It's not really applicable but "stochastician" would be a cool word.

@KitZ.Fox Or humans.

Well there was that one horse.

@KitZ.Fox He-e-e-e-llo.

Maybe not that horse.

@KitZ.Fox lost by a nose to Non-Linear Monodromy Group

@Mitch For engineering purposes, that's a tie.

@FaheemMitha Understandable.

@FaheemMitha most statisticians are really statistical modeling consultants who use statistical methods as opposed to creating them. Also they tend to be more applied.

So let's say there is nontrivial overlap, like there is applied physics, which is mostly mechanical engineering (I know that's not accurate) and theoretical physics which is really just math that is motivated by the thin hope that it might be used some day by engineers

@Mitch That's true of most professions. Most use rather than create.

Please suggest me the best English music you have ever heard .. I need a new music to listen.

@FaheemMitha I'll grant you that most biostatisticians are applied statisticians and so don't knw much about the math they use (or the rest of mathematics that don't touch on teir field).

@Shafizadeh Any particular genre?

@Shafizadeh Define "English" music.

In classical music there's not a lot.

@Mitch The biostats people I've run into were, frankly, morons.

But of course that isn't necessarily true of all biostats people.

But stats people in general don't exactly occupy an intellectual pinnacle.

In contrast, most of the math people I've met in my life have tended to be fairly smart.

Often weird, and with personality disorders. But smart.

@FaheemMitha clears throat

@FaheemMitha and one could also say that about mathematicians

@FaheemMitha and @Mitch, emm, it can be anything .. This and this are two musics I love.

@Mitch Like, I said, math people are smarter. It's all relative.

What do you do?

@Shafizadeh are you looking for songs in English with clear and easy to understand lyrics?

@FaheemMitha there are idiots everywhere, and smart people everywhere too.

@Mitch kinda .. Actually I'm looking for a great music .. understanding isn't my first priority .. I just like to listen it and enjoy the melody

@Mitch Yes, but the density is higher in some professions. It isn't uniform.

I can't say that mathematicians are a pinnacle since they tend not to know so much about the real world (science or humanities).

As, for instance, lawyers and pols are more likely to be crooked than the general population.

@Mitch Well, they tend to be smart people. Though often very narrowly focused.

BUt then there's the not inaccurate 'Two Cultures', which is a bit lopsided because the science people tend to know more about humanities than the other way around.

Also, they tend to have a markedly higher level of personality/mental problems than the general population.

Based on my personal observation.

Of course, there are always exceptions.

@FaheemMitha I think that is overcrediting mathematics itself because it's perceived as 'so hard'

@Mitch Again, my personal opinion, based on my personal observations.

@FaheemMitha that's somewhat of a broken myth.

@Mitch Not myth. Observation.

And I've met really quite a lot of math people in my life. Unfortunately.

They don't tend to be very pleasant to be around.

@FaheemMitha no. I'm saying there was a study done of mental health and academic faculty, and there was no correlation shown.

the plural of anecdote is not data

@Mitch Shrug.

I wasn't talking about academic faculty, I was talking about mathematicians.

Well, math people. Including grad students, I'd say.

@FaheemMitha except that you were using the term 'mathematicians'.

@Mitch Sorry, I don't follow.

I personally use the term 'mathematicians' to mean someone who has published at least one math research paper. Many consider that an overly narrow definition. But at least it's relatively precise.

And the term "math person" to denote someone who "does" math.

@FaheemMitha I'm sorry. I didn't get your statement about faculty vs mathematicians. So let me mathsplain. I was saying the study was done on all faculty, including mathematicians. and no correlation was found of faculty to amount of mental illness, including mathematicians.no particular faculty was found to have more or less mental illness than the others.

Now of course, my memory may be fallible (since I don't have a link to such a study).

@Mitch By faculty, do you mean "subject area"?

It could very well have been a study of just mathematicians.

@FaheemMitha yes.

Again, it's just my own observation. And I don't necessarily mean mental illness. Which is a relatively extreme thing.

@FaheemMitha Then what do you mean?

I was just talking about personality/mental problems. It's a gray area.

because we were talking about mental illness before.

@Mitch No, I never used the term "mental illness".

so you're moving the goal posts?

@Mitch No.

@FaheemMitha OK my term. But I was trying to devaguify things.

Otherwise we're just bullshitting, and there's no truth value to anything.

not that anything's wrong with that.

@Mitch Well, saying someone has mental "problems" is more general than "illness". "illness" implies a breakdown in normal functioning.

It's a relatively extreme scenario.

