re: [gutvol-d] Kevin Kelly in NYT on future of digital libraries
michael said:
A friend asked him why. . . he said it was due to space limitations.
well, my one quibble with the article was when he mentioned the google library scanning as the main impetus for resurging interest about a cyberlibrary. while that is undoubtedly true, i thought that he could have mentioned project gutenberg as well. it would've been a nod to your historic presence. however, if you want your library to move forward into the future that is being discussed, you'll need to consider the constructive criticisms i have issued. because if "books reading other books" _does_ take off, your library of standalone files which cannot will languish. you have the advantage now that most all of your files are pure ascii, so it behooves you to leverage that advantage... -bowerbird
On Mon, 22 May 2006 Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
michael said:
A friend asked him why. . . he said it was due to space limitations.
well, my one quibble with the article was when he mentioned the google library scanning as the main impetus for resurging interest about a cyberlibrary.
Obviously the press coverage about "Google library scanning" has done more "as the main impetus for resurg[ent] interest in a cyberlibrary" than the actualy scanning itself. We are coming up on the 18 month anniversary of the monster press blitz that announced, "This is the day the world changes." And the latest estimated I have received show that Google's total number of books has just recently passed 50,000, then again similar reports say that 88% are neither downloadable nor proofread to any particular level of accuracy. If we double that number to 100,000, we could pretend these results indicated that Google had accomplished 1% of a goal of 10,000,000 books, in 25% of their 6 year plan.
while that is undoubtedly true, i thought that he could have mentioned project gutenberg as well. it would've been a nod to your historic presence.
Somehow I don't think this was accidental. . . . Same with WIRED's approach since Conde Naste. . . . mh
Michael Hart wrote:
If we double that number to 100,000, we could pretend these results indicated that Google had accomplished 1% of a goal of 10,000,000 books, in 25% of their 6 year plan.
In 1993, PG had accomplished 1% of its goal of 10,000, in about 70% of the total time. -Michael
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
If we double that number to 100,000, we could pretend these results indicated that Google had accomplished 1% of a goal of 10,000,000 books, in 25% of their 6 year plan.
In 1993, PG had accomplished 1% of its goal of 10,000, in about 70% of the total time.
Only if you keep refusing to acknowledge that there was not an ordinary production schedule until 1991. . . . Mr. Dyck has been refusing to acknowlege for some time that an ordinarly growth curve is impossible to create when the growth is linear. . .i.e. one per year. . . . And sometimes it was even less, as when the copyright law fell out of favor in 1976, and was replaced with a longer one, thus ruining our first efforts at a Complete Shakespeare. Project Gutenberg growth curves have always been presented for dates starting in January of 1991, the first year of scheduled production rates: 1 per month in 1991 2 per month in 1992 4 per month in 1993 8 per month in 1994 16 per month in 1995 32 per month in 1996 97 98 99 [Survived a big financial loss] [A big reason we don't let money rule Project Gutenberg] Obviously by doubling the total number of books from 1971-90 in the single year of 1991, and then again, and again in the next few years, eliminates any usefulness of incorporating a linear, or less, growth rate that previously existed. Here is the current graph, also included as an attachment to insure it is not broken by mailer margination. 