> Clearly, at least to me, either system can work and does work for
> different people. I think the main thing to remember is that not
> everybody uses either convention and so being explicit (or at least
> unambiguous) about which system one uses will help to minimize
> confusion.
No argument about that. I would like Robert's usage if he just left off
st, nd, rd, and th. With them tacked on, he's trying to have it both
ways at the same time. Consider the Ath, Bth, and Cth.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Eric Jacobsen●March 30, 20062006-03-30
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>Rick Lyons wrote:
>>
>> Thinking about it now, it seems incorrect to me
>> because the kth bin when k=2 is not the second bin.
>> I suppose it's OK to say the "kth bin" so long
>> as we do not assign a value to k.
>>
>> How strange that after all this time we learn that
>> the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
>> unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
>
>I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
>you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
>second bin) as a matter of brevity? 2 (or 72 for that matter) is a
>perfectly good name for a bin or a marble. First and second are
>ordinals, not names, and that's where the rub lies. When a bunch of
>bins, cookie jars, apartments, or what have you are named with
>consecutive numbers beginning with 28, then #28 is the first one.
Not if they're "named" with numbers out of order. Maybe 28 is just
the smallest magnitude number used among the names. It wasn't clear
from your analogy. ;)
You can smack me later. ;)
>Inappropriate use of ordinals is the problem here.
>
>Jerry
I agree that this is just another language communications problem.
Robert and I (and probably some others here) like the simplicity of
the aligned case and have found it to be effective for communicating
what's going on. Others find the strict ordinality argument more
compelling.
Clearly, at least to me, either system can work and does work for
different people. I think the main thing to remember is that not
everybody uses either convention and so being explicit (or at least
unambiguous) about which system one uses will help to minimize
confusion.
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Reply by John Monro●March 30, 20062006-03-30
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Rick Lyons wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rick Lyons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>> Hi Jer,
>>
>>
>>>> How strange that after all this time we learn that the "language" we
>>>> use may not be the best, the most unambiguous, language.
>>>> Interesting, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah.
>>> Have you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin
>>> (not the second bin) as a matter of brevity?
>>
>>
>>
>> I just thought of something:
>>
>> You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like
>> tomahto.
>> Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off.
>>
>> Jerry, too often your posts force me to dig into my dictionary to
>> understand what you're saying. For example, your use of the word
>> "ordinal".
>>
>> I thought, "Ordinal, ordinal. What the heck is an ordinal?" I
>> always thought an ordinal was the title of a high-ranking official in
>> the Catholic church.
>
>
> A) I like that! Can we speak of an ordinal sin? (I can think of one.)
To refer to Pope Pius I as 'Pope Pius the Oneth'would be an ordinal sin.
> Actually, the Catholic church does have ordinals. One is a book of
> instructions for conducting services -- the way services are to be
> ordered*.
>
The Catholic Church may not use cardinal numbers, but it does have a
number of Cardinals.
> B) Numbers are not the only ordinals. Any sequence whose order is
> understood -- which will allow sorting into "before" and "after" -- will
> do. Mostly, we use letters if we don't use numbers. There are enough for
> most purposes, and everyone knows the, ahem, order.
>
> Jerry
> _______________________________________
> * The Jewish celebration of Passover is called a seder, which is Hebrew
> for "book". It's too long for most people to remember without a book.
Reply by Ron N.●March 29, 20062006-03-29
Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >Rick Lyons wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> Hi Jer,
>
> >> How strange that after all this time we learn that
> >> the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
> >> unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
> >
> >I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
> >you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
> >second bin) as a matter of brevity?
>
> Your suggestion (the "2 bin") sure makes
> sense to me.
I might even go further and call it "the number 2 bin" (third bin or
bin[2]).
Given the length of this thread, it might take repeated redundant
naming
to avoid confusion within the maximum percentage of a large audience.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 29, 20062006-03-29
Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Rick Lyons wrote:
>
>
> (snipped)
>
> Hi Jer,
>
>
>>>How strange that after all this time we learn that
>>>the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
>>>unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
>>
>>I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
>>you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
>>second bin) as a matter of brevity?
>
>
> I just thought of something:
>
> You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato
> and I like tomahto.
> Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the
> whole thing off.
>
> Jerry, too often your posts force me to dig into my
> dictionary to understand what you're saying.
> For example, your use of the word "ordinal".
>
> I thought, "Ordinal, ordinal. What the heck is an
> ordinal?" I always thought an ordinal was the
> title of a high-ranking official in the
> Catholic church.
A) I like that! Can we speak of an ordinal sin? (I can think of one.)
Actually, the Catholic church does have ordinals. One is a book of
instructions for conducting services -- the way services are to be
ordered*.
B) Numbers are not the only ordinals. Any sequence whose order is
understood -- which will allow sorting into "before" and "after" -- will
do. Mostly, we use letters if we don't use numbers. There are enough for
most purposes, and everyone knows the, ahem, order.
Jerry
_______________________________________
* The Jewish celebration of Passover is called a seder, which is Hebrew
for "book". It's too long for most people to remember without a book.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Rick Lyons●March 29, 20062006-03-29
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>Rick Lyons wrote:
(snipped)
Hi Jer,
>> How strange that after all this time we learn that
>> the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
>> unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
>
>I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
>you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
>second bin) as a matter of brevity?