It's obviously a continuum. No human is completely mentally healthy.

Well that's vague to the point of being unusable.

But I've met a higher proportion of weirdos in the math population than outside it. Colloquially speaking.

@Mitch usable for what? It was just an observation.

You could take the example of some famous mathematicians: Cantor, Post, Gödel, who were famous for having mental 'problems' ('nutjob', depression, eating disorder). But those stand out, and all the many who don't have mental 'problems' (as you say) are never mentioned.

@FaheemMitha unusable as a trustworthy observation, an observation that can be reliably generalized.

@Mitch Well, in most cases, it isn't/wasn't extreme.

@Mitch Not really sure how to respond to that. All observations are subjective. I can't prove a theorem about this.

What I think we're boiling this down to is that you think that some of the mathy people you know (that none of us know) are weirder than those who are not mathy.

for some vague notion of 'weird' and 'mathy'

@Mitch Well, a bit more than that. They're definitely more maladjusted than the general population. Which may be part of the reason why they drifted into maths.

After all, there are a lots of things that the typical human can do. Why choose maths?

or it could be the other way, their natural inclination towards math alienated them from others socially.

Tonight is 'being contrary' night.

Not exactly opposite day.

Because if it were opposite day, you wouldn't say 'It's opposite day'. Because then that would mean it's not opposite day ... on opposite day. You see? A bit of a mess.

@Mitch Hmm. Possibly. It's hard to say. But my theory is that people who seek intellectual pursuits often do so because they aren't getting what they need from their surroundings.

So, it becomes a refuge.

Like how people with glasses are smart.

Also, I think intensive study of math can have personality warping effects all on its own. It's a very isolating thing to study. You can't really talk about it with anyone. Even worse than, say, theoretical physics.

@Mitch Another related example would be how many Jewish people used to be in German universities.

Perhaps that was because they more discriminated in other occupations.

Anyway, time to go back to sleep. Take care, everyone.

Xenobombulation.

@MetaEd Hello, may I borrow your pre-written comments, such as these?

And where can I find more of such comments?

Which one is correct?

@NVZ They tend to crop up quite often in questions on the VtC review queue.

@tchrist If I may ask, are you a member of IEEE?

@stack What's the context?

@Lawrence long store .. I'm just trying to say "that's pretty clear which what you said isn't true"

@stack The first is somewhat condescending, the second is an emphatic denial.

ah :-)

@stack The first is preferable in this context as a general rule. The second would be typically applied to cases where action on your part is required, so it might signify what you want to say in a case where you're asked a question like "Don't you believe me?" but usually not. Either way the sentence is a little fractured, so you would have to be aware of what was being said.

Either way, the acceptability of that as a response will depend upon whether the person wants you to believe them, or if they would rather have a denial. Nobody likes to be called a liar (especially liars), but if an unfavorable supposition is posited (Do you think I'm ugly/foolish/dishonest?), then a denial would probably be considered a relieving assurance. If I am not mistaken, "Absolutely not!" would be a stronger denial and hence more distressing, or assuring as a result.

To defragment the sentence, I suppose you could write "That is obviously/absolutely not the case." so instead of relying on the 'not' being interpreted as negating the verb in the denied sentence, you can directly deny the existence of the statement you are denying (represented by the substitute "that") as a true statement.

Eeh, just because it's long doesn't mean it's very good. Do you have any opinions on the accuracy of my claims @JasperLoy?

@JasperLoy Ah, I understand that feeling.

Obviously not - We/I/anyone/any intelligent person can see it's not so.

Absolutely not Absolutely can serve as an intensifier, emphasizing total certainty that it's wrong. It seems stronger, but they are both strong disagreements.

@JimReynolds Yeah, that's about right Jim. I might amend that maybe even a fool might understand, depending upon exactly how obvious the claim is.

@Tonepoet Even I can see that.

I would suppose the reason absolutely not seems stronger is that it is an objective claim, rather than a subjective one.

@Tonepoet The first is more common in the context, but preferable?

I guess hazes do tend to smell.

Most probably smell hazey.

@JasperLoy !

@JimReynolds Well yes. I figure it's more commonly used because it's more often applicable and applicability is better than the lack thereof to somebody who might have to guess which one is better.

ELU needs more ELLLs

Also a weaker statement backfires less readily.

@Tonepoet Groan. Now I have to look at the context. Thanks a lot!

Is that all the context there is?

L.O.L., there's no context and the person isn't here to ask. I think you might understand why I'm writing in such a generalized fashion now.

To disagree with an assertion, generally.

