Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #111235 > unrolled thread

Curious Omission In New-Style Formats

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 22:54 -0700
    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 01:21 -0600
      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 17:34 -0700
        Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 09:04 -0600
          Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-12 02:28 +1000
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-07-11 10:24 -0700
              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-07-12 11:47 +1200
                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-07-11 17:24 -0700
                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:16 -0600
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:38 -0600
              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-12 13:38 +1000
                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 00:21 -0600
                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-13 09:57 +0300
                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 00:05 -0700
                    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-13 18:49 +1000
                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-13 16:01 +0200
                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-13 20:04 -0400
                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 15:24 -0700
                    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:45 -0600
                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 20:39 -0700
                        Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 23:18 -0600
                          Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-14 17:47 +1000
                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-14 07:34 -0400
                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 08:30 -0600
                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-14 19:02 +0300
                                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 11:10 -0600
                                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-14 20:30 +0300
                                    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 18:17 -0600
                                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 18:08 -0700
                                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-15 09:06 +0300
                                        Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 09:54 +0200
                                          Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-15 11:40 +0300
                                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-15 20:56 +1000
                                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 13:44 +0200
                                                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-15 16:38 +0300
                                                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 16:47 +0200
                                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-15 16:13 +0300
                                                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-16 01:12 +1000
                                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-15 09:39 -0400
                                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 16:32 +0200
                                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 13:05 +0200
                                              Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-15 16:28 +0300
                                                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-16 01:13 +1000
                                                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-15 18:27 +0300
                                          Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-15 12:20 +0300
                                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-15 12:44 +0200
                                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:26 -0700
                            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:17 +0100
                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 16:35 -0700
                        Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 10:57 +1000
                    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-07-14 01:59 +0100
                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-13 07:46 -0400
                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-13 16:04 +0300
                Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 23:00 +1000
                  Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-13 16:16 +0300
                    Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 23:49 +1000
                      Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-07-13 17:23 +0300
                        Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 00:28 +1000
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-07-11 14:54 -0400
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:27 -0600
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:06 -0600
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-11 16:34 -0400
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-07-11 16:52 -0400
            What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-12 06:56 +1000
              Re: What is precision of a number representation? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 23:28 +0100
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-07-11 14:22 -0700
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 07:51 +1000
              Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-07-12 00:14 +0100
                Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:57 +1000
              Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-12 14:19 +1000
                Re: What is precision of a number representation? (was: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 14:36 +1000
                Re: What is precision of a number representation? Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-12 11:50 +0200
                  Re: What is precision of a number representation? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-07-12 13:27 +0300
                    Re: What is precision of a number representation? Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-07-12 13:02 +0200
                  Re: What is precision of a number representation? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-12 23:16 +1000
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-07-11 15:17 -0700
              Re: What is precision of a number representation? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-12 16:21 +1000
                Re: What is precision of a number representation? Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-07-12 09:36 -0400
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2016-07-11 15:29 -0700
            Re: Curious Omission In New-Style Formats Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-07-12 11:26 +1200
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 11:57 +1000
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-07-12 13:41 +1000
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-07-12 00:14 -0400
            Re: What is precision of a number representation? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-07-12 00:17 -0400

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#111429

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro
<lawrencedo99@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 12:46:26 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 6:22:31 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... don't call it "precision".
>>>
>>> How about “mantissa length”, then. That sufficiently neutral for you?
>>
>> That makes even less sense for integers.
>
> Why?

Because integers don't have a mantissa.

Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often
called the mantissa is more properly known as the significand. But
integers don't have that either.

Back to naming, I think the best you could do would just be something
utterly generic like "formatted size". It doesn't help that in some
cases it represents a minimum size and in other cases a maximum, so
you can't even characterize it with that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111431

On Thursday 14 July 2016 15:18, Ian Kelly wrote:

> Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often
> called the mantissa is more properly known as the significand. But
> integers don't have that either.


