Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:15:21 -0500, val bykoski wrote: The existing (formal) language, being helpful, was created hundreds years ago and of course needs an update. How does this follow? Why does something need to be updated *just* because it was created hundreds of years ago? Isn't it more likely that having passed the test of time, something that old is going to be better than some untested, untried new invention? -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Paul Rubin wrote: signal processing, for example. Perhaps it could be improved by being more explicit about what the reader needs to know, and giving references to other books where the prerequisites can be found. There are lots of good explanations, graphs, diagrams and such things in the margins (I'm a few pages further in the book now) but the main course seems to be mathematical formulas. The author should reverse the roles these presentations play, move the archaic math jargon to the margin, or better to a separate latech document, suitable for those unwilling to join the rest of humanity. A separate Python library would be handy too, and if not in the main text it could still be useful for those who lack training in obscure scientific dialects and want to understand things without any agreed upon beforehand gibberish that is mainly meant to exclude those not in the guild. I also don't think presenting the math in Python would make things any easier conceptually. The math in Sussman and Wisdom's Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics is all presented in Scheme, but it's still the same math that's normally presented as equations, and you have to think just as hard to understand it. The problem for me is that I recognize many of the used concepts, but they seem to be deliberately put in cryptic greek letters and undecipherable gibberish. It would not be necessary to present the math in Python, any reasonably consistent kind of pseudocode (but not Scheme or math notation) would made things a lot more clear to me. Something on a related subject with a presentation I like a bit better (but it has its problems too, while your book has more of these nice explanations and stuff, although in the margin): http://www.math.mtu.edu/~kreher/cages.html The authors of this book also seems to think we cannot do without obscure math notation, something which I disagree with very much, but at least they provide some pseudo code and some computer code, unfortunately in C but still better than nothing. The text of the book is not downloadable, but the algorithms source codes are. All of the books writers seem to have not caught up with the idea of hyperlinks and continue to dwell in neolithical paper dreams :-) If they only woke up and let someone like me write some Visual Python code to illustrate the algorithms or even let me just write Python implementations of the algorithms to accompany the books, I'd probably have work for years to come. Math is a beautiful subject, and is not at all secret or inaccessible. Try to broaden your horizons a bit ;-). I hope you're not trying to outexpertize me. You seem to be thinking that you know more about math than me, probably because you have a formal education in the subject? If so, you're proving my point, and thank you very much. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Anton Vredegoor wrote: Paul Rubin wrote(): [...] All of the books writers seem to have not caught up with the idea of hyperlinks and continue to dwell in neolithical paper dreams :-) If they only woke up and let someone like me write some Visual Python code to illustrate the algorithms or even let me just write Python implementations of the algorithms to accompany the books, I'd probably have work for years to come. Math is a beautiful subject, and is not at all secret or inaccessible. Try to broaden your horizons a bit ;-). I hope you're not trying to outexpertize me. You seem to be thinking that you know more about math than me, probably because you have a formal education in the subject? If so, you're proving my point, and thank you very much. Anton Well, to me it is not a matter of formal education, or math, or Python. There should be a *fresh thought/idea* how to handle the unknown reality. The existing (formal) language, being helpful, was created hundreds years ago and of course needs an update. But again, the point is not a new tool, even very flexible like Python. I think the *direct* sensor/data-driven techniques based on parsing/understanding observations (images, fields, etc) might be a step in promising direction. Any thoughts? respectful-ly y'rs, val -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Paul Rubin wrote: The first few pages are a review of probability theory but I think they assume you've seen it before. The book's subject matter is more mathematical by nature than what most programmers deal with from day to day, and as such, the book is not for everyone. And so the cycle repeats itself. We teach our students the world is all about money, and sure enough, the world is all about money. If we would continue to keep the interesting things away from most of the people, by hiding it behind mathematical jargon we end up believing that functional programming is connected to having a math degree and more such self serving and self fullfilling prophecies. An excellent book would break with this jargon advertising salesmanship. Anton but I'll give it one