Sharlin in an Asteroid field

[Sulfurdown]

I think this has turned into a Telephone game!

I blieve it says 'an area roughly equal to a 6" square' not 6 square inches....' doesnt it?

Mathematically, both phrases are identical.

Now, if they said 6 Squared inches square...

Earliest I see that sparked this was the above. In which Locutus referenced a Six Inch Square versus Six Square Inches**. Since then I'm pretty sure we've been moving things around trying to be clearer and all the thrashing is making the water muddy.

**edited for correctness.

 

[Right Hand of God]

Actually the addition of the "es" to inch in this case not cause the former to be the latter.

It is a six inch square picture, or a picture of six inches squared. The Second smaller picture is six square inches.

Now let's not have this turn into the unpleasant anti American diatribe the last thread did. The man is simply wrong, his nationality is unimportant and of no consequence.

 

[Greg Smith]

But there is some dispute, so I'm asking the math experts...

I have BSc in Pure Mathematics, does that count?

 

[Sulfurdown]

bah. We need a M.S. (MSc for the Brits)

 

[Taran]

In any case, my original post on this point was meant in a matter of a minor joke because I think we can all reasonably agree that MGP meant the larger area when they wrote that in the Book.
I got a response that just happened to punch a couple buttons (though I'm certain the poster didn 't mean it to), and the rest has continued from there.

And Greg Smith: So does my wife and she's the only person I've gotten a definitive agreement from. But what's your opinion? And do you have a source to back you up that I can check?

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I got a response that just happened to punch a couple buttons (though I'm certain the poster didn 't mean it to), and the rest has continued from there.

Maybe we did mean to. Strength through adversity, etc.

 

[Taran]

Well, fine then! I'll just be more certain to beat you over the head with it when I prove to be right! :twisted:
So there!

 

[Greg Smith]

I think we can all reasonably agree that MGP meant the larger area when they wrote that in the Book.

Actually, I tend to think they meant the smaller. I don't for a minute think asteroid fields were intended to be square.

And Greg Smith: So does my wife and she's the only person I've gotten a definitive agreement from. But what's your opinion? And do you have a source to back you up that I can check?

How about: http://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070904042211AAoZsR3

Pwrsonally I recall being taught it in scchool.

 

[stryve]

Personally, I think that a lot of the problem here is that English is a pretty imprecise language. Multiple interpretaions abound, and trying to clarify often backfires.

 

[Taran]

Bah! I hate you people!
:evil:

My mathematician agrees with you...

 

[Greg Smith]

My mathematician agrees with you...

Tell her, she rocks! :lol:

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Regardless of any conventions the mathematical world may have tried to impose regarding the translating of English into Maths, it's best to try an avoid such phrases that (in English at least) have multiple meanings. As an example, enough people will read "cm²" as "centimeters squared" rather than "square centimeters".

 

[Taran]

My mathematician agrees with you...

Tell her, she rocks! :lol:

Well, I'll tell him that but he may never answer another question for me if I do...

 

[lastbesthope]

But there is some dispute, so I'm asking the math experts...

I have BSc in Pure Mathematics, does that count?

As well as Marine Biology??? :lol:

LBH

 

[Locutus9956]

rule number one: Never ask a loved one for an objective answer about something like this, no matter how much of an expert they may be in the subject at hand theyre likely to side with you over strangers (even if its a subconcious thing )

rule number two: Any scientist or mathemetician in my experience (and I include myself in this ) will concuct any amount of utter bollocks sooner than concede even the slightest, tiniest little smidgeon of ignorance in any area remotely connected to their field of experties. And often quite a few other fields of experties with tenuous links to their own

rule number three: It may be a maths issue overall but it is still predominately a gramatical one that boils down to interpretation of the English language. I, for one, don't claim to be an expert in this field (though I do consider myself to be fairly well spoken (and written) when I wish). In this case Burger is clearly correct, the two phrases are totally distinct. One implies squaring of the number 6, the other implies a quantity of a square unit.

In any case the original wording issue I mentioned was specifically 'A 6" Square (singular)' This I feel is quite clearly refering to a square with a side length of 6 inches. Six InchES square (or squared, the -ed suffix is of no consequence) does imply the same thing but is perhaps a little more open to interpretation simply as it could be read as meaning '6 x [inches squared]'

But I digress, you've got your definitive answer from a professor of Mathematics and I daresay any professor of English would agree with the verdict.

Also for the record the 'Americans buthchering the language' quip was meant entirely in jest, I myself grew up (well grew older anyway, I don't really see how anyone who spends time paining and playing with little toy spaceships can really claim to be all that grown up ) in Canada (and Canadians murder the language just as often!) I will however have anyone who uses the term 'U.S. English' or attempts to claim there is such a language up before a firing squad at dawn. A firing squad of howitzers..... (yes thats right, I'm looking at you Bill Gates!!! :twisted: )

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Why the problem with the term U.S. English? It correctly shows that it's the U.S. variant of the English language. Now, if someone tries to refer to U.S. English as just English and then uses the term British English, then you can call out your firing squads.

 

[Triggy]

Why the problem with the term U.S. English? It correctly shows that it's the U.S. variant of the English language. Now, if someone tries to refer to U.S. English as just English and then uses the term British English, then you can call out your firing squads.

Agreed, and this is coming from a Brit

 

[Taran]

Either way, it's still the English language.
US, Canadian, British, Japanese, French, German, Arabic...
Whatever. They're all just dialects of the same language.

Locutus, most of my bit about "how the English language is taught" was aimed at American schools. Few people are as well placed to gauge just what miserable failures the vast majority of American schools are.

 

[LaranosTZ]

Erm, can we please not turn this into another American bashing thread please? We had that on the price change thread over money, let's not spread that out to language.

There is American English, British English, all sorts of english, using a descriptor to help convey how a person is speaking has nothing to do with anything resembling a heirarchy of language. Generally speaking whomever is doing the speaking will refer to their own language without a descriptor, and whatever variation or dialect they are talking about with a specific designation. Hell, if I wanted to do that, I could certainly call British English 'degenerate' since it's certainly not the same as it was when the language was developed. That would be wrong, and an opinion, since it's just different english from when the language was originally developed, and I feel insulted when the English call how I speak 'American' english like it's some bastardized language.

 

[Ripple]

Wow... would never have expected this to be the topic that turned into a heated debate.

We've been using slightly irregular ovals that are close to 8 inches in length and 4 to 5 inches in width. We thought this was close to what we assumed was the recommended size of six inches to a side for the field. It works well, and actually means ships fit inside the field without strain.

My question would be what are other groups using? Particularly the play test groups. Might help us understand each other a bit more, understanding each others basis.

If we just say what we actually use and ask for a clarification from the folks who wrote the book we could save a bunch of space and brain wear.

Ripple