h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It sortof seems like one of those big long proofs - I can understand each section, and sometimes a link between sections, but I haven't really got a clue where the whole thing is heading in the large scale. Feels a bit like 3 or 4 entries playing on different radio stations, and fading between them. Theres one about the difference between jargon definitions of words and real life definitions of those words, theres one about new math, and one about the meaning of mathematics - and if it has anything to do with the real world (just been reading a book on this - Platonism, formalism, constructivism etc). I think these could easily be separate entries on their own. Theres also the bit at the front doing numbers again, which could be left out. I don't think its even that necessary to know what the mathematical definitions of 'natural', 'imaginary' etc are, in order to follow the rest of the entry - all thats needed is that none of these words mean what they mean in real life, and that they have precise mathematical definitions for what they are. Theyre just called these names because of history and possibly to aid memory.

Some other things in maths are a bit worse I think, eg all the things that are called 'normal', 'simple' or 'regular', which certainly arent by the real life definitions, and these words get reused to mean different things in different bits of maths. OTOH, things like 'connected', 'continuous', or 'smooth' do mean pretty much what the real life thing means, except a bit more precise and includes some surprising things in there. Well, debatable I guess.

Anyway, theres a lot of good stuff in there, but it needs reordering or splitting up or something

I'm afraid I didn't even get to the content. Please, please, please correct the spelling in the title. 'Inscruitable' should be 'inscrutable'. I assume you know that 'scruting' (with or without your extra 'i') is not a verb and have chosen it for humorous reasons. If you really wanted it to be a true word, the verb that shares the same root as 'inscrutable' is 'scrutinise'.

HenryS,

You raise some valid points, particularly with regard to the other math terms you mention. I will be taking them into account when I re-write this monster.

"all thats needed is that none of these words mean what they mean in real life,"

I rather enjoy your use of 'real life' to distinguish from this ... what? imanginary? ... world of math.



manolan,

[sound of hand smacking forehead] Spell check the title, too! Thanks ever so much for catching that. I'll be dropping the whole stupid gag of the title, but it's a lesson I won't forget.

You are quite correct that 'Scrutinizing the Inscrutable' would have been proper and would have portrayed most of the apparent paradox I was aiming to present.

'Scruitinise,' of course, is the British spelling. Sorry, there's no real chance that I will ever learn to spell according to American standards, let alone to British. That's why I love spell/grammar checkers.

Thank you both for your help.

Barton

Actually, entries in the edited guide are meant to be in British English...

Then I probably need a British spell checker.

And who set the standard on that side of the ocean? The OED? I've been looking for an excuse to buy the CD-ROM version.

Barton

'Real Life' (TM) is usually the world outside of the internet, but I think it fits rather nicely for outside of h2g2, or outside of maths, or outside of any given alternative world...

I don't want to think about it. It's too depressing.

Please note that this is yet another useage for the word 'real.' In this case it specifies a condition of life which has no dimension of joy.

Barton

For those of you who have been waiting with bated breath for the next installment of this exciting topic, please note that I have rewritten this article completely and you will find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546383 with a discussion thread at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=111467 This tread should not be added to and can be removed whenever anyone gets around to it. Barton

Another thing about footnotes...

Numbers 11 and 12 are next to each other, so they look like 1112. I was a little worried by the prospect of over a thousand footnotes...

It just looks a little odd. And it's probably not good to have two footnotes for the end of one sentence anyway - just put all the info into one footnote.

Cheers,
ROb.

Thank you for your comment, but this article will not be revised any further, I have abandoned it as a lost cause.

Barton

Go on.. just fix that one little thing - it'd be easier to read. And the unedited guide is a s**tload more interesting anyway...

Re: Posting 30

Barton, if that's still what you want then please confirm again, and I'll mark it for a move to a place of your choice.


Bossel, Scout

Thank you, Bossel.

Yes that is what I want. I will keep this in the unedited guide until I decide if it can or should be submitted again for the edited guide. This is largely replaced with my article 'Jargon and Its Siblings'

I may rework it as an exemplar to attach to that article, but that is for the future.

If possible, it would be nice if this thread can simply be attached to the article itself.

Thanks again.

Barton

Ok then, wilco!

Barton

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Scruting the Inscrutable'.