--- Jot Powers <books at bofh.com> wrote: > 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. I agree that it's ambiguous in non-technical use. "Spooky action at a distance" is indeed a quantum phenomenon (though you don't have to interpret it as action at a distance), but it's not a quantum leap. > 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. :) I don't think I've heard that meaning. What "increasing exponentially" means mathematically is increasing according to an exponential function, like compound interest. "Exponentially" more doesn't mean anything mathematically. > 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. :) I'm a lowly community-college instructor, and John Oliver is a tenured professor. Expect from him. Heh. (If I'm right in thinking that you recently posted here for the first time, John-- good timing, and welcome to the list!) Jerry Friedman, phudnik ("a nudnik with a Ph. D.") __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com