[math-fun] Exponentially speaking
In the weekly NY Times column about proper usage, a commenter writes: << A note about "exponential": technically, the term refers to numbers that are increasing by a fixed (compounded) percentage, rather than a fixed amount, per unit of time. So it is entirely possible that the number of schools teaching Chinese has increased by a steady 18% per year from 300 a decade ago to 1,600 today; that would indeed be an exponential increase, though it's unlikely the author of the article did the research to confirm this.
Am I the only one who thinks this comment's writing style looks familiar? --Dan _____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele
Without commenting on the style: The remark does illustrate the need for at least three data points, for a phenomenon to be called exponential. --Rich --- Quoting Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>:
In the weekly NY Times column about proper usage, a commenter writes:
<< A note about "exponential": technically, the term refers to numbers that are increasing by a fixed (compounded) percentage, rather than a fixed amount, per unit of time. So it is entirely possible that the number of schools teaching Chinese has increased by a steady 18% per year from 300 a decade ago to 1,600 today; that would indeed be an exponential increase, though it's unlikely the author of the article did the research to confirm this.
Am I the only one who thinks this comment's writing style looks familiar?
--Dan
_____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I've noticed an exponential increase in the use of "exponential" in the media. God forbid that reporters ever hear the term "hyperexponential"! E.g., when the media misquotes/misunderstands Metcalfe's Law, which is only "polynomial" (yes, I know, it sounds pretty pedantic): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law I may try to con a reporter sometime into including the term "sub-logarithmic" in a story. Hopefully, a reporter with the name of Lambert. Perhaps evolution proceeds sublogarithmically, which is why we can't see it in action? Alternatively, something that recurs cyclically is also "exponential", although this is a bit more complex to explain. At 02:14 PM 2/2/2010, rcs@xmission.com wrote:
Without commenting on the style: The remark does illustrate the need for at least three data points, for a phenomenon to be called exponential. --Rich
--- Quoting Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>:
In the weekly NY Times column about proper usage, a commenter writes:
<< A note about "exponential": technically, the term refers to numbers that are increasing by a fixed (compounded) percentage, rather than a fixed amount, per unit of time. So it is entirely possible that the number of schools teaching Chinese has increased by a steady 18% per year from 300 a decade ago to 1,600 today; that would indeed be an exponential increase, though it's unlikely the author of the article did the research to confirm this.
Am I the only one who thinks this comment's writing style looks familiar?
--Dan
Shhhhhhhhhh. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: <rcs@xmission.com> Cc: <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Exponentially speaking
I've noticed an exponential increase in the use of "exponential" in the media. God forbid that reporters ever hear the term "hyperexponential"!
God forbid that reporters ever hear the term "hyperexponential"!
It would end up being called A.D.D.exponential -----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of David Wilson Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:37 PM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Exponentially speaking Shhhhhhhhhh. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Baker" <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: <rcs@xmission.com> Cc: <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Exponentially speaking
I've noticed an exponential increase in the use of "exponential" in the media. God forbid that reporters ever hear the term "hyperexponential"!
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
From: "rcs@xmission.com" <rcs@xmission.com> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Cc: rcs@xmission.com Sent: Tue, February 2, 2010 2:14:55 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Exponentially speaking Without commenting on the style: The remark does illustrate the need for at least three data points, for a phenomenon to be called exponential. --Rich --- Not necessarily so, x = A exp(B t) has two parameters, and can be fit with only two data points. It's all a question of whether the prior information concerning the data allows it to be modeled as an exponential. This is surely affirmative in the case of radioactive decay; two data points would suffice to determine the half-life. -- Gene
It's fun to extrapolate trends backwards -- e.g., Moore's Law. If I take one of Intel's own charts on Moore's Law, I get approximately #transistors(year) = 2^((year-1947)/2), which is more like a doubling every 24 months instead of 18 months. http://library.thinkquest.org/4116/Science/moore%27s1.htm But the cool thing is that year zero is 1947, when the transistor was first invented ! At 02:14 PM 2/2/2010, rcs@xmission.com wrote:
Without commenting on the style: The remark does illustrate the need for at least three data points, for a phenomenon to be called exponential. --Rich
--- Quoting Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>:
In the weekly NY Times column about proper usage, a commenter writes:
<< A note about "exponential": technically, the term refers to numbers that are increasing by a fixed (compounded) percentage, rather than a fixed amount, per unit of time. So it is entirely possible that the number of schools teaching Chinese has increased by a steady 18% per year from 300 a decade ago to 1,600 today; that would indeed be an exponential increase, though it's unlikely the author of the article did the research to confirm this.
Am I the only one who thinks this comment's writing style looks familiar?
--Dan
participants (6)
-
Dan Asimov -
David Wilson -
Eugene Salamin -
Henry Baker -
rcs＠xmission.com -
Torgerson, Mark D