The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[W.D.Clinger]

To the mathematically minded I can see no problem in annotating one day as 1' as long as it is clear it refers to 24 hours, or whatever your one day represents, it would work perfectly well in a sexigesimal system.

To the mathematically minded, that's insane.

It is of course true that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers occasionally invent new notations, but using a newly invented notation without explaining precisely what you mean by it ist verboten. Inventing a new meaning for some established notation, without explanation, while acting as though everyone should understand that you are using a brand new meaning for that notation, is an excellent way to make STEM-educated people assume you are being dishonest. To spend years insisting everyone should have understood you were using a brand new (and unspecified!) meaning for some established notation goes beyond dishonest; it is insane.

Without commenting on the hypothesis, I'll point out that this is why colon notation for time duration is almost completely disallowed in scientific writing for just this reason. However, there is an international standard for notating date and time (ISO-8601) that allows the time portion to be notated with a colon as in hh:mm:ss. In appropriate cases the seconds portion may be omitted, in which it's understood that dd:dd means hours and minutes, never minutes and seconds.

Well, there are informal conventions in which, for example, someone might legitimately say Joshua Cheptegei's current world record for running 10,000 metres is 26:11, while John Doe might say his personal best time for a marathon is 2:46. Current lists of world records tend to write Cheptegei's 10km time as 26:11.00, which removes the ambiguity, and John Doe (when pressed) might admit his PR is actually 2:46:35.

My ex- does have a PhD, plus joint BSc (Hons) Physics and Philosophy, two masters and the required teaching qualifications needed to teach Maths and Maths-related subjects, his profession. This is because he is an academic. Let me know if you have any objections.

Sounds as though your "ex-" is substantially less familiar with mathematics than some of the folks you've been trying to brow-beat into accepting your mathematically insane point of view.

 

[Darat]

No, I haven't proposed any 'alternate universe in which the entire logic of the system is thrown into the leaf-shredder'. I was doing what I had always assumed was conventional. On another occasion, I expressed a possessive in terms of "Boris' new car", for example. A poster reacted with outrage and insisted it should be, "Boris's new car' and produced an example from a tabloid paper to demonstrate he was right. But I have always done it the first way. It is hardly my fault if others have a different convention. Anyone would think I had upset them on purpose. As IMV I have done nothing wrong, I don't see why I should change, given I did do the courtesy of introducing what my abbreviations, annotations and acronyms refer to, before using them, as per convention. We were always advised, 'state your assumptions', which is what I do.

What colour was the onion?

 

[JayUtah]

To spend years insisting everyone should have understood you were using a brand new (and unspecified!) meaning for some established notation goes beyond dishonest; it is insane.

This.

And then to finally admit that it wasn't a common usage at all but just something that was understood to be partly tolerated in her tidy corner of the world under limited circumstances is daft. How would any reader at all be expected to wring that sort of assumption out of thin air?

Well, there are informal conventions in which, for example, someone might legitimately say Joshua Cheptegei's current world record for running 10,000 metres is 26:11, while John Doe might say his personal best time for a marathon is 2:46. Current lists of world records tend to write Cheptegei's 10km time as 26:11.00, which removes the ambiguity, and John Doe (when pressed) might admit his PR is actually 2:46:35.

Agreed, there are innumerable examples of informal inferences of time scales based on the context and the format of the values separated by colons. But science and engineering abhor them. And in any case what you infer from the position of numbers with respect to one colon or another has nothing to do with what ′ and ″ mean in an entirely different notational system. The tolerance of ambiguity under one regime does not demand similar tolerance in other regimes—especially in those were steps were taken to eliminate it.

In any case, ships can sink in seconds, minutes, or hours. So the contextual argument analogous to different lengths of foot races doesn't avail. Granted no one is going to run a marathon in 2 minutes 46 seconds, so there is a reason to informally allow a shorthand. But here it's a shorthand that the colon notation has always permitted. Primes notation permits omitting zero-valued elements and elements beyond the obtainable precision. But never by changing what ′ and ″ mean. If you use primes notation to say, "The ship sank in 35″," that will ever only mean to say it sank in thirty-five seconds. The positional shifts allowed in colon notation are not permitted in primes notation and do not express themselves in any way by allowing ″ to mean one inferred scale in one case of the measure and a different inferred scale in another case of the same kind of measurement.

Sounds as though your "ex-" is substantially less familiar with mathematics than some of the folks you've been trying to brow-beat into accepting your mathematically insane point of view.

