Re: Very unusual WR for Lenton

"Steve Curtis" wrote:
"David W" wrote:

"Steve Curtis" wrote:

If you want to argue about a different
"we" you really should say so.

I think I already did when I wrote that
the "we" I was referring to were
yourself and myself. Try following your
own advice, learn to read.

Wrong. The "we" referred to who was in
the discussion at the time of my "how
much" post. You claimed otherwise
(even though it was my "we", and I
certainly knew which "we" I was referring
to).

So, which "we" is it that's now exchanging posted responses in this
thread regarding your "how much" comment?

Relevance?

thesaurus aren't you? Relatively simple
tasks that I don't need to do for you.

So you can't produce an example.

So, I take that response to mean that you can't read a dictionary or a
thesaurus for yourself and need to rely on me to provide the info for
you. Stick with the remedial English, you'll be able to read
dictionaries and thesauruses in due time.

Let's see. There's no "how much" in my Roget's Thesaurus index, so that's no
help, but here's something in the Concise Oxford Dictionary under "how": "how
much" 1 What amount (how much do I owe you? did not know how much to take). 2
what price (how much is it?) 3 (as interrog.) joc. what? ('She is a hedonist'
'A how much?').

Sorry, nothing there about "in what manner" or "to what effect". You made the
claim, so it's all up to you now. Are you able to provide an example or not? If
you can't, I'll have to assume that you are lying.

As for the peer-review matter, are you
disputing that you got it wrong?

No, the dispute is that you got it wrong.

In what way, and how is an assertion
that I got it wrong a "dispute"?

It was your assertion itself that was disputed.

Is this the assertion? "First of all, scientific papers on the subject need to
be peer-reviewed." IIRC, you took this to mean that I had claimed that the
paper had never been peer-reviewed. Correct?

But the question is whether there is
sufficient information to produce a
formula for a given specific situation.
Is there?

Possibly for someone who's informed
but apparently not for you since it's
causing such a quandary for you.

Only "possibly"? But you were so sure
before.

I've been acknowledging "possibly" all along. Because of intangible
factors, there is no absolute certainty of an exact mathematical
solution.

Oh, I don't want an exact mathematical solution. An approximate one will do,
that is, one within a few tenths of a second, since Lenton broke the WR by 0.31
seconds.

Common sense would lead one to that conclusion. That's why an
approximation at best was mentioned in the first place.

That would be fine. Thanks.

Is that a
concept too difficult for you to grasp?

And you need to realize that there's a
world out there beyond your hole in
the ground. Remember that Google is
your friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=maths+-math&meta=

Your point? To show you know how to
use "Google"?

Apparently, you don't.

Oh please, the reference I posted about drafting in swimming was one of
many search results on the topic from Google.

So why didn't you use it to look up "maths"? Once again, this word appears to
have mysteriously vanished after you were _so_ enthusiastic about it earlier.

There is either sufficient information to
do the calculation or there isn't. In this
case there isn't.

To you, no. To someone else, possibly.

I see. Only possibly again.

Hopefully the remedial English will pay off soon so that you'll be able
to look up the definition of "possibly" and know what it means when used
in this context.

What about "do the math if you want to quantify it"? Are you saying now that
it's only _possible_ to "do the math"?

And you are confident that there is
sufficient information available via
Google to determine how much time
Lenton gained from drafting behind
Phelps?

With a diligent search yielding enough of the right information,

Of course! Enough of the "right information"!

and
data, a reasonable approximation is not out of the question for someone
knowledgeable, especially someone having a supportive background in
fluid dynamics, physics, etc.

And on what information do you base the conclusion that a suitably qualified
person could determine how much assistance Lenton received from Phelps?

BTW, you didn't acknowledge my
assumption on whether you yourself
have any swimming skills or not.

Well, it's hardly relevant to how much
time Lenton gained against Phelps, is it?

So, I take that as a "no."

No, just an "irrelevant". How an earth could I use my swimming experience to
assist in this matter?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Very unusual WR for Lenton
    ... certainly knew which "we" I was referring ... patronizing advice, learn to read. ... many search results on the topic from Google. ... So, I take that as a "no." You don't have any swimming skills, right? ...
    (rec.sport.swimming)
  • Re: Match Web Help to Office Product
    ... I'm not sure how searching Help or Google applies here, ... Web (or in 2003 Microsoft Office Online) takes you to the Office ... The capability I was referring to is on the Help task pane and the ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
  • Re: The New York Times
    ... it's simply not specific enough to say "The Times" when referring ... Times" is no longer an adequate sole name for a newspaper. ... English user and a dilettantish student of English usage, ... Google counts. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: The New York Times
    ... There's nothing vague about knowing that people in Los Angeles say ... it's simply not specific enough to say "The Times" when referring ... Times" is no longer an adequate sole name for a newspaper. ... Google counts. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Light speed broken by CERN, so they claim
    ... averaged behaviour of a large number of photons and charged particles. ... I'm not sure which assumption you're referring to there. ... should be seen as better approximation than PM but still just an approximation. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)