Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Matt_S]

I fail to see why they're not learning curves except for "I say so".

[Keldane]

Thank you, GavJ, for giving an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about. It appears that when you're faced with an argument you don't know how to address head-on, you take the approach of redefining the terms used so as to invalidate the argument, and then claiming that that's what you really meant all along. The term being discussed wasn't just "curve", it was "learning curve".

I'll reiterate my opinion - you lost this debate long ago, and you're unwilling to admit it.

[GavJ]

The term being discussed wasn't just "curve", it was "learning curve".

Dude... I'm talking about both. It's the CONJUNCTION of the two that makes the problem. Read the post.

"Learning curve" in the title.
Just plain "curves" in the graph that the title is for.

The two "curve"s have to match up since one is a title for the other and they are both the same word.

When you treat "learning curve" as some special term that separate from what a curve is, it's okay if it's by itself in a conversation. But it's not okay to try and do that when its in a title and when doing so makes you use two different kidns of curves in the same image that have opposite meanings. That's super dumb and confusing.

This is like... grade school stuff here: You have to title things what they are, period. Including individual words within a two word title! That anybody would seriously argue with this is increasingly baffling to me. Like... I'm interested in this thread still mainly just to try and figure out if you are for real or not.

[GavJ]

[Putnam]

So now phrases don't exist? The term "speed of light" doesn't make sense now because light doesn't experience time? You can't have "6-pack abs" because abs don't come in packages?

[WoobMonkey]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your assertion is incorrect.  If Y is learning, and X is time, then your second curve represents 'a great deal to learn all at once.'  Which is precisely what is suggested by the colloquial use of 'steep learning curve.'

Until such a day as you are unambiguously proclaimed to be the final arbiter of truth and correct use of the English language, your argument will continue to be wrong.

[Orange Wizard]

If Y is learning, and X is time, then your second curve represents 'a great deal learnt all at once.'

FTFY

[sal880612m]

Guuuys, stop trying to derail the thread. I don't know a great deal about Spiderman other than he prances around in a tight suit spraying sticky white goo everywhere.

I am not sure if your asking the people talking about Spider-man to stop derailing the thread or if you have accepted that this is now a Spider-man thread and want those still arguing to stop derailing it.

[Lyeos]

Obviously he's complaining about the people still arguing. However, this has been derailed far enough already, so allow me to propose a new topic:

Ice cream.

[sal880612m]

Some people did ask questions about Spider-man so I will probably keep kicking that until I know they either heard the response or didn't actually care in the first place. So it's not likely I am actually trying to derail the thread, it's just an unintended benefit

[Lyeos]

What are you talking about? This thread is about Spider-Man now.  All these weirdos keep trying to derail it by talking about learning curves... Which I'm willing to allow if they add Spider-Man and ice cream to their graphs.

[Matt_S]

So, your argument is that learning curves have to graph learning on the y axis, by definition of learning curve.  Since this is a generic argument about curves, I can replace "learning curve" with some other type of curve and the argument would have the same validity.  Let's see how that works.

The modified argument: dispersion curves have to graph dispersion on the y axis, by definition of dispersion curve.  What do dispersion curves plot?  Well, they all relate to dispersion, but the actual variables vary quite a bit.  On the y axis, I've seen frequency, angular frequency, phase velocity, group velocity, and group delay.  I have very, very rarely seen dispersion itself on the y axis.  Clearly the argument is wrong.

You made the oversimplified and unjustified assumption that a {foo} curve must be a graph that has {foo} on the y axis.  As I've shown, this assumption does not hold water.  Your argument is wrong.

[forsaken1111]

The 2nd post in this thread ended his argument. Flip the axis on his chart and suddenly the learning curve is steep. End.

[GavJ]

The 2nd post in this thread ended his argument. Flip the axis on his chart and suddenly the learning curve is steep. End.

Dependent variables never go on the X axis, in any field, or colloquially.

I have very, very rarely seen dispersion itself on the y axis.  Clearly the argument is wrong.

OR dispersion curves are ALSO confusing. Which it sounds like they are. Especially if multiple people call it dispersion curve and use different axes. It'd be one thing if everybody used refractive index. Still needlessly confusing as compared to "refraction curve," but at least consistent.  But if, as you say, some people use refractive index, some angular frequency, etc., then the term is changing meanings in 6 different ways all the time. They're not even agreeing on what the concept or the term is...

A clear, well defined scientific term should not be completely changing definitions as you look from graph to graph. That's just an issue the optical folks should address as well *shrug*

[Matt_S]

Dependent variables never go on the X axis, in any field, or colloquially.

World lines are usually drawn on graphs with t being the y axis.

OR dispersion curves are ALSO confusing. Which it sounds like they are. Especially if multiple people call it dispersion curve and use different axes. It'd be one thing if everybody used refractive index. Still needlessly confusing as compared to "refraction curve," but at least consistent.  But if, as you say, some people use refractive index, some angular frequency, etc., then the term is changing meanings in 6 different ways all the time. They're not even agreeing on what the concept or the term is...

A clear, well defined scientific term should not be completely changing definitions as you look from graph to graph. That's just an issue the optical folks should address as well *shrug*

The term does not change definitions.  The term is flexible, because it is named after what is being represented (dispersion) rather than how the axes are labeled, because the concept can be represented equivalently in many different variables.  It is extremely bold for you to tell an entire field that they do not agree on this concept.