Er, then what's a mantissa if it's not what people call a float's mantissa?

What makes you say it is "more properly" known as the significand?

I'm not necessarily disputing what you say, I'm wondering what is your 
justification for it.


-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111437

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:47:17 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> declaimed the following:

>Er, then what's a mantissa if it's not what people call a float's mantissa?
>
	In my old math classes: it was the fractional part of a base-10
logarithm, while the integral part ("characteristic") essentially defined
the power-of-10 of the number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_logarithm#Uses
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111440

On Jul 14, 2016 1:52 AM, "Steven D'Aprano"
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 14 July 2016 15:18, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > Side note, neither do floating point numbers, really; what is often
> > called the mantissa is more properly known as the significand. But
> > integers don't have that either.
>
>
> Er, then what's a mantissa if it's not what people call a float's mantissa?
>
> What makes you say it is "more properly" known as the significand?
>
> I'm not necessarily disputing what you say, I'm wondering what is your
> justification for it.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Significand.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Mantissa.html

The significand of -3.14159 is the sequence of digits 314159. The
mantissa of -3.14159 is the number 0.85841.

I don't have a copy of the IEEE-754 standard, but I believe that it
also uses the term "significand" and specifically avoids the term
"mantissa".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111442

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:

> The significand of -3.14159 is the sequence of digits 314159. The
> mantissa of -3.14159 is the number 0.85841.

Fight it all you want. However:

   In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to
   have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and this usage remains common
   in computing and among computer scientists.
   <URL:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand#Use_of_.22mantissa.22>


   This digit string is referred to as the significand, mantissa, or
   coefficient.
   <URL:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Floating-point_numbers>

and, FWIW:

   Liukulukuun kuuluu neljä osaa: etumerkki (s), mantissa (m), kantaluku
   (k) ja eksponentti (c). [...]

      x = (−1)^s mk^c.

   <URL: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liukuluku>


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111443

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
>
>> The significand of -3.14159 is the sequence of digits 314159. The
>> mantissa of -3.14159 is the number 0.85841.
>
> Fight it all you want. However:
>
>    In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to
>    have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and this usage remains common
>    in computing and among computer scientists.
>    <URL:
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand#Use_of_.22mantissa.22>

Just because it's already common to use the wrong term doesn't mean
the usage should be promulgated further.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111444

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>    In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to
>>    have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and this usage remains
>>    common in computing and among computer scientists. <URL:
>>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand#Use_of_.22mantissa.22>
>
> Just because it's already common to use the wrong term doesn't mean
> the usage should be promulgated further.

Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do you
use as a standard?


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111455

On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>
wrote:
> >>    In American English, the original word for [significand] seems to
> >>    have been mantissa (Burks[1] et al.), and this usage remains
> >>    common in computing and among computer scientists. <URL:
> >>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand#Use_of_.22mantissa.22>
> >
> > Just because it's already common to use the wrong term doesn't mean
> > the usage should be promulgated further.
>
> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do you
> use as a standard?

Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard?

I'm not interested in arguing over philosophy, so I won't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111458

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:17:27 PM UTC+12, Ian wrote:

> Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard?

Do you say “head over heels” or “heels over head”? “Burgle” or “burglari{s,z}e”?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111460

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:

> On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do
>> you use as a standard?
>
> Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard?
>
> I'm not interested in arguing over philosophy, so I won't.

Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for
language questions.

However, I'm cool with "cuz I say so."


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111461

Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa:
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Jul 14, 2016 11:37 AM, "Marko Rauhamaa" <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>>> Where do you get the idea that the common usage is "wrong?" What do
>>> you use as a standard?
>> Is it "wrong" to consider some usages "wrong"? By what standard?
>>
>> I'm not interested in arguing over philosophy, so I won't.
> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for
> language questions.

But educated about what exactly?

Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to indicate
something is difficult to master, he is using it wrong, because actual
steep learning curves indicate something can be mastered quickly.

