Lingo for layfolk?

Hi all,

I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
will need to use these concepts in order to select
the proper analysis methods for whatever data
they need to proces.

I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
flee the course. So I have tried to come up with
simpler terms:

Continous variable = measurable variable
Discrete variable = countable variable

Does this make sense to others than me?

Rune

On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
>to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
>'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
>will need to use these concepts in order to select
>the proper analysis methods for whatever data
>they need to proces.
>
>I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
>flee the course. So I have tried to come up with
>simpler terms:
>
>Continous variable = measurable variable
>Discrete variable = countable variable
>
>Does this make sense to others than me?

Continuous = like a string
Discrete = like beads on the string

Not rigorous but intuitive.

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

On 02/09/2011 23:59, Rich Webb wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rune Allnor
> <allnor@tele.ntnu.no>  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
>> to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
>> 'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
>> will need to use these concepts in order to select
>> the proper analysis methods for whatever data
>> they need to proces.
>>
>> I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
>> flee the course.

That is really a bit worrying!


So I have tried to come up with
>> simpler terms:
>>
>> Continous variable = measurable variable
>> Discrete variable = countable variable
>>
>> Does this make sense to others than me?
>
> Continuous = like a string
> Discrete = like beads on the string
>
> Not rigorous but intuitive.
>


Or: the difference between a fretless bass and a standard bass (or 
violin v viol). The frets enforce discrete pitch steps (and can be 
counted and measured); without them you can traverse the fingerboard, 
er, continuously. Any number of similar analogies suggest themselves. 
The ribbon controller on a Moog keyboard. A flute with finger holes 
versus a swanee whistle! Teach them some music, and the math will 
(almost) take care if itself :-).

Inasmuch as it is a vocabulary issue: continuous is a commonly used word 
in daily life, only discrete is relatively unusual, and could be 
confused with "discreet". All it needs is the definition and you should 
be up and away.

Richard Dobson

Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

> I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
> to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
> 'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
> will need to use these concepts in order to select
> the proper analysis methods for whatever data
> they need to proces.

(snip)

> Continous variable = measurable variable
> Discrete variable = countable variable

It doesn't sound right mathematically (discrete can be infinite),
but otherwise is probably about right.

The less than/fewer than distinction has always bothered me.
Many things we think of as continuous really aren't, but usually
close enough.  There are an integer number of water molecules
in a cup of water, but we still can't count them.

Some years ago someone (CS person) corrected me (in a non-CS
context) regarding fewer than vs. less than.  My reply was that
couldn't be rigth, otherwise Fortran would need a .FT. operator
for integer comparison.  (and .FE. also).  

Always my favorite quantization problem, how many different
velocities can a baseball pitcher pitch at?  If you consider
a stadium as a quantum well, an integer number of half wavelengths
have to fit inside a (closed) stadium.  The problem is easier
in a square stadium than a round one, but that doesn't make a
huge difference in the answer. 

Semiconductor band theory is the continuous limit of molecular
orbital theory from chemistry.  Many discrete problems are easier
in the continuous approximation.

But I like the beads vs. string that someone else suggested.

-- glen

Hi,

the terms "analog" and "digital" come to mind.
Or "sampled", "stepped", "discrete" and "continuous" as proposed earlier.
"Floating point" and "integer" in programming, for example.

mnentwig <markus.nentwig@n_o_s_p_a_m.renesasmobile.com> wrote:

> the terms "analog" and "digital" come to mind.

I was thinking only a few days ago about analog (film) photography
and audio magnetic tape.  In the case of film photography, it is
usual that each silver grain is either completely developed or 
removed by the fixer.  That is, it is discrete in some sense.
But, unlike digital, the grains vary in size so it isn't band
limited in the sampled digital sense.  For magnetic tape, each
magnetic crystal is magnetized on way or the other, on average
representing the amplitude of the analog signal.  Again grains
vary in size, but are large on the atomic scale.

For phonograph (vinyl) records, the resolution limit in the
continuous/discrete determination, should be close to the 
atomic (or molecular) scale.  

Otherwise, outside the DSP context, analog and digital can
be very confusing to people.  Many believe that as DSL
and cable are digital, the device at the end isn't a modem.
(Even though it usually has modem in its name.)

> Or "sampled", "stepped", "discrete" and "continuous" as 
> proposed earlier.

> "Floating point" and "integer" in programming, for example.

That might work, but note that floating point isn't 
continuous, either.

-- glen

On Sep 3, 1:56&#4294967295;am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 23:59, Rich Webb wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rune Allnor
> > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> &#4294967295;wrote:
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
> >> to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
> >> 'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
> >> will need to use these concepts in order to select
> >> the proper analysis methods for whatever data
> >> they need to proces.
>
> >> I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
> >> flee the course.
>
> That is really a bit worrying!

The context is simple data analysis (statistical process
control, SPC), for layfolk users where nothing can be
assumed or expected wrt prior education. I have found
that most people understand the concepts when described
to them, but that terminology and nomenclature might
become unnecessary hurdles foe learning, if introduced
at the wrong time.

I usually explain the concepts as accurately as possible
in everyday language first, and then wrap up with something
like 'mathematicians or engineers use the term
<whatever> fot these things'. For some reason this
works better than first stating the term and then
explaining it.

Rune

On 3 Sep, 01:56, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 23:59, Rich Webb wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rune Allnor
> > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> &#4294967295;wrote:
>
> >> Hi all,
>
> >> I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
> >> to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
> >> 'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
> >> will need to use these concepts in order to select
> >> the proper analysis methods for whatever data
> >> they need to proces.
>
> >> I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
> >> flee the course.
>
> That is really a bit worrying!

It's not as bad as it sounds. This is a class for people who want
to use Statistical Process Control, SPC, but where nothing
can be assumed or expected wrt prior education. Choosing the
correct method is crucial, even if the nasty bits are wrapped
inside some software package.

I have found that first explaining whatever concept accurately
but in familiar language, and only introducing the terminology
afterwards, works far better than introducing terminology first
and then explaining it. I don't know why, but it seems seeing
'complicated' words or terms tend to intimidate people.
Particularly people who haven's got that much of an academic
education.

Rune

On 3 Sep, 13:54, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 3 Sep, 01:56, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/09/2011 23:59, Rich Webb wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Rune Allnor
> > > <all...@tele.ntnu.no> &#4294967295;wrote:
>
> > >> Hi all,
>
> > >> I am preparing a course for math layfolk, but need
> > >> to communicate the concepts of 'continuous' and
> > >> 'discrete' variables. Users of a software package
> > >> will need to use these concepts in order to select
> > >> the proper analysis methods for whatever data
> > >> they need to proces.
>
> > >> I can't use those terms, or participants will likely
> > >> flee the course.
>
> > That is really a bit worrying!
>
> It's not as bad as it sounds.

Right... sorry for the double (now tripple) posting: Nothing to do
with early onset of Alzheimer (at least not on my part). Google
Groups didn't show the first post half an hour after I attempted
to post, another post I wrote I wrote in a different thread showed
up immediately, so I thought the first reply in this thread had
been lost.

Excuses, excuses...

Rune

Well, I usually don't feel bad talking about "reconstructing an analog
waveform from a digital signal", for example. As long as it's my
presentation, it's me who's defining the terms, no one else.
If somebody comes up with an incompatible definition, that's his problem,
not mine.