On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:16:44PM -0800, Jerry Friedman wrote: > It's probably too late for "quantum leap" and "exponential", but > I think the "atomic" line can be held. Ok, so is a "quantum leap" a small amount (because quantum deals with quantum mechanics) or a large amount, because "spooky things at a distance" can happen? As near as I can tell, it was a TV show, any other use is ambiguous. As for exponential, how is it wrong? Something 10x greater than the part before it is the standard, although I suppose it can be less if you operate in something other than base 10. (As a computer guy I deal in base 2 quite frequently). I suppose "increasing logrithmically" doesn't sound as sex. :) Those seem pretty clear to me. How am I wrong? > I got somebody mad at me on another list by arguing about physics > without revealing that I have a Ph.D. in it and teach it (the guy > felt ambushed), so consider it revealed. Sucker. Now I can ask questions and expect solid answers. :) -Jot -- Jot Powers <books at bofh.com> http://www.bofh.com/books/ "I'm upping my standards, so up yours!" -Pat Paulsen (1927-1997), Presidential Campaign Slogan