12341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234 -90--91--92--93--94--95--96--97--98--99--00--01--02--03--04--05--06- *Perhaps 20K >07/06 20K *Estimated 19.5K >05/06 19.5K 19,020 on March 31, 2006 19K > 03/06 19K 18,500 on February 13, 2006 18.5K > 02/06 18.5K Added ~216 from PG of Europe January 01, 2006 18K > 01/06 18K Added 1 from PG PrePrint Site, January, 2006 17.5K > 11/05 17.5K 17K > 08/05 17K 16.5K > 06/05 16.5K 16K > 04/05 16K 15.5K > 02/05 15.5K 15K > 01/05 15K 14.5K > 11/04 14.5K 14K > 10/04 14K 13.5K > 08/04 13.5K 13K > 06/04 13K 12.5K > 04/04 12.5K 12K > 03/04 12K 11.5K > 02/04 11.5K 11K > 01/04 11K 10.5K > 11/03 10.5K >>> October 15, 2003 >>> 10K > 10/03 *10K* 9,500 > 9/03 9,500 9,000 > 8/03 9,000 8,500 > 7/03 8,500 8,000 > 5/03 8,000 7,500 > 3/03 7,500 Note this graph is in 1/4 years 7,000 > 1/03 7,000 6,500 > 12/02 6,500 6,000 > 9/02 6,000 5,500 > 7/02 5,500 5,000 > 4/02 5,000 4,500 > 2/02 4,500 Added PG Australia in August, 2001 4,000> 10/01 4,000 3,500 >5/01 3,500 3,000> 12/00 3,000 2,500 > 8/00 2,500 2,000 > 12/99 2,000 1,500 > 10/98 1,500 1,000 > 8/97 1,000 500 > 4/96 500 100 >12/93 <<<December 10, 1993 100 10>12/90 10 -90--91--92--93--94--95--96--97--98--99--00--01--02--03--04--05--06- YEARS 12341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234123412341234 QUARTERS
Michael Hart wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
If we double that number to 100,000, we could pretend these results indicated that Google had accomplished 1% of a goal of 10,000,000 books, in 25% of their 6 year plan.
In 1993, PG had accomplished 1% of its goal of 10,000, in about 70% of the total time.
Only if you keep refusing to acknowledge that there was not an ordinary production schedule until 1991. . . .
Hm. I made my statement based on this data: 1971: 1 ebook 1993: 100 ebooks 2003: 10,000 ebooks So it took about 22 years to do the first 100, and about 32 years to do the first 10,000. That is, 22/32 of the time to do 100/10,000 of the books, or about 70% of the time to do the first 1%. Another way to look at it is that the average production up to 1993 was 4.5 books per year, and after 1993 was 90 books per year, 20 times faster. I.e., the production schedule for the first two decades was significantly slower than that of the subsequent decade. So, far from "refusing to acknowledge that there was not an ordinary production schedule until 1991", this data (and my statement) actually *support* the claim of a radical change in the production schedule in the early 90's. But if you like, we can ignore the pre-1991 data: 1991 Jan: 10 ebooks 1994 Jan: 110 ebooks 2003 Oct: 10010 ebooks So it took 3 years to do the "first" 100, and about 13 years to do the "first" 10,000. That is, 3/13 of the time to do 100/10,000 of the books, or around 23% of the time to do the first 1%. Which is remarkably close to the "25% of the time to do the first 1%" that you gave for Google, above.
Mr. Dyck has been refusing to acknowlege for some time that an ordinarly growth curve is impossible to create when the growth is linear. . .i.e. one per year. . . .
Huh? I'm pretty sure I've never refused to acknowlege that. I think you have me confused with someone else, possibly Marcello. See, e.g. http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001262.html (which had to do with picking a reference point for "Moore's Law" growth). You should be more careful before casting aspersions. However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant. I think what you meant is something more like "a period of linear growth makes it impossible to fit an exponential growth curve". My response depends on how you interpret "fit". If, by "fit a curve", you mean "rigidly conform to a curve", then I agree: you can't make linear data conform to a exponential curve. But then no real-world phenomenon will rigidly conform to an exponential curve; there will always be some deviation. So alternatively, if by "fit a curve", you mean "approximate with a curve" or "model with a curve", then I disagree: you can certainly approximate linear data with an exponential curve. Whether it's useful depends on what you're trying to accomplish, but it's certainly not impossible. -Michael Dyck
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant.
