Re: !@!Re: [gutvol-d] Kevin Kelly in NYT on future of digital libraries
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart@pglaf.org>
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."
Not only are you the only one that keeps trying to say a "growth curve" that is "flat" is not a "curve" ... others have come out (including myself) to say that a growth curve can be almost any shape. A growth curve can be flat, negative, or a sin wave ... and it is still a "growth curve". But since this discussion is completely pointless, can we please let it drop? (which is the real reason I posted this response ... just let this all go) Josh
On Mon, 29 May 2006, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" <hart@pglaf.org>
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."
Not only are you the only one that keeps trying to say a "growth curve" that is "flat" is not a "curve" ... others have come out (including myself) to say that a growth curve can be almost any shape.
Please consult a real mathematics professor.
A growth curve can be flat, negative, or a sin wave ... and it is still a "growth curve".
Please consult a real mathematics professor.
But since this discussion is completely pointless, can we please let it drop? (which is the real reason I posted this response ... just let this all go)
So why is it that only only way to let things go when you've had the last word? Do your homework, and post a rational scientific response.
Josh
Michael
"Michael" == Michael Hart <hart@pglaf.org> writes:
Michael> On Mon, 29 May 2006, Joshua Hutchinson wrote: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hart" >>> <hart@pglaf.org> >> >>> 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." >>> >> Not only are you the only one that keeps trying to say a >> "growth curve" that is "flat" is not a "curve" ... others have >> come out (including myself) to say that a growth curve can be >> almost any shape. Michael> Please consult a real mathematics professor. >> A growth curve can be flat, negative, or a sin wave ... and it >> is still a "growth curve". Michael> Please consult a real mathematics professor. Dear Michael, I am a mathematics professor, and I have abstained to plug in this stupid discussion, but there is no doubt that Joshua is right, and you are completely wrong. No mathematician can doubt that a straight line is a curve. And that zero is a number. Sorry. Carlo
participants (3)
-
Carlo Traverso -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Michael Hart