On Thu, 25 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
OK, back to basics, I have consulted with some mathematicians, not that I think you didn't know this, but you are pressuring me to make the point,
I'm not pressuring you to make any point about lines and curves. If you feel pressure to do so, that's unfortunate. If you feel I demanded it, you're mistaken.
You certainly seemed demanding enough for the average reader. I suppose you are stressing the difference between mathematicians and economists and MBA's, without trying to be obvious about it, but that difference is all to obvious to everyone else, and that a "growth curve" that is "flat" is not a "curve."
In your first reply to my posting, you made a statement about "an ordinary growth curve", assuming a particular definition for "curve". I disagreed, based on a different definition of "curve". But I also (in the same message!) agreed with you, based on my best guess at what you actually *meant*. (And also disagreed again, based on another possibility for what you meant.)
As above, already plenty obvious to all, I am sure.
So it's just a little confusion over one's choice of terms. E.g., if you had instead said "an exponential growth curve" (or "geometric growth curve" or "Moore's Law curve"), there wouldn't have been that confusion.
Right. . . . Particularly when an example of such a curve was included. So what is the root of the confusion, other than your intention?
(Of course, there still would have been another problem, namely that you ascribed to me a position I had never taken. It would be nice if you apologized for that.)
Since you insisted on taking that position, I can hardly apologize. [snip]
Then I hope that the great effort spent in replying to your messages was not a total waste for either yourself or the rest of us.
For myself, the replies (yours and mine) feel like mostly a waste so far. (Although if people gained some insight into Google's progress by my comparing it with PG's, then that would be a bright spot.) For the rest, I cannot say.
I can only say that _I_ would like to think that Google, with it's years of planning, $120 billion, 5 multibillion dollar library business partners, and their billion dollar press blitz of 18 months ago, just might have been able to accomplish their goals a bit more quickly than our efforts did. After all, didn't they show a scanner set that was supposed to scan 10,000 books per week?
However, as I stated in my opening paragraph, I presumed you already knew all of this
Correctly presumed.
Then why would you want to confuse the issue between linear growth and the growth curve I included as an example? Michael