[math-fun] Isn't "The lesser of two evils"
inherently ambiguous in English? After all, if evil is a negative thing, then wouldn't "the lesser of two negatives" would be the worser thing ? Perhaps teaching coding in public schools might be a positive thing after all... Jus' sayin'... (Or perhaps people misheard the advice as "the lessOr of two evils" ???)
I think "X is less evil than Y" is unambiguous. Which is too bad, because I like ambiguity more than most people. --Michael On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
inherently ambiguous in English?
After all, if evil is a negative thing, then wouldn't "the lesser of two negatives" would be the worser thing ?
Perhaps teaching coding in public schools might be a positive thing after all...
Jus' sayin'...
(Or perhaps people misheard the advice as "the lessOr of two evils" ???)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
How often have you heard some hagiographically overambitious (or just maybe purposefully devious?) individual hold forth along the lines of "Wally's contribution to this project cannot be underestimated!" Slippery things, double negatives --- especially when combined with an inability to distinguish the possible from the acceptable. WFL On 3/10/16, Michael Kleber <michael.kleber@gmail.com> wrote:
I think "X is less evil than Y" is unambiguous.
Which is too bad, because I like ambiguity more than most people.
--Michael
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
inherently ambiguous in English?
After all, if evil is a negative thing, then wouldn't "the lesser of two negatives" would be the worser thing ?
Perhaps teaching coding in public schools might be a positive thing after all...
Jus' sayin'...
(Or perhaps people misheard the advice as "the lessOr of two evils" ???)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Which reminds me of an oft-repeated bit of math folklore: A review of a certain math paper read: "This paper fills a much-needed gap in the literature." I wonder if this is apocryphal. Or is it pocryphal? —Dan
On Mar 10, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
How often have you heard some hagiographically overambitious (or just maybe purposefully devious?) individual hold forth along the lines of "Wally's contribution to this project cannot be underestimated!"
Slippery things, double negatives --- especially when combined with an inability to distinguish the possible from the acceptable.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Dan Asimov <asimov@msri.org> wrote:
Which reminds me of an oft-repeated bit of math folklore:
A review of a certain math paper read: "This paper fills a much-needed gap in the literature."
I wonder if this is apocryphal. Or is it pocryphal?
It is true, but was caught before it appeared in print. See Allyn Jackson's "Chinese Acrobatics, an Old-Time Brewery, and the 'Much Needed Gap': The Life of _Mathematical Reviews_", from the March 1997 _Notices_. PDF here: http://www.ams.org/notices/199703/comm-mr.pdf --Michael -- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
On 2016-03-10 18:00, Michael Kleber wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Dan Asimov <asimov@msri.org> wrote:
Which reminds me of an oft-repeated bit of math folklore:
A review of a certain math paper read: "This paper fills a much-needed gap in the literature."
I wonder if this is apocryphal. Or is it pocryphal?
It is true, but was caught before it appeared in print. See Allyn Jackson's "Chinese Acrobatics, an Old-Time Brewery, and the 'Much Needed Gap': The Life of _Mathematical Reviews_", from the March 1997 _Notices_. PDF here: http://www.ams.org/notices/199703/comm-mr.pdf
--Michael
"Fills a badly needed void" was a routine put-down often said with a straight face (or a wink in the presence of an uninitiated) around Xerox PARC in the 70s. Incredibly, google badly needed void brings up numerous cases of what I thought were snide deprecation, but are actually obliviot reviewers still using it to mean its exact opposite: “Fills a badly needed void” 5 of 5 stars Review of National Museum of Women in the Arts --rwg
Speaking of mathematicians inadvertently writing the opposite of what they mean: I once read a dissertation in which the author, typing a "t" where he meant to type a "w", preceded the proof of his main theorem with the climactic announcement "We will not prove the main theorem of this dissertation". (I'm sure that the "now" -> "not" typo is a common enough mistake that it's found its way into some published articles as well.) Jim Propp On Friday, March 11, 2016, rwg <rwg@sdf.org> wrote:
On 2016-03-10 18:00, Michael Kleber wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Dan Asimov <asimov@msri.org> wrote:
Which reminds me of an oft-repeated bit of math folklore:
A review of a certain math paper read: "This paper fills a much-needed gap in the literature."
I wonder if this is apocryphal. Or is it pocryphal?
It is true, but was caught before it appeared in print. See Allyn Jackson's "Chinese Acrobatics, an Old-Time Brewery, and the 'Much Needed Gap': The Life of _Mathematical Reviews_", from the March 1997 _Notices_. PDF here: http://www.ams.org/notices/199703/comm-mr.pdf
--Michael
"Fills a badly needed void" was a routine put-down often said with a straight face (or a wink in the presence of an uninitiated) around Xerox PARC in the 70s. Incredibly, google badly needed void brings up numerous cases of what I thought were snide deprecation, but are actually obliviot reviewers still using it to mean its exact opposite:
“Fills a badly needed void” 5 of 5 stars Review of National Museum of Women in the Arts --rwg
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On 11/03/2016 00:54, Fred Lunnon wrote:
How often have you heard some hagiographically overambitious (or just maybe purposefully devious?) individual hold forth along the lines of "Wally's contribution to this project cannot be underestimated!"
Slippery things, double negatives --- especially when combined with an inability to distinguish the possible from the acceptable.
Another old one: Linguistics lecturer: "In some languages, such as modern Greek, two negatives make a stronger negative. In some, such as English, two negatives make a positive. But in no language do two positives make a negative." Smartarse in audience: "Yeah, *right*." -- g
On 10/03/2016 23:55, Michael Kleber wrote:
I think "X is less evil than Y" is unambiguous.
Which is too bad, because I like ambiguity more than most people.
Nicely done. This reminds me a little of something my daughter came up with at age five. Out of the blue she said to me "Daddy, better than nothing would be the worst thing in the world". Meaning: if X is "better than nothing" then there is nothing it's better than, hence it's the worst thing there is (I don't think she had the concept of partial order at that point.) This is of course the same idea as the old joke about the ham sandwich, but I don't think she'd ever heard that. -- g
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
inherently ambiguous in English?
After all, if evil is a negative thing, then wouldn't "the lesser of two negatives" would be the worser thing ?
I don't think it's ambiguous. I think you're confusing "negative" in the sense of "measured by negative numbers" with "negative" in the sense of "bad, or having bad consequences". If A is a very evil thing, and B is a somewhat less evil thing, we might have E(A) = 100 and E(B) = 80, and B is the lesser evil. The fact that E(X) = -G(X) doesn't change that. The statement is about E(X), not G(X) (where G is the "goodness function"). No-one would ever say "A is less evil than B" to mean that A was really horrendous and B was mildly bad.l Andy
Perhaps teaching coding in public schools might be a positive thing after all...
Jus' sayin'...
(Or perhaps people misheard the advice as "the lessOr of two evils" ???)
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Andy.Latto@pobox.com
participants (8)
-
Andy Latto -
Dan Asimov -
Fred Lunnon -
Gareth McCaughan -
Henry Baker -
James Propp -
Michael Kleber -
rwg