I have no interest in or comment about what her ex's character or qualifications may be. However, the person who authored the words she represented as having come from him is unmistakably a rank amateur in mathematical notation. It's rather suspicious that this person jumps straight into the defense of a variation Vixen admits was minutely obscure, without any prompting, and that this person commits all the beginner's errors. This person's picture of the problem and its solutions seems to be exactly Vixen's, with no better or different perspective—only supposedly with a PhD. Hm.

 

[EHocking]

… Think about the logic of using parameters that have no relevance.

 

[EHocking]

I was right but I am not allowed to prove it.

Yeah, the laws of physics can be a bitch sometimes.

 

[junkshop]

We're on post #1608 (or #1609 if you include this one), and nothing after post #984 has served any real purpose other than to allow Vixen to revive and/or disavow the foetid corpses of her previous posts, and to bewail the intolerable persecutions she has been subjected to.

Perhaps we should wait until the current investigation is done before we reanimate this monstrous worm of a thread again?

 

[Thermal]

I feel like religions get founded on these kind of inscrutable parables.

 

[Axxman300]

AIUI only designated personnel are allowed access to the bridge, so who the heck was the guy in red. Given the ferry was used to smuggle dismantled nuclear power materials from the former USSR bases in Estonia, and there were reports of old stalinists objecting to this including key crew trained at Russian naval academies, one can see it'd be a high risk situation to put the civilian public in, should organised crime warfare break out. It seems strange to me the investigators weren't champing at the bit to examine the bridge instruments. I should think given what the ferry was used for, sabotage was a high risk. But hey ho.

Now you're back to telling ghost stories. Show me one case of Russian sabotage between 1993 and 2022. Better yet, tell us what was on the car decks of the other ferries out there that night. Why not sink them too? The way you make it sound, the ferry system was a regular UPS of stolen Soviet military hardware. What makes you think the west didn't already have this mythical equipment already? MI6, the Germans, French, and the CIA are pretty good at absconding with Russian gear.

And as far as the guy in the red goes, his name was probably Herring.

 

[Vixen]

To the mathematically minded, that's insane.

It is of course true that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers occasionally invent new notations, but using a newly invented notation without explaining precisely what you mean by it ist verboten. Inventing a new meaning for some established notation, without explanation, while acting as though everyone should understand that you are using a brand new meaning for that notation, is an excellent way to make STEM-educated people assume you are being dishonest. To spend years insisting everyone should have understood you were using a brand new (and unspecified!) meaning for some established notation goes beyond dishonest; it is insane.


Well, there are informal conventions in which, for example, someone might legitimately say Joshua Cheptegei's current world record for running 10,000 metres is 26:11, while John Doe might say his personal best time for a marathon is 2:46. Current lists of world records tend to write Cheptegei's 10km time as 26:11.00, which removes the ambiguity, and John Doe (when pressed) might admit his PR is actually 2:46:35.


Sounds as though your "ex-" is substantially less familiar with mathematics than some of the folks you've been trying to brow-beat into accepting your mathematically insane point of view.

Seriously, you are expecting randoms on a chat list to express times as per the national broadcasting company with their electronic equipment and subtitles that do all of the fancy standardised presentations automatically? I am astounded by the low levels of comprehension here when people can't figure out 35", the time it took for Estonia to sink.

 

[Vixen]

Such as those people who don't realise that "common usage" means everyone using the notation in the same way.

I for one never saw any problem with the grocers apostrophe, but let's not go there.

 

[Vixen]

Jay acknowledged his error and corrected it when it was brought to his attention.

That's the difference.

Not really. I clarified the careless syntax re post-grad psychology, in the discussion about the Estonia eye-witness memory, virtually by return to say it referred to a post-grad professional accountancy qualification. Yet here we are years later with people still accusing moi-meme of trying to wilfully mislead.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>


Well, there are informal conventions in which, for example, someone might legitimately say Joshua Cheptegei's current world record for running 10,000 metres is 26:11, while John Doe might say his personal best time for a marathon is 2:46. Current lists of world records tend to write Cheptegei's 10km time as 26:11.00, which removes the ambiguity, and John Doe (when pressed) might admit his PR is actually 2:46:35.


<snip?

BTW you'll notice, the split seconds breakdown is relevant in your example because the adjudicators need to know exactly who came where in what position and to have the most precise record of local, national and world record, plus the athlete themself will be obsessed by these nano-seconds, But in a discussion forum it really is not relevant to include all of that; it is perfectly ok to refer to Bannister's four-minute mile. If ever we get the breakdown of how fast the ship sank to the nearest second, then yeah, it becomes a relevant parameter.