more try -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the real question is why it is that American publishers believe their readers are so lazy and ignorant that they require special translations of British books. I don't know anyone who has said I'm glad that I read the American edition of [Harry Potter/Discworld/pick your own example], it was much better than the British edition. Not even American fans. Something which irritates me, along with many other British people, is a book written in UK English, but which uses US spelling for the American market. If people can understand the words, then the slight differences in spelling shouldn't be a problem. -- David Wild using RISC OS on broadband -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Anton Vredegoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And so the cycle repeats itself. We teach our students the world is all about money, and sure enough, the world is all about money. If we would continue to keep the interesting things away from most of the people, by hiding it behind mathematical jargon we end up believing that functional programming is connected to having a math degree and more such self serving and self fullfilling prophecies. I don't think a math degree is needed to read that book, but you do need to know some basic calculus and probability. Maybe also some abstract algebra since error correcting codes generally involve finite field arithmetic. The book doesn't cover those subjects starting from scratch. I don't think it can reasonably be expected to do so. But it's less math-intensive than most books I've looked at about digital signal processing, for example. Perhaps it could be improved by being more explicit about what the reader needs to know, and giving references to other books where the prerequisites can be found. I also don't think presenting the math in Python would make things any easier conceptually. The math in Sussman and Wisdom's Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics is all presented in Scheme, but it's still the same math that's normally presented as equations, and you have to think just as hard to understand it. Math is a beautiful subject, and is not at all secret or inaccessible. Try to broaden your horizons a bit ;-). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Slow and to the pointless, but ... On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Terry Hancock wrote: On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:15:25 -0500 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More Britishisms are surviving in the Scholastic editions as the series goes on, but as the list for Half-Blood Prince shows the editors still make an amazing number of seemingly pointless changes: like: UK:Harry smiled vaguely back US:Harry smiled back vaguely I know you are pointing out the triviality of this, since both US and UK English allow either placement -- but is it really preferred style in the UK to put the adverb right before the verb? For the meaning which i assume is meant here, no, i wouldn't have said so. In US English, the end of the clause (or the beginning) is probably more common. Same in British English (or at least, English English). As Dave Hansen pointed out, Harry smiled vaguely back, means that the direction Harry was smiling was vaguely back - might have been a bit to the side or something. This actually gets back on topic ( ;-) ), because it might affect the localization of a Python interactive fiction module I'm working on -- it's a GUI to generate sentences that are comprehensible to the IF engine. My guess would be that you're going to need something far more powerful than a localisation engine for this. en_US: Sally, gently put flower in basket vs en_UK: Sally, put flower in basket gently That example isn't as bad as the Rowling one (although the lack of articles is a bit odd); i think i'd only use the latter form if i wanted to put particular emphasis on the 'gently', particularly if it was as a modified repetition of a previous sentence: Instructor: Sally, put a flower in the basket. [Sally roughly puts the flower in the basket, crushing it] Instructor: Sally, put a flower in the basket *gently*. Your second construction isn't the equivalent of the Rowling sentence, though, where the adverb goes right after the verb; that would make it Sally, put gently the flower in the basket, which would be completely awful. Or maybe it would be Sally, put the flower gently in the basket, which would be fine, although a bit dated - has an admittedly euphonious 1950s BBC English feel to it. tom -- It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:01:53 +, Tom Anderson wrote: As Dave Hansen pointed out, Harry smiled vaguely back, means that the direction Harry was smiling was vaguely back - might have been a bit to the side or something. That's an extremely artificial interpretation of the sentence, even if it is grammatically possible. Who talks about smiling in a physical direction? Does anyone ever say He smiled forward or She smiled north-by-north-east or She smiled to the side? The only thing even close to what you're talking about is He smiled out of the corner (or side) of his mouth -- not the same thing at all. Smiled vaguely back is a clumsy construction, and any decent editor should change it to smiled back vaguely regardless of whether they are from the US or UK. But clumsy or not, you're really pushing the envelope to get the interpretation that he smiled in a direction which was vaguely back. Yes, the sentence He smiled vaguely back is grammatically ambiguous, but semantically can have only one meaning: he returned a smile, but his smile was vague. He vaguely smiled back suffers the same fate. It too can imply that the smile was vague, or that the smile was only vaguely in return. Both interpretations are grammatically possible, but the second is semantically dubious. A good editor from any country is supposed to weed out clumsy, confusing sentences like that, and replace them with the grammatically unambiguous equivalent he smiled back vaguely. This isn't a localisation issue, it is a command of language issue. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Bengt Richter wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:12:24 +0200, Juho Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. ISTM probable that his original equation was really saying assert a*2.5e-8 == x which is not very different from assert x == a*2.5e-8 Did you mention that = is not == in python? I too would resist the idea that assert a*2.5e-8 == x should be written as x = a*2.5e-8 Regards, Bengt Richter He tried to assing 2.5e-8 times value of variable a to variable x. It had nothing to do with testing equality or asserting. It is just that he had absolutely no programming skills at all. However, he is learning quite fast. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock wrote: On 19 Jan 2006 13:57:06 +0100 Anton Vredegoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some time ago I tried to 'sell' Python to a mathematician. The crucial point was that it was not (in standard Python) possible to have a matrix A and a matrix B and then do for example: A = A * B and have a matrix multiplication performed. Um, why not? I'm trying to think what would be the stumbling block. I don't use matrix multiplies much, but I have implemented 3D vector math so that * is the dot product and % is the cross product, which is pretty trivial to do. Of course ! And to think that I even have used this trick a few times, for example to implement set operations using long integers. I feel ashamed. In my defense I can only explain what happened. Four years ago (when I knew a lot less of Python) I tried to use Numeric to do A*B for matrices, but that resulted in something else than expected. So I redefined the star operator by subclassing a *numeric python* object but then it didn't work (the subclassing IIRC). Then it turned out there was a Matrix module for Numeric that did exacly what was asked, but by that time I was trying to understand Numeric by reading the docs and 'selling Python' at the same time, which didn't work too well ... The main reason for that was that it was necessary to convince someone not having any Python knowledge to install Python *and* some module that I didn't know about and then that module needed *another* install which I didn't know about, and the docs for Numeric were separate from Python. Just too much at once. I believe if I just had implemented matrix multiplication myself at the time in plain Python I wouldn't have overcomplicated the matter in such a way that I couldn't convince anyone else anymore :-) So I got lost in Numerics complexities and that made me forget the basic option. By now I have used Numeric enough to make it likely that I could explain its use to someone. But even when I cured myself of this deficiency, the memory of failure stayed in my head. Witness a classic freudian fixation phenomenon in a Python learning curve :-) In order to prevent such mental damage for future Python programmers, I propose to add a simple matrix multiplication module to the standard distribution. The only obstacle I've run into is that you can't (easily) define *new* operators and precedence levels. There *is* a trick for doing this that was posted on the list some time back, which involved overloading an operator to apply an operator: It would've allowed you to do something like this: a |dot| b a |cross| b or perhaps a dot b a cross b I don't remember where this is posted. The trick was in overloading the , , or | to interact specially with operator objects. That's very nice. Thanks to you for mentioning this and to Jorge, who provided the link to activestate for this recipe in another message. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:20:04 -0800, Anton Vredegoor wrote: The old trick of 'but there are some things that cannot be expressed in any other way than by using formulas' doesn't get one many optimization points in my world. Alas, your world is not as precise and accurate as the world of mathematics. It isn't always about optimization: if you want *correctness*, then sometimes you can't optimize for ease of comprehension. As they say: Easy to understand, or correct: pick one. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:12:24 +0200, Juho Schultz wrote: Because the intended audience is probably reads formulas better than they read Python. The 1st sentence of the Introduction: This book is aimed at senior undergraduates and graduate students in Engineering, Science, Mathematics and Computing. Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. An hour??? No disrespect intended, but either you are really bad at explaining, or he is really bad at listening. Thinking of some of the MSc's I've known, especially those from Oxbridge, I'm guessing the second. The interpreter does not have human intelligence, and requires a fixed format. Equals sign does not represent equality, it represents assignment, and the left hand side of the assignment must be a name, end of story. Yes, it sucks that you can't write Python code in mathematics, just like it sucks that you can't write English in French or Lisp in C. Get over it. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Anton Vredegoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Returning to the original book, why did they write a lot of it (at least the first few pages until I gave up, after having trouble understanding formulas about concepts I have no such trouble with when framed in less jargonized from) in unintelligible mathemathical notation when there's Python? The first few pages are a review of probability theory but I think they assume you've seen it before. The book's subject matter is more mathematical by nature than what most programmers deal with from day to day, and as such, the book is not for everyone. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:04:51 +0100, Mikael Olofsson wrote: One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? If they are, a translation is in place. If they are not, the text should have been left as is. I guess the answer is: -Well, sort of... That's the sort of question which you should be asking a linguist. I'm told that linguists do NOT consider US English and UK English different languages, but merely different variants of English. And of course, standard UK English and standard US English are hardly spoken by anyone in the UK or US respectively. Both countries have dozens of different dialects and variants. But the real question is why it is that American publishers believe their readers are so lazy and ignorant that they require special translations of British books. I don't know anyone who has said I'm glad that I read the American edition of [Harry Potter/Discworld/pick your own example], it was much better than the British edition. Not even American fans. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-21, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? If they are, a translation is in place. If they are not, the text should have been left as is. I guess the answer is: -Well, sort of... That's the sort of question which you should be asking a linguist. I'm told that linguists do NOT consider US English and UK English different languages, but merely different variants of English. And of course, standard UK English and standard US English are hardly spoken by anyone in the UK or US respectively. Both countries have dozens of different dialects and variants. But the real question is why it is that American publishers believe their readers are so lazy and ignorant that they require special translations of British books. I don't know anyone who has said I'm glad that I read the American edition of [Harry Potter/Discworld/pick your own example], it was much better than the British edition. Not even American fans. The next thing you know, there are going to be American translations of Jane Austin where a girl says to her sister dude, he is such a hottie! and she replies oh my god, for sure! -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Intra-mural sports at results are filtering visi.comthrough th' plumbing... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:12:24 +0200, Juho Schultz wrote: Because the intended audience is probably reads formulas better than they read Python. The 1st sentence of the Introduction: This book is aimed at senior undergraduates and graduate students in Engineering, Science, Mathematics and Computing. Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. An hour??? No disrespect intended, but either you are really bad at explaining, or he is really bad at listening. Thinking of some of the MSc's I've known, especially those from Oxbridge, I'm guessing the second. The interpreter does not have human intelligence, and requires a fixed format. Equals sign does not represent equality, it represents assignment, and the left hand side of the assignment must be a name, end of story. Yes, it sucks that you can't write Python code in mathematics, just like it sucks that you can't write English in French or Lisp in C. Get over it. ... and if that fails, try repeated application of the clue stick until enlightenment or unconsciousness ensues. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The next thing you know, there are going to be American translations of Jane Austin where a girl says to her sister dude, he is such a hottie! and she replies oh my god, for sure! I actually heard that the US film version of Pride and Prejudice finished with a treacly happy-ending scene (unlike other countries' versions, and the book). I haven't confirmed this. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Grant Edwards wrote: On 2006-01-21, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] But the real question is why it is that American publishers believe their readers are so lazy and ignorant that they require special translations of British books. I don't know anyone who has said I'm glad that I read the American edition of [Harry Potter/Discworld/pick your own example], it was much better than the British edition. Not even American fans. The next thing you know, there are going to be American translations of Jane Austin where a girl says to her sister dude, he is such a hottie! and she replies oh my god, for sure! Like, gag me with a spoon