No, a line is not a curve. Linear growth would have just been 100 eBooks in 100 years. 1,000 eBooks in 1,000 years. 10,000 eBooks in 10,000 years. 20,000 eBooks in 20,000 years. This is not a growth curve, it is a growth line. However, the case is even more drastic than that, as there was a period of over a decade when 0 eBooks were added, due to the hassles of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took us forever to find out about, and the truth is that we would probably NEVER have figured them out without the help of one of the top dozen copyright lawyers in the US. Thus, if you INSIST on talking about curves, the curve was downward. Just one more obvious reason why you can't talk about growth curves for this period of Project Gutenberg's history. * When There ARE Growth Curves: You also mentioned that you can't fit real world items into such growth curves, but you never mentioned that the graph I included is a remarkably good overall fit, with deviations so small it is hard to see them at all on such a graph representing eBooks at a range of 500 eBook increments. It's a much more impressive growth curve than anyone predicted-- except for some of us crazy people.
Right. I think what needs to be reiterated here is that any extrapolation is just that, an extrapolation, and that even a very complex growth curve fitted to PG's output will vary greatly from reality based on various environmental factors (how many volunteers are available, free time available, major reorgs at DP, etc) and the biases built into the model. Taking a standard exponential growth curve and extrapolating it is not feasible for the long term. (Extend it a few hundred years out.. baring a major population explosion, major AI improvements, or other unforeseen circumstance, it's plainly not tenable. You run out of PD works and human beings very quickly.) It may be accurate enough for the short term, however. I know a statician on another forum.. perhaps he can explain it more clearly. R C On 5/24/06, Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant.
No, a line is not a curve.
Linear growth would have just been
100 eBooks in 100 years. 1,000 eBooks in 1,000 years. 10,000 eBooks in 10,000 years. 20,000 eBooks in 20,000 years.
This is not a growth curve, it is a growth line.
However, the case is even more drastic than that, as there was a period of over a decade when 0 eBooks were added, due to the hassles of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took us forever to find out about, and the truth is that we would probably NEVER have figured them out without the help of one of the top dozen copyright lawyers in the US.
Thus, if you INSIST on talking about curves, the curve was downward.
Just one more obvious reason why you can't talk about growth curves for this period of Project Gutenberg's history.
*
When There ARE Growth Curves:
You also mentioned that you can't fit real world items into such growth curves, but you never mentioned that the graph I included is a remarkably good overall fit, with deviations so small it is hard to see them at all on such a graph representing eBooks at a range of 500 eBook increments.
It's a much more impressive growth curve than anyone predicted-- except for some of us crazy people.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
My own predictions have always changed from eBook production to eBook translation at about the 10 million eBook mark. If you haven't seen those prediction, I will repost on request. mh On Wed, 24 May 2006, Robert Cicconetti wrote:
Right. I think what needs to be reiterated here is that any extrapolation is just that, an extrapolation, and that even a very complex growth curve fitted to PG's output will vary greatly from reality based on various environmental factors (how many volunteers are available, free time available, major reorgs at DP, etc) and the biases built into the model. Taking a standard exponential growth curve and extrapolating it is not feasible for the long term. (Extend it a few hundred years out.. baring a major population explosion, major AI improvements, or other unforeseen circumstance, it's plainly not tenable. You run out of PD works and human beings very quickly.) It may be accurate enough for the short term, however.
I know a statician on another forum.. perhaps he can explain it more clearly.
R C
On 5/24/06, Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant.
No, a line is not a curve.
Linear growth would have just been
100 eBooks in 100 years. 1,000 eBooks in 1,000 years. 10,000 eBooks in 10,000 years. 20,000 eBooks in 20,000 years.
This is not a growth curve, it is a growth line.
However, the case is even more drastic than that, as there was a period of over a decade when 0 eBooks were added, due to the hassles of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took us forever to find out about, and the truth is that we would probably NEVER have figured them out without the help of one of the top dozen copyright lawyers in the US.
Thus, if you INSIST on talking about curves, the curve was downward.
