly or Merriam-Webster can advise us all as to what we may or may not do in defining a capital city.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital


So Erwinl and GlennB et al are simply WRONG about the Netherlands and Switzerland because Merriam-Webster says so.

I would like to formally apologize to everyone in the thread except Vixen.

I was attempting to lob the softest of softballs her way with a little bit of the Socratic method: Make an easily disproved claim, call on her to disprove it, and then ask her to use the same method to address the claim that "0.35` is not a recognized method for writing 35 minutes."

Little did I know that this would spawn yet another petty argument that goes absolutely nowhere in spite of the clear, inarguable, factual evidence. But that's on me. In hindsight, I should have realized the well-established precedent on how conversations with Vixen go. I apologize for my oversight, and I will try to do better in the future.

 

[jimbob]

My expert source explains that 'It is WhatsApp formatting' and that most formatting system insist in adding a space after either a single apostrophe or a double one.

Obviously, when you are sending a WhatsApp message you are not writing a peer reviewed paper.

Instead of relying on you expert source's memory and slightly ambiguous assertion, cou you ask them for an example where the double prime (either " or '') was used to mean minutes and not seconds?

Preferably in a formal context.

 

[JayUtah]

And the very fact that you think you know better than anyone else is both tragic and telling. Your understanding of physics - in fact, your understanding of pretty much everything related to science/technology/engineering - has demonstrably been exposed time and again within this thread as fundamentally lacking.

As I wrote a day or so ago, she's using conspiracy theories as a shortcut to erudition. Her source on this point isn't competent in physics either, although he puts himself forward as one.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

As I wrote a day or so ago, she's using conspiracy theories as a shortcut to erudition. Her source on this point isn't competent in physics either, although he puts himself forward as one.

Anders Bjorkman again?

 

[JayUtah]

Anders Bjorkman again?

Correct, although Vixen probably will not name him in this line of questioning. She wants to maintain the impression that the claims she's borrowing from him are instead generally understood and accepted among experts, and not the assertions of an obvious crackpot. So she refrains from citing him as her source. I also suspect this is why she frames those borrowed claims with statements to the effect, "You know this already," or "Don't be obtuse." She's low-key blustering in order to defer having to defend these claims herself or qualify her source.

 

[Mojo]

In mentioning the speed at which Estonia sank, that poster insists in claiming that the Herald of Free Enterprise sank even faster.

Pure sophistry, as I am sure you know.

I asked you to provide a link to support this accusation:

Unfortunately, you have a propensity of strongly supporting things that are obviously and patently untrue. For example, you keep insisting - contrary to all objective observation - that 'the Herald of Free Enterprise sank from view within 90 seconds' when you have been told it was lying on its side resting on a sandbank, easily visible by all right up to the time of its being salvaged.

Please provide such a link.

ETA: I strongly suspect that you can't, for the reason given by GlennB here. Can you demonstrate that GlennB was wrong in his assessment?

 

[MBDK]

I would like to formally apologize to everyone in the thread except Vixen.

I was attempting to lob the softest of softballs her way with a little bit of the Socratic method: Make an easily disproved claim, call on her to disprove it, and then ask her to use the same method to address the claim that "0.35` is not a recognized method for writing 35 minutes."

Little did I know that this would spawn yet another petty argument that goes absolutely nowhere in spite of the clear, inarguable, factual evidence. But that's on me. In hindsight, I should have realized the well-established precedent on how conversations with Vixen go. I apologize for my oversight, and I will try to do better in the future.

A fine example of admitting your mistake with honesty and integrity. If only Vixen were capable of applying the same characteristics to his/her own rhetoric, we could all be encouraged that positive change for everyone is still possible.

 

[Checkmite]

I have spent probably the better part of an hour reading this thread and I am still at a loss for why it belongs in this subforum.

I understand that this thread is a spinoff of a different, separate thread in which a conspiracy theory regarding the sinking of a ship was being discussed.

But this is a separate thread, and a debate over what kind of notation for a quantity is "correct", or claims that a particular incorrect usage of notation in a post or quote was completely inadvertent vs. was caused by the poster's improper understanding of usage, are not conspiracy theories. I have not been able to find a single claim in this thread that could honestly be described as a "conspiracy theory", outside of references to a discussion that was happening in another thread.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

A fine example of admitting your mistake with honesty and integrity. If only Vixen were capable of applying the same characteristics to his/her own rhetoric, we could all be encouraged that positive change for everyone is still possible.

