On 2007-04-20, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> On 2007-04-19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 6:54 am, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is a mathematical
>>>> absurdity but consider this: If you find that common usage propagates
>>>> something that is incorrect, should we just shrug it off or should we
>>>> attemp a correction?
>>> a) In English, "learning curve" is not restricted to a mathematical
>>> plot--Webster's also defines it as "the course of progress made in
>>> learning something". In that context, adding the adjective steep
>>> ("extremely or excessively high...STEEP implies such sharpness of
>>> pitch that ascent or descent is very difficult") makes sense.
>>
>> How much sense does it really make? Suppose we would talk about
>> an income curve. Would you not prefer a steep curve over a shalow
>> one? What about a productivity curve? It is all about the progress
>> made in something.
>>
>> So how much sense does it make that a steep curve in earnings and
>> productivity is good but a steep curve in learning is bad?
>>
> Just as much sense as that a motor car is great for driving around in
> but bad for being run over by. Context is everything. Do *all* steep
> curves have to be good or all bad? What the hell happened to common sense?
You are just grabbing for straws. Sure context is everything. But you
don't make a case that the context makes a difference here. Are you
suggesting progres in productivity is good but progres in learning is bad?
Just asserting how something can make a difference withouth arguing
how in the particular case it actucally makes a difference is just
a divertion tactic without real merrit.
--
Antoon Pardon
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
