Michael Hart wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
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.
Again, I think you're mistaken (though I wouldn't presume to speak for the average reader). Perhaps you could quote the text in which I was so demanding?
I suppose you are stressing the difference between mathematicians and economists and MBA's,
No, I'm not stressing that difference.
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.
Ah, good. I was afraid it wasn't. Sometimes one has to state the obvious in order to find out that it *is* obvious.
So what is the root of the confusion, other than your intention?
I belive the root of the confusion was your use of words that were open to misinterpretation. But I was aware of that possibility, and so responded with respect to various interpretations.
(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.
You said "Only if you keep refusing to acknowledge that there was not an ordinary production schedule until 1991. . . ." But I'm pretty confident that I have never refused to acknowledge such a thing. Perhaps you could provide a quote in which I do so? (It seems far more likely that you've simply confused me with someone else.)
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.
Well, maybe they will. They're only 18 months in, after all. It took PG 13 years to accomplish its first major goal.
Then why would you want to confuse the issue between linear growth and the growth curve I included as an example?
I don't want to confuse that issue. I don't think I *did* confuse that issue. I quite happily agree that the growth shown in your graph is not linear. And in fact, as I've pointed out before, it's actually quite close to exponential. If you think I said the graph was linear, perhaps you could provide a quote. -Michael