It is interesting that the moment she got to choose between:

1) a thread in which to plead on behalf of the poor victims and grieving families of the Estonia disaster she professes to care so much about, or,

2) a thread in which to insist pointlessly and unavailingly that she's never wrong about anything,

she chose to post in the thread on the topic of greater value and importance to her, while leaving the less important topic to languish for nearly two weeks.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The irony seems to have passed you by. People keep saying to me I must be wrong because Merriam-Webster and Grammarly say something different.



Thank you for illustrating my point for me.

People keep saying you must be wrong when you try to gainsay experts with no competence of your own to do so.

The digressions you create don't shed any light as your lack of subject competence gives you no insight to pick a good analogy. So you pick bad ones and then quibble about them for page after page hoping people will forget what you were wrong about to begin with.

 

[sarge]

This thread is about unusual usage of notions. Please use the existing thread to discuss ships sinking

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: sarge

 

[Vixen]

Instead of relying on you expert source's memory and slightly ambiguous assertion, cou you ask them for an example where the double prime (either " or '') was used to mean minutes and not seconds?

Preferably in a formal context.

Here you go:

 

[JayUtah]

Here you go:

Did you intend that seriously?

 

[Vixen]

I have spent probably the better part of an hour reading this thread and I am still at a loss for why it belongs in this subforum.

I understand that this thread is a spinoff of a different, separate thread in which a conspiracy theory regarding the sinking of a ship was being discussed.

But this is a separate thread, and a debate over what kind of notation for a quantity is "correct", or claims that a particular incorrect usage of notation in a post or quote was completely inadvertent vs. was caused by the poster's improper understanding of usage, are not conspiracy theories. I have not been able to find a single claim in this thread that could honestly be described as a "conspiracy theory", outside of references to a discussion that was happening in another thread.

It has occurred because I used the notation 35" for thirty-five minutes. A queue of people who claim never to have heard of it in respect of time are browbeating me into admitting I 'lied' about having always used this, that I should 'admit your error' and to apologise. I have been 'told off' by about half a dozen people.

 

[jimbob]

Instead of relying on you expert source's memory and slightly ambiguous assertion, cou you ask them for an example where the double prime (either " or '') was used to mean minutes and not seconds?

Preferably in a formal context.

Here you go:

That's a start, now for the second part.

"Preferably in a formal context."

What I mean is some textbook or other Verifiable reference showing it happened, as opposed to someone who might have carelessly misread what you had written.

It would also be of slight interest if you ask them the following:

Would you use ' for minutes or hours, and " for seconds or minutes?

 

[JayUtah]

It has occurred because I used the notation 35" for thirty-five minutes. A queue of people who claim never to have heard of it in respect of time...

No, you're being properly taken to task because you confused and amused everyone by assuming they all should have interpreted 35″ to mean "thirty-five minutes," including people who know the primes notation for time. That's because you used the notation incorrectly, but insist that you were correct to do so.

...admitting I 'lied' about having always used this...

False. Your claim that you always used it is only your latest backpedal. Originally you claimed it was a standard usage outside of America. Then you claimed it was acceptable at your school. Then you claimed it was used only informally in notes and such. You've provided no suitable evidence for a single one of these claims.

Further, you tried to correct yourself when your error was pointed out. It was only when people asked you confirm you correction that you invented all these stories to cover your tracks.

I have been 'told off' by about half a dozen people.

You've been corrected by your betters, including for such things as misrepresenting them. But you have mostly refused to admit error.

″ does not mean minutes of time.
″ never has meant minutes of time.
″ cannot mean minutes of time.

You've provided no evidence for your claim that it can, and should have been understood by others to do so.

 

[JayUtah]

It would also be of slight interest if you ask them the following:

I'll do one better. This person seems willing enough to have a debate over the proper usage of primes symbols. He's being put forward as an expert. Vixen is no longer necessary to this part of the discussion. If this person is willing to provide expert testimony for the use of primes notation, they should come here and have it in person and be willing to answer questions themselves.

I'll up the ante. Vixen, tell your "expert" that a prominent American engineer and former university professor in engineering and science has directly challenged his claim that ′ can mean hours of time and ″ can mean minutes of time, and is therefore also directly challenging his competence. Tell them I am willing to provide evidence of their error directly to them and that I am waiting here to discuss it without an intermediary. If your "expert" refuses, tell them I am therefore also challenging their integrity.

I will no longer deal with this "expert" through Vixen.

 

[GlennB]

Here you go:

Utterly pathetic.