Apostrophe crimes

[LGTrotter]

I am entirely in agreement but holding my fire as I am guilty of using a "-1" this morning. You attack, Owen, and I'll hold the rear (please missus). Julian will have descended entirely into text speak by the end of the week.

I have been trying to stick with the parenting idea of ignoring the bad behaviour and rewarding the good behaviour but this was more in the nature of a cri de coeur.

[PhilW]

1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

It's probably one of those special fruit-flavoured-manufacturer-device-only things, which shows up as a special icon with a man doing a dance on a lilo, but only on those devices... (like the 1,2,3,4 in circles recently which just showed as square boxes everywhere else).

Nothing wrong with +1 or -1.

[jdaw1]

While no crime has been committed I could not stop an involuntary shudder when I read the following;

1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

Are abbreviations no longer allowed? Has the meaning of a semi-colon changed?

[djewesbury]

While no crime has been committed I could not stop an involuntary shudder when I read the following;

1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

Are abbreviations no longer allowed? Has the meaning of a semi-colon changed?

Good fight back. The best defence is offence.

[jdaw1]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

Yes. If the rate of reaction is proportional to the remaining reactants, the behaviour will be approximately exponential, whether absolute for either bottle size, or as a ratio. I have taught him to write, and also taught him some basic continuous mathematics. Top teaching.

Then:

I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

But if the behaviour is exponential, both quantities of both reactants will tend to zero, a narrowing of the gap, and so inconsistent with this statement.

But it would be so disheartening to believe that the accuracy of the first was a fluke. Maybe he meant the theoretical gap as a ratio — even though untastable and unmeasurable in the real world. Maybe.

[djewesbury]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

Yes. If the rate of reaction is proportional to the remaining reactants, the behaviour will be approximately exponential, whether absolute for either bottle size, or as a ratio. I have taught him to write, and also taught him some basic continuous mathematics. Top teaching.

Then:

I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

But if the behaviour is exponential, both quantities of both reactants will tend to zero, a narrowing of the gap, and so inconsistent with this statement.

But it would be so disheartening to believe that the accuracy of the first was a fluke. Maybe he meant the theoretical gap as a ratio — even though untastable and unmeasurable in the real world. Maybe.

Bring back the birch.

[PhilW]

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Not necessarily; there could still be victory for DRT...

If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

Yes. If the rate of reaction is proportional to the remaining reactants, the behaviour will be approximately exponential, whether absolute for either bottle size, or as a ratio. I have taught him to write, and also taught him some basic continuous mathematics. Top teaching.

(noting, but otherwise ignoring the implicit acceptance of "almost exactly")

Then:

I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

But if the behaviour is exponential, both quantities of both reactants will tend to zero, a narrowing of the gap, and so inconsistent with this statement.

True, but only for a continuous system; for a discrete system some inconsistency would become apparent once low volumes of the reactant are reached if the period for random reaction comes similar to the measurement period. For example, consider the energy output of a large volume of radioactive material. Initially this will be high, and decay exponentially; however once the number of amount of radioactive material becomes very small, the random nature of particle decay becomes visible because there are no longer sufficient particles to create an statistically valid result within the observation period. The same mechanism could occur in the case under discussion. Additionally, while the exchange of air through the cork may be very small, if it can be assumed to be non-zero then while the additional particles capable of reaction entering the bottle could be irrelevantly small initially, but come to dominate the late effect once almost all of the reactant particles in the original air volume have reacted. Does this return victory to DRT?

[djewesbury]

Phil, I don't think the previous post should be in Meaningless Drivel; or at least, I think you should quote it in the Maturity thread too.

[jdaw1]

The same mechanism could occur in the case under discussion. Additionally, while the exchange of air through the cork may be very small, if it can be assumed to be non-zero then while the additional particles capable of reaction entering the bottle could be irrelevantly small initially, but come to dominate the late effect once almost all of the reactant particles in the original air volume have reacted. Does this return victory to DRT?

— even though untastable and unmeasurable in the real world. Maybe.

Maybe, in this unmeasurable sense, it could be argued more than believed.

[DRT]

I feel vindicated.

[RAYC]

the 77s with a reputation for problems are I think Dow, Nierpoort, Taylor

Not sure if this is a running joke that i've missed the point of!!

[LGTrotter]

the 77s with a reputation for problems are I think Dow, Nierpoort, Taylor

Not sure if this is a running joke that i've missed the point of!!

No, just my usual inability to spell, punctuate, round up all the bits of a sentence and make them head in the right direction.

[djewesbury]

You see, German white wine can be very useful to have lying around, especially if you accidentally run over your neighbours pet rabbit

[DRT]

You see, German white wine can be very useful to have lying around, especially if you accidentally run over your neighbours pet rabbit

{sackcloth and rabbit's droppings}

[djewesbury]

Appropriate. Apparently you can eat them. Well, rabbits can.

[jdaw1]

Christie Manson & Woods, on 21 November 1894:

[DRT]

I don't get it.

[flash_uk]

No gentlemen in Warwickshire have been disturbed in 30 years. Interesting.

[DRT]

Go to the Graham's Lodge, it's the furthest away from the bridge

"farthest", surely?

[djewesbury]

Are you sure, Derek?

[DRT]

Yes.

[djewesbury]

I think you'll find they're the same thing.

[DRT]

I think you'll find they're the same thing.

I think you will find they are not.

[djewesbury]

I will only permit citations from Fowler's. You could have written that web page. That's why it took you so long to post here. You were making that web page. Anyway get over to one quiz at a time and stop lounging about here like a corner boy.

[flash_uk]

I think you'll find they're the same thing.

I think you will find they are not.

Although the same website does point out:
If talking about actual distance, both “farther” and “furthest” may be used. But for more non-physical or abstract usage, “furthest” is the only option.