I just thought of something:
You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato
and I like tomahto.
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the
whole thing off.
Jerry, too often your posts force me to dig into my
dictionary to understand what you're saying.
For example, your use of the word "ordinal".
I thought, "Ordinal, ordinal. What the heck is an
ordinal?" I always thought an ordinal was the
title of a high-ranking official in the
Catholic church.
[-Rick-]
Reply by Rick Lyons●March 29, 20062006-03-29
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:44:48 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>Rick Lyons wrote:
(snipped)
Hi Jer,
>> How strange that after all this time we learn that
>> the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
>> unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
>
>I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
>you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
>second bin) as a matter of brevity?
Your suggestion (the "2 bin") sure makes
sense to me.
[-Rick-]
Reply by John Monro●March 28, 20062006-03-28
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Inappropriate use of ordinals is the problem here.
>
Amen!
Regards, John
Reply by Jerry Avins●March 28, 20062006-03-28
Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:44:02 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
> <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
>>>Hi John,
>>>may the Force be with you.
>>>
>>>I can imagine someone saying the "zeroth bin"
>>>in referring to the DFT bin centered at zero Hz.
>>>But then what would they call the next bin to
>>>the right? The "oneth bin"? And would they
>>>refer to the next bin to the right as the "twoth bin"?
>>>Sheece, that doesn't sound right.
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>
>>of course not. because i said it. right, Rick?
>
>
> Well, humm, ... I'm not sure what you're saying right there.
> I confess I haven't read all the posts in this thread,
> and my newsgroup software sometimes doesn't show me
> all the posts.
>
> Perhaps we should use terminology like: "the m=0 bin",
> or "the m=7 bin". Language language language, it can
> be troublesome at times.
>
>
>>well if you call it the "first bin", some (like John) will think X[0] and
>>others will think X[1]. but if i (first) say "zeroeth bin" to refer to
>>X[0], i think all of the students in that EE295 class knew what i meant when
>>i said "oneth bin" or "twoth bin", especially after hearing me rant about
>>stupid MATLAB hard-wired indexing that puts the DC component in X(1).
>
>
> I sure agree with you about MATLAB. Many times I've had
> problems because I'm unable to allow the index vector
> of a sequence to start with zero. I sure wish MathWorks
> would "fix" that.
>
>
>>but it was clear, when i said "kth bin" it was X[k]. so what did you mean
>>by "kth bin", Rick? X[k-1]? geee, how natural.
>
>
> Sounds like you've had a bad day today Robert.
> I don't remember saying "the kth bin" in any of my posts.
> But I'm sure I've used the phrase "the kth bin" before.
>
> Thinking about it now, it seems incorrect to me
> because the kth bin when k=2 is not the second bin.
> I suppose it's OK to say the "kth bin" so long
> as we do not assign a value to k.
>
> How strange that after all this time we learn that
> the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
> unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
I'm glad you're now part of this overwhelmingly momentous hoo-hah. Have
you considered my suggestion of calling the m=2 bin the 2 bin (not the
second bin) as a matter of brevity? 2 (or 72 for that matter) is a
perfectly good name for a bin or a marble. First and second are
ordinals, not names, and that's where the rub lies. When a bunch of
bins, cookie jars, apartments, or what have you are named with
consecutive numbers beginning with 28, then #28 is the first one.
Inappropriate use of ordinals is the problem here.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Rick Lyons●March 28, 20062006-03-28
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:44:02 -0500, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
(snipped)
>
>> Hi John,
>> may the Force be with you.
>>
>> I can imagine someone saying the "zeroth bin"
>> in referring to the DFT bin centered at zero Hz.
>> But then what would they call the next bin to
>> the right? The "oneth bin"? And would they
>> refer to the next bin to the right as the "twoth bin"?
>> Sheece, that doesn't sound right.
Hi Robert,
>of course not. because i said it. right, Rick?
Well, humm, ... I'm not sure what you're saying right there.
I confess I haven't read all the posts in this thread,
and my newsgroup software sometimes doesn't show me
all the posts.
Perhaps we should use terminology like: "the m=0 bin",
or "the m=7 bin". Language language language, it can
be troublesome at times.
>well if you call it the "first bin", some (like John) will think X[0] and
>others will think X[1]. but if i (first) say "zeroeth bin" to refer to
>X[0], i think all of the students in that EE295 class knew what i meant when
>i said "oneth bin" or "twoth bin", especially after hearing me rant about
>stupid MATLAB hard-wired indexing that puts the DC component in X(1).
I sure agree with you about MATLAB. Many times I've had
problems because I'm unable to allow the index vector
of a sequence to start with zero. I sure wish MathWorks
would "fix" that.
>but it was clear, when i said "kth bin" it was X[k]. so what did you mean
>by "kth bin", Rick? X[k-1]? geee, how natural.
Sounds like you've had a bad day today Robert.
I don't remember saying "the kth bin" in any of my posts.
But I'm sure I've used the phrase "the kth bin" before.
Thinking about it now, it seems incorrect to me
because the kth bin when k=2 is not the second bin.
I suppose it's OK to say the "kth bin" so long
as we do not assign a value to k.
How strange that after all this time we learn that
the "language" we use may not be the best, the most
unambiguous, language. Interesting, huh?
See Ya',
[-Rick-]