Just one more obvious reason why you can't talk about growth curves for this period of Project Gutenberg's history.
*
When There ARE Growth Curves:
You also mentioned that you can't fit real world items into such growth curves, but you never mentioned that the graph I included is a remarkably good overall fit, with deviations so small it is hard to see them at all on such a graph representing eBooks at a range of 500 eBook increments.
It's a much more impressive growth curve than anyone predicted-- except for some of us crazy people.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Michael Hart wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant.
No, a line is not a curve.
Well, it is to a mathematician. But if you want to use that definition of "curve", fine, I agree, linear growth is straight, not bendy. I'm *quite* positive that I never refused to acknowlege such a thing. (If you look close enough, PG's ebook count is actually a step function, piecewise constant: after a book is posted, the number of books is constant until the next one is posted. Dunno if that satisfies your definition of "curve".)
However, the case is even more drastic than that, as there was a period of over a decade when 0 eBooks were added, due to the hassles of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took us forever to find out about, and the truth is that we would probably NEVER have figured them out without the help of one of the top dozen copyright lawyers in the US.
Thus, if you INSIST on talking about curves, the curve was downward.
Uh, if no books are added, the number is constant, which I would consider "flat" rather than "downward". But if you want to define it as "downward", fine.
Just one more obvious reason why you can't talk about growth curves for this period of Project Gutenberg's history.
A downward curve is still a curve. Though if you want to say it isn't a "growth curve", fine. (Mind you, it's not hard to find talk of "negative growth".)
You also mentioned that you can't fit real world items into such growth curves, but you never mentioned that the graph I included is a remarkably good overall fit,
(Well, now you're blurring a distinction I made between two meanings of "fit": real world data doesn't "fit" (= rigidly conform to) exponential curves, but you can "fit" (=approximate) it to an exponential curve. But anyway.) And in fact, I HAVE mentioned how closely the PG numbers are approximated by an exponential curve. See, e.g., http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001263.html and http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001456.html But now we (well, you, really) have strayed from the topic that brought me in, the comparison between Google's progress and PG's (and dang, I wish I'd changed the subject line at that point), so my interest in this discussion is probably fading. -Michael
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
Michael Hart wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
However, if it makes things easier, I'll gladly refuse to acknowlege that statement *now*. A linear growth curve *is* a growth curve, and a pretty ordinary one at that. It certainly doesn't make it impossible to create an ordinary growth curve. But that's just disagreeing with what you said, rather than what you meant.
No, a line is not a curve.
Well, it is to a mathematician.
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, so I will, as gently as possible mostly with the presentation aids provided by the mathematicians. Presumed givens: A 9 year period in which 1 title was added each year to the index of what would later become known as Project Gutenberg. 1971-1979 A ~15 year period of increasing growth as represented by the graph previously presented. 1991-2006 Results: First for: A 9 year period in which 1 title was added each year to the index of what would later become known as Project Gutenberg. 1971-1979 The equation that would describe this is known as a "Linear Equation" of the variety y = mx + b When plotted on the normal "x,y" plane this would be a straight line, no matter what numeric variables you plugged into the equation. When describing such results the term "line" is used to represent a straight line of this nature, while various terms describing curves are used in higher order equations. Very often the term "exponential" is used in common parlance to describe what is really just a "multiplicative" or "geometric" growth pattern, but there is no need to go into that here. When describing such a linear equation in opposition to curved equations, the usual terms are "line" and "curve." We would normally say that a line "intersects" with a curve, in such a case where the equations have a common solution. Trying to fit a straight line into an equation for a curve has been one of the mathematical problems of the ages. Look up "squaring the circle" for some history on this. However, generally speaking, a curve could not contain a portion of a graph that was identical to the portion of a straight line. In this case it has been speculated that the growth of Project Gutenberg listings could be approximated via a curve, and in particular that the end result should be in some total comparison to the curve known as Moore's Law Which specifies that x should double every 18 months. Obviously it would be very rare indeed for real world curves to exactly match mathematical equations in the sense of human endeavors, but a quick look at what we have seen as the report of the dates of each 500 book level passed by Project Gutenberg, would indicate the approximate match to several well known curves. I'll leave it to you to choose which is the best fit.