Now I suspect most people who talk about steep learning curves are educated,
they just aren't educated about learning curves and so I think common
usage among educated speakers is inadequate as a yard stick.

-- 
Antoon Pardon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111462

Antoon Pardon writes:

> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa:
>>
>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for
>> language questions.
>
> But educated about what exactly?
>
> Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to
> indicate something is difficult to master, he is using it wrong,
> because actual steep learning curves indicate something can be
> mastered quickly.
>
> Now I suspect most people who talk about steep learning curves are
> educated, they just aren't educated about learning curves and so I
> think common usage among educated speakers is inadequate as a yard
> stick.

I think I see your point, but I think it's also easy to think the axes
of the metaphor so that it makes sense:

c      ,
o     ,
s    ,
t . .
 l e a r n i n g

First two steps l-e plain sailing. Next two steps a-r steep climb. Cost
is the effort that makes the learner experience the learning as steep.
(Spending more *time* without ever paying much attention may not be the
best of ideas - it may be the worst of ideas - if the goal is to learn
but it still fits the graph: cost goes up for little or no gain.)

Perhaps more proper to call that a cost-to-learn curve or something?
But when it becomes unwieldy, it gets shortened to something shorter,
and here the more informative component has won. Maybe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111465

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:40 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:

> Antoon Pardon writes:
> 
>> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa:
>>>
>>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for
>>> language questions.
>>
>> But educated about what exactly?
>>
>> Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to
>> indicate something is difficult to master, he is using it wrong,
>> because actual steep learning curves indicate something can be
>> mastered quickly.

That's not necessarily the case. See below.


>> Now I suspect most people who talk about steep learning curves are
>> educated, they just aren't educated about learning curves and so I
>> think common usage among educated speakers is inadequate as a yard
>> stick.
> 
> I think I see your point, but I think it's also easy to think the axes
> of the metaphor so that it makes sense:
> 
> c      ,
> o     ,
> s    ,
> t . .
>  l e a r n i n g
> 
> First two steps l-e plain sailing. Next two steps a-r steep climb. Cost
> is the effort that makes the learner experience the learning as steep.
> (Spending more *time* without ever paying much attention may not be the
> best of ideas - it may be the worst of ideas - if the goal is to learn
> but it still fits the graph: cost goes up for little or no gain.)
> 
> Perhaps more proper to call that a cost-to-learn curve or something?
> But when it becomes unwieldy, it gets shortened to something shorter,
> and here the more informative component has won. Maybe.

"Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is an
actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve


Now, there are a couple of ways that we can interpret the idiom of "steep
learning curve". One is the way Wikipedia interprets it: as a mistake.
According to this conventional explanation, people have *wrongly* imagined
a curve like this:

(for best results, view using a fixed width font like Courier)

K               x
n        x
o    x
w
l  x 
e
d  
g x
e
+ Effort or cost or time needed to gain that knowledge or skill


as being "hard to learn" at the beginning, when in fact it shows the
opposite: with just a little bit of effort, you can learn a lot. But (so
goes the conventional explanation) people think of steep in the sense of
climbing a steep mountain, and think that it shows that the learning
process is really hard at the start.

I believe Wikipedia is wrong. I think that there is a natural interpretation
of "steep learning curve" which matches *both* the idiomatic and technical
meanings, with the same graph.

Remember that the English idiom of a steep learning curve is not just hard
to learn. It means that something takes a lot of effort to gain mastery
over, after which things become easier.

Learning Ancient Etruscan is hard for beginners and experts alike, because
there is so little information available about Ancient Etruscan that even
the experts can hardly be said to have mastered the language. That would
not often be described as a steep learning curve, as it lacks the sense of
getting easier with time. Learning Etruscan might have a curve like this:

K
n                       x
o                 x
w             x
l           x 
e         x
d       x
g x
e
+ Effort or cost or time

It's hard at the beginning, because you don't know the language; then it
gets a bit easier, for a while, then it gets difficult again because you
run out of information about the language.