 

[Mojo]

Not really. I clarified the careless syntax re post-grad psychology, in the discussion about the Estonia eye-witness memory, virtually by return to say it referred to a post-grad professional accountancy qualification.

Nope, you claimed that your accountancy qualification entitled you to call yourself a postgraduate psychologist:

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 14, 2023

You claimed you were a "psychology postgraduate." What exactly do you mean by that?

Because I have two chartered accountancy designations, both classified as masters degrees.

So I am a postgraduate whichever way you look at it.

• Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 14, 2023

You do know we can read the post you're replying to, don't you?

No-one is claiming you said you were a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

What you said was

The strong implication being that your postgrad study was in the field of psychology. Now you're saying that was not the case? Why refer to postgraduate if your psychology training was only to degree level?

My graduate degree led on to entry level to my two recognised masters degrees. Without the psychology honours degree I would have had to enter the profession at Certificate Level. So I am a psychology...

• Vixen

 

[Vixen]

Now you're back to telling ghost stories. Show me one case of Russian sabotage between 1993 and 2022. Better yet, tell us what was on the car decks of the other ferries out there that night. Why not sink them too? The way you make it sound, the ferry system was a regular UPS of stolen Soviet military hardware. What makes you think the west didn't already have this mythical equipment already? MI6, the Germans, French, and the CIA are pretty good at absconding with Russian gear.

And as far as the guy in the red goes, his name was probably Herring.

It's officially reported in the diving records so is hardly a red herring. Swedish lawmaker Hirschfield confirmed in the rikstag [sp?] that is what had happened not long before the disaster but only confirmed one case of smuggling, because it couldn't be denied. So it is silly to claim it never happened and is just a conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Nope, you claimed that your accountancy qualification entitled you to call yourself a postgraduate psychologist:

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 14, 2023

You claimed you were a "psychology postgraduate." What exactly do you mean by that?

Because I have two chartered accountancy designations, both classified as masters degrees.

So I am a postgraduate whichever way you look at it.

• Vixen

Cont: Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI'

Sep 14, 2023

You do know we can read the post you're replying to, don't you?

No-one is claiming you said you were a chartered psychologist. Stop lying.

What you said was

The strong implication being that your postgrad study was in the field of psychology. Now you're saying that was not the case? Why refer to postgraduate if your psychology training was only to degree level?

My graduate degree led on to entry level to my two recognised masters degrees. Without the psychology honours degree I would have had to enter the profession at Certificate Level. So I am a psychology...

• Vixen

I am not a psychologist as I am no longer a member of the British Psychological Society. What do you not understand about 'careless syntax' in a casual chat about eye-witness memory? Sheesh, you are really reaching now. Discussion over.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I am astounded by the low levels of comprehension here when people can't figure out 35", the time it took for Estonia to sink.

No, you're not. You're just winding people up now, because you've given up on trying to browbeat them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's officially reported in the diving records so is hardly a red herring.

"It"? Is the "it" you refer to Russian sabotage? I think it is not. Please tell us whatever you are claiming here and show us a reference in the diving records.

 

[zooterkin]

Seriously, you are expecting randoms on a chat list to express times as per the national broadcasting company with their electronic equipment and subtitles that do all of the fancy standardised presentations automatically? I am astounded by the low levels of comprehension here when people can't figure out 35", the time it took for Estonia to sink.

We all, with one exception, figured out you made a mistake in the notation you used. That one person still fails to admit to the mistake.

 

[Mojo]

I am not a psychologist as I am no longer a member of the British Psychological Society. What do you not understand about 'careless syntax' in a casual chat about eye-witness memory? Sheesh, you are really reaching now. Discussion over.

OK, let's have the whole lot, to remind you of the context:
https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-10#post-14157552

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-26#post-14161740

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162150

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162158

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162184

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162188

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162196

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162200

https://internationalskeptics.com/f...reopened-part-vi.366861/page-27#post-14162203

You claimed that you had "clarified the careless syntax re post-grad psychology, in the discussion about the Estonia eye-witness memory, virtually by return to say it referred to a post-grad professional accountancy qualification." You didn't: you tried to justify your claim that you were a postgraduate psychologist.

 

[Vixen]

"It"? Is the "it" you refer to Russian sabotage? I think it is not. Please tell us whatever you are claiming here and show us a reference in the diving records.

The unidentified - and officially unauthorised* - man in the red jacket lying under a toppled cabinet. Source: Rockwell Report plus video youtube (search function should call all this up).

*(key personnel only allowed on the bridge]