But if you want to use that definition of "curve", fine, I agree, linear growth is straight, not bendy. I'm *quite* positive that I never refused to acknowlege such a thing.
You certainly seemed to be yesterday, apparently demanding the above explanations of the difference between lines and curves when describing graphs, intersections, etc.
(If you look close enough, PG's ebook count is actually a step function, piecewise constant: after a book is posted, the number of books is constant until the next one is posted. Dunno if that satisfies your definition of "curve".)
I think that is why our mathematical friends above said "approximates" a curve. . .since we are only using the "counting numbers." A true curve would include many other kinds of numbers. However, in this case, using counting numbers as input, and 1/4 year increments on the graph, you do get graphs that would normally be described as curves. Growth curves is the term normally used. In this case the growth "line" does not fit the growth "curve."
However, the case is even more drastic than that, as there was a period of over a decade when 0 eBooks were added, due to the hassles of the US Copyright Act of 1976, which took us forever to find out about, and the truth is that we would probably NEVER have figured them out without the help of one of the top dozen copyright lawyers in the US.
Thus, if you INSIST on talking about curves, the curve was downward.
Uh, if no books are added, the number is constant, which I would consider "flat" rather than "downward". But if you want to define it as "downward", fine.
The number used in the equation to create a graph in approximation to the performance would decrease, hence the term "downward" might be applicable; a line with no growth lies "downward" of lines that represent growth statistics.
Just one more obvious reason why you can't talk about growth curves for this period of Project Gutenberg's history.
A downward curve is still a curve. Though if you want to say it isn't a "growth curve", fine. (Mind you, it's not hard to find talk of "negative growth".)
In this case it would literally be a "negative growth" of the slope of the line. Technically the second order derivative, which is where these terms probably go beyond what is appropriate here.
You also mentioned that you can't fit real world items into such growth curves, but you never mentioned that the graph I included is a remarkably good overall fit,
(Well, now you're blurring a distinction I made between two meanings of "fit": real world data doesn't "fit" (= rigidly conform to) exponential curves, but you can "fit" (=approximate) it to an exponential curve. But anyway.)
I think all this was anticipated in the help I received above. If not, ask for more detailed explanations.
And in fact, I HAVE mentioned how closely the PG numbers are approximated by an exponential curve. See, e.g., http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001263.html and http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/gutvol-d/2005-January/001456.html
This was also apparently anticipated by our mathematical friends, when they mentioned "approximate match to several well known curves." and "I'll leave it to you to choose which is the best fit." Obviously there are a number of equations that make approximate fits, obvious even to someone who hadn't seen your example in the URLs.
But now we (well, you, really) have strayed from the topic that brought me in, the comparison between Google's progress and PG's (and dang, I wish I'd changed the subject line at that point), so my interest in this discussion is probably fading.
Ah, it would appear that you already knew you were painting us into a corner. 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. It is only a waste to me if no one gains an apprecation of how seriously I take your messages, and of my willingness to provide the best answers. However, as I stated in my opening paragraph, I presumed you already knew all of this and thus presumed you were only asking the question for other reasons. May I ask what those reasons were?
-Michael
Thanks!!! Give the world eBooks in 2006!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg Blog at http://hart.pglaf.org
My biggest problem with your growth extrapolations, Michael, is that in the last few years, Distributed Proofreaders has been the primary source of new Project Gutenberg books, and it's clear from their statistics that they're not putting out an exponentially increasing number of books. It may well be that PG had an exponential growth rate in the past (which is easy to do when you're starting out with production in the single digits per year, and grow to thousands per year), but that doesn't mean it's sustainable. Explain to us how you're going to get the labor to validate the ebooks produced, or how the OCR will become reliable enough to skip the validation process, and then we'll believe that you can sustain the growth rates seen when Project Gutenberg's main source of new books when from a few hundred (if that many) dedicated individuals, to about 5000 Distributed Proofreaders.