Here is a curve that matches the common idiom. It is (1) steep, (2) requires
a lot of effort for very little progress at the beginning, and (3) becomes
easier with time:


K                       x
n                      x
o                     x
w                   x
l                 x 
e              x
d          x
g x
e
+ Effort or cost or time


Mastery makes the going easy, but it takes a long time to see any real
progress. You can interpret the "steepness" in two ways: it's steep (easy)
for experts, and if you turn your head to the side, it's steep (hard, like
climbing a steep mountain) at the beginning).

Another way to interpret it is to ask, what's the *cost* (in time, or
effort) to gain a certain amount of knowledge? That's equivalent to
swapping the X and Y axes:

C            x
o       x
s    x
t
·  x
o
r
·
t x
i
m
e
+ Knowledge gained



That's not the conventional layout of the axis, but it does make sense, and
it's more likely that people have this reversed layout in mind when
thinking about "steepness of learning" than it is that they were thinking
about the original curve and misinterpreting the meaning of the gradient.






-- 
Steven
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111468

Op 15-07-16 om 12:56 schreef Steven D'Aprano:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:40 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>
>> Antoon Pardon writes:
>>
>>> Op 15-07-16 om 08:06 schreef Marko Rauhamaa:
>>>> Common usage among educated speakers ordinarily is the yardstick for
>>>> language questions.
>>> But educated about what exactly?
>>>
>>> Each time someone talks about "a steep learning curve" in order to
>>> indicate something is difficult to master, he is using it wrong,
>>> because actual steep learning curves indicate something can be
>>> mastered quickly.
> That's not necessarily the case. See below.

I think it does.

>
> "Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is an
> actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve

I know and the technical term precedes the metaphor.

> Remember that the English idiom of a steep learning curve is not just hard
> to learn. It means that something takes a lot of effort to gain mastery
> over, after which things become easier.

Yes things/practicing become easier, mastering even further does not.

> Here is a curve that matches the common idiom. It is (1) steep, (2) requires
> a lot of effort for very little progress at the beginning, and (3) becomes
> easier with time:
>
>
> K                       x
> n                      x
> o                     x
> w                   x
> l                 x 
> e              x
> d          x
> g x
> e
> + Effort or cost or time

I think you are making things up now. I have never seen an actual learning
curve with that shape. All learning curves I have seen show the law of
diminishing (marginal) returns.

> Another way to interpret it is to ask, what's the *cost* (in time, or
> effort) to gain a certain amount of knowledge? That's equivalent to
> swapping the X and Y axes:

Which you don't expect because if swapping axes was common, most people
would understand that talking about steep or shallow curves would be
meaningless since you wouldn't know whether is was steep with standaard
ax positions or steep with swapped ax posititions.

>
> C            x
> o       x
> s    x
> t
> ·  x
> o
> r
> ·
> t x
> i
> m
> e
> + Knowledge gained
>
>
>
> That's not the conventional layout of the axis, but it does make sense, and
> it's more likely that people have this reversed layout in mind when
> thinking about "steepness of learning" than it is that they were thinking
> about the original curve and misinterpreting the meaning of the gradient.

No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a conversation
about how people learn and how long it would take to get some mastery and how we
could present progress in a graph, virtually everyone uses the conventional axes
layout. This talk about swapped axes only come from people who used the steep
learning curve metaphor, when you then try to show them what an actual steep
learning curve implies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111472

Antoon Pardon writes:

> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a
> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get
> some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually
> everyone uses the conventional axes layout. This talk about swapped
> axes only come from people who used the steep learning curve metaphor,
> when you then try to show them what an actual steep learning curve
> implies.

Or from people who try to be charitable when other people use it. At
least I like to think that that's what I did.

(I'm not at all inclined to do that about certain other terms, but those
discussions are also not inclined to go anywhere.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111475

Op 15-07-16 om 15:38 schreef Jussi Piitulainen:
> Antoon Pardon writes:
>
>> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a
>> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get
>> some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually
>> everyone uses the conventional axes layout. This talk about swapped
>> axes only come from people who used the steep learning curve metaphor,
>> when you then try to show them what an actual steep learning curve
>> implies.
> Or from people who try to be charitable when other people use it. At
> least I like to think that that's what I did.

Sure, you can be charitable when other people use it. IME that doesn't
contradict that when you somehow find yourself in need of actually
graphing these kind of numbers you are likely to follow the conventional
layout.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111470

Steven D'Aprano writes:

[in response to my attempt to understand "steep learning curve"]

> "Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is
> an actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
>
>
> Now, there are a couple of ways that we can interpret the idiom of
> "steep learning curve". One is the way Wikipedia interprets it: as a
> mistake.

[- -]

Ouch. Next time I hear anyone use the phrase, if I need to know whether
they mean "easy to learn" or "hard to learn" or something else, I think
I'll ask them...

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111476

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:13 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> 
> [in response to my attempt to understand "steep learning curve"]
> 
>> "Learning curve" or "experience curve" is not just an metaphor, it is
>> an actual technical term. See the Wikipedia article:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve
>>
>>
>> Now, there are a couple of ways that we can interpret the idiom of
>> "steep learning curve". One is the way Wikipedia interprets it: as a
>> mistake.
> 
> [- -]
> 
> Ouch. Next time I hear anyone use the phrase, if I need to know whether
> they mean "easy to learn" or "hard to learn" or something else, I think
> I'll ask them...

You really don't need to. "Steep learning curve" in ordinary English ALWAYS
means that it is hard to make progress and then gets easier once you have
mastered it. Its a common idiom.

If you're talking to an actual expert in the field about an actual graph,
then it might be worth asking them what they mean. And the chances are they
will mean exactly the same thing as ordinary people, and they'll just
say "turn your head to the side, see how steep the graph is at the start".

That's my prediction.



-- 
Steven
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111473

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 07:44, Antoon Pardon wrote:

> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a
> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get
> some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually
> everyone uses the conventional axes layout.

_Why_ do you think this? The natural way to graph progress vs effort is
to have progress on the horizontal access and effort on the vertical
axis, because that's what you get when you're climbing a literal hill,
the only context in the universe where "vertical" and "horizontal"
aren't arbitrarily assigned but are real spatial dimensions.

The only reason to do it the other way is an association with time and
the convention of using time for the horizontal axis.

> This talk about swapped axes only come from people who used the steep
> learning curve metaphor, when you then try to show them what an actual
> steep learning curve implies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111474

Op 15-07-16 om 15:39 schreef Random832:
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016, at 07:44, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
>> No, that is what people come up with afterwards. If you just start a
>> conversation about how people learn and how long it would take to get
>> some mastery and how we could present progress in a graph, virtually
>> everyone uses the conventional axes layout.
> _Why_ do you think this? The natural way to graph progress vs effort is
> to have progress on the horizontal access and effort on the vertical
> axis, because that's what you get when you're climbing a literal hill,
> the only context in the universe where "vertical" and "horizontal"
> aren't arbitrarily assigned but are real spatial dimensions.

No that is not the natural way. That is the way you pick afterwards if
you want your graph to resemble the metaphor. But it is not the way
people "naturally" graph these numbers, if the metafor was not put
into their head in first place. Certainly not people who actually study
these kind of things.

> The only reason to do it the other way is an association with time and
> the convention of using time for the horizontal axis.

No the reason is, we prefer the graph to be a function. That is for every x
at most one y. Using the axes the other way around would mean that set backs
would result in multiple y values for the same x.

-- 
Antoon Pardon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web