Oh me oh my, Jim saw through me. I do disagree with Lawrence's claim somewhat and felt it needed some amendment.

Propounded: @Tonepoet is illiterate.

@JasperLoy Maybe my skull is. ;-)

I might use either to disagree.

@JimReynolds Oh, so I take it you disagree with my analysis? Would you mind enlightening me as to why it is incorrect?

But I'm still assessing the veracity of the proposition

That the first is preferable?

Hmm.... <thinking>

It might be a little premature to claim I can't read then, if you're not sure yet.

I said might!

I try to be open-minded

Well, you said propounded but evidently that's effectively the same thing. That's fairer I suppose, esp. since I didn't recognize that word.

@Tonepoet When can we use obviously but not absolutely?

Propounded as a hypothetical.

Right, it's synonymous to posited, effectively.

Like resolved in a debate title.

I meant: Let us consider, then opine.

Hmm, I lost my train of thought from earlier so coming up with an off-the-top of my head example is admittedly difficult now.

Points to centaur infant. Am I the real father? Obviously not.

Eeh, here's the thing though. Obviously requires there to be evidence to make something obvious.

So perhaps in this case absolutely is preferable.

@Tonepoet Mine never left the station. Mostly just hisses steam.

@Tonepoet Obviously

However suppose I asked you "May I eat the pudding?" how would you intensify the sentiment, between these two choices?

Probably with absolutely come to think of it... unless...

...unless you were eating it. =P

Absolutely not. We need the proof.

And it always seems to be in there.

However there is a requisite to absoluteness too. The problem is that it is more of a subjective requisite. It is the lack of doubt.

So while you might be able to use "absolutely not" wherever "obviously not" is applied in a literal sense, it might not necessarily be a true statement.

Basically you can doubt what's evident, and sometimes even be right, was probably something along the lines of what I was thinking.

Or perhaps... no.

If I say that @JimReynolds Obviously didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar, that means I dismissed the proposition based upon what I have observed, but perhaps Jim is framing @JasperLoy . If I said @JimReynolds Absolutely did not do it, then I am ruling him out as a suspect altogether.

In it's precise sense, yes. But it's come to have a more general meaning, no? I really don't think so. No way.

Perhaps, but precision is everything if you are considering which is better, isn't it?

So both terms are sometimes used without complete certainty, even though they may mean such in a narrow sense.

But is one preciser?

Absolute feels that way.

Well of course you'd say that, when you are the accused. ;-)

These crumbs have been there since yesterday!

@Tonepoet But we can use either term and end up being wrong. Irrelevant?

It seems so obvious doesn't it? However, you forgot one thing Jimmy boy! You had old stale cookies lying around in your bedroom and one of them is missing. You just crumbled one up so you could cover up your theft of the real one

@JimReynolds No, but I tried to mention that earlier though.

Oh. Well I have CRS.

You understand.

Actually, I do not understand. What is C.R.S?

Can't remember shit.

Hmm, maybe that train left the station after-all. ;-)

And thanks for your cooperation! :-)

Oh no, the pleasure is all mine @JimReynolds . You certainly gave me some interesting thoughts to consider. I'll have to examine some contexts to see if there is a circumstance where "absolutely" is absolutely the wrong choice, regardless of subjective considerations.

After reading the preface of this book, I am disappointed. Based upon its title, I was hoping it would be more akin to a rebuttal to the ever so popular "Google it" response.

Note to self, if I ever do write a book which has a character with a lisp, I should remember to use the ſ character in his speech..

@Tonepoet :-) I meant your cooperation in asking what CRS was.

I needed it for the hilarious punchline. Zing!

I need to check whether the system gave me a medal for that. Or a hat.

I walked into that one, ſufferin ſuckotaſh.

The problem is that it's a lowercase ſ, ſo it doeſn't work at the beginning of a ſentence. It might not even work at either end of the word, but I care about that leſſ.

Name him Cecil Simpson!

Woah there buddy, Shideſhow Bob's brother had enunciation that was just as good as Niles Crane's!

=P

Then again @JimReynolds, his last name wasn't Simpson come to to think of it. Nice trick: Fool me twice, shame on me.

@Tonepoet Do you recall which golf implement made Homer drool?

I do not but now I am trying to think if any are shaped like a doughnut.

I used to remember the plots to the episodes like the back of my hand, but I eventually stopped watching The Simpsons.

I'm sure you remember the secret ingredient to the Flaming Homer Moe @JimReynolds.

@Tonepoet An open-faced sand witch club.

Homer mis-heard.

@Tonepoet No. Fire?

That sounds plausible!

It is!

@JimReynolds No, it obviously had fire. The secret ingredient was cough syrup! Ordinary children's cough syrup.

*You need to use an open-faced club. A sand witch.#

You need to use an open-faced club. A sand witch.

That was the line.

Haha. A cocktail of Moe's creation?

Nah, it was Homer's invention but Moe stole the credit for it.

Krusty line of pharmaceutics, the medicine?

That's it.

:D

A lovely season 3 episode.

The Simpsons and I have lost each other, too.

People change, series move on.

It seems to have happened to most of the older fans. Somewhere by season 10, I imagine?

I'll use this in my Buddhist meditations.

Did I say boost my medications?

That line sounds Krusty. =P

Haha

@Mitch There are two types of nougat - soft and hard. For soft nougat, imagine marshmallow, but much denser - about the consistency of cold honey, maybe denser still. For hard nougat, imagine frozen marshmallow (yes, it's brittle). Recently, I was given some and left it in its wrapper, in my pocket. Surprisingly, it deflated (the nougat, that is, not my pocket :P). Very much like a marshmallow.

@Tonepoet What do you disagree with? Obviously not obviously not. And absolutely not absolutely not. :)

I disagree that it's a sympathetic difference.

And I disagree that obviously not is always condescending as well.

@Tonepoet What do you mean by sympathetic difference?

Absolutely not can be absolutely callous at times, such as the contexts of dishonesty I mentioned, whereas "obviously not" can be sympathetic in the cases where "absolutely not" would be sympathetic, albeit perhaps not to the same degree.

@Tonepoet Ok, that I'll accept. However, it's only not condescending when the denial is mutually agreed. Otherwise, even when the obviousness is a 'fact', one has to consider that what's obvious to one may not always be obvious to someone else. So if you're denying the effect of someone else's claim, and saying that the error is obvious, you're belittling their perception, reason, or whatever - because it's obvious and they didn't realise it. Hence, "somewhat condescending".

That's true, in some cases, although you do have to consider that a disagreement in and of itself can have that effect, especially if it's a strong disagreement such as an absolute one.

@Tonepoet Hmm, I didn't say anything in my original reply about sympathy in that sense. I used the term emphatic denial, meaning (loosely) that the denial was emphasised, not that it was said in empathy.

We might say we disagree but if we intend to be considerate in our disagreement, it's probably best not to strengthen the sentiment further than necessary.

Well, the difference between sympathy and empathy is quite small. Perhaps it's a 20th century distinction if I recall correctly.

@Tonepoet Oh, ok. Just in case, I should say that for my part, I was treating this as an academic debate, not personal.

@Lawrence Oh Lawrence, I doubt there's much need to be so formal between us. If anybody should be apologizing it should probably be me, since I figured as much and I did out my dissenting opinion. However I think we're both rational enough to discuss things intelligently.

@Tonepoet (Are you asking to agree to disagree on this subject, or are you citing a counter-example to one of the forms?)

@Tonepoet Phew. :)

@Lawrence It's a counterexample. Citation is to invoke somebody else's name isn't it?

@Tonepoet So shall we continue the discussion?

Yeah, they do don't they?

@Lawrence I'm not so sure how much more the discussion can be furthered.

@Tonepoet Ok.

Like me!

@JasperLoy We might have 2 or 3 etymologists.

@JasperLoy Yes, maybe some of those, too. I don't think they've identified themselves, though.

Cagey buggers.

@JasperLoy Lunatic as in pertaining to the moon, a crazy person or perhaps both? Ooh, a mod. Eheheh, perhaps It's a bad time to be admitting my secret that I don't belong here in any true capacity. Then again I suppose tchrist can also see through me.

That sounds less like a haze and more like a miasma.

We're opening a discussion on where to draw the line when closing "X vs Y" questions. Everyone's welcome. Link coming up:

@JasperLoy Thanks. :)

@JasperLoy We're trying to tease out the thinking behind making the decisions. It's non-trivial, I agree.

@JasperLoy That's a good point. I'm going to paste it in the other chat room.

@JasperLoy :)

@JasperLoy Oh god yes. It's so hard to come up with good questions on this site, especially when one actually knows how to research things on the internet.

And yet ... and yet ... without questions being posted, the site wouldn't exist!

@Randal'Thor flags the naughty word

@tchrist It's from more than a year ago - long before the recent ban on that phrase.

And I can't censor the quote, unless I de-onebox it.

takes notes

recommends B♯

@tchrist B-what?

I can't even make out that symbol.

U+266F is MUSIC SHARP SIGN.