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. In your first reply to my posting, you made a statement about "an ordinarly [sic] 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.) 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. (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.)
But now we (well, you, really) have strayed from the topic that brought me in, the comparison between Google's progress and PG's, so my interest in this discussion is probably fading.
Ah, it would appear that you already knew you were painting us into a corner.
I disagree that we're painted into a corner. There's still a chance that this could go in a useful direction, though it does seem slim.
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.
However, as I stated in my opening paragraph, I presumed you already knew all of this
Correctly presumed.
and thus presumed you were only asking the question for other reasons.
May I ask what those reasons were?
Sure, but what question are you talking about? I looked over my last three messages for a question, and the only one I found was (and I quote) "Huh?". (If you're talking about a question in which I ask you to explain lines and curves, that question does not exist.) -Michael
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
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
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Michael Dyck wrote:
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'll just continue, for the moment, answering what appear to be questions and demands for responses.
I suppose you are stressing the difference between mathematicians and economists and MBA's,
No, I'm not stressing that difference.
Well, from my perspective, that's the major difference between the actually mathematics professors' approaches I researched and used, and the more lax terminology used by MBA's, econmists, et. al. Now that I have pointed out those differences, I think it is quite obvious to all just what the language means, without trying to get down deeply into the jargon, which I appreciate you did not do.
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.
I think we both perhaps learned something out this in this instance, and provided enough background for people to see both sides.
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.
My apologies, I should have been more discrete in that question. I'm glad we took the time to lay out the various interpretations, and I will hopefully include them in something like an FAQ so the future will not require another such discussion without such.
(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.)
My apologies, perhaps I am still ascribing some intent that was not yours, but since we both seem to agree that the issues have been stated, then you and I can hopefully move on to something 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.
From January 31, 1991 to October 15, 2003. . .definitely a looong time to get from 10 eBook to 10,000.
I guess I just expected/hoped for more from Google. It certainly sounded as if they were ready to start rolling 10,000 books per week off their assembly line, if not more. I note that the press didn't give Yahoo the time of day when their similar announcements came out about a year later. . .I think they also expected more from Google, and once burned were quite shy. I have personally spoken with both the heads of the Google project and the Yahoo project, and I guess I just fell too much for spiels that perhaps I wanted to believe. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE it if either or both of them made a million eBooks available in the next 36 months or so. However, don't get me wrong on the other end, either, I would LIKE those eBooks to be full text, 99.95% to 99.99% accurate and easily downloadable en masse to be used on most hardware/software.
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.
You were referring to the portion before 1991, as I saw it, which portion was linear from 1971 through 1979, and later not really starting up again until 1991. . .though perhaps I misunderstood that portion, too, at least from your point of view. Again my apologies for any and all misunderstandings about this, and more thanks for helping me see it from multiple points of view.
-Michael
Thanks!!! Give the world eBooks in 2006!!! Michael S. Hart Founder Project Gutenberg Blog at http://hart.pglaf.org
Michael Hart wrote:
Well, from my perspective, that's the major difference between the actually mathematics professors' approaches I researched and used, and the more lax terminology used by MBA's, econmists, et. al.
"In mathematics, the concept of a curve tries to capture the intuitive idea of a geometrical one-dimensional and continuous object. Simple examples are the circle or the straight line." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve "A line, or straight line, can be described as an (infinitely) thin, (infinitely) long, perfectly straight curve (the term curve in mathematics includes "straight curves")." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_line -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
participants (6)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Bruce Albrecht -
Marcello Perathoner -
Michael Dyck -
Michael Hart -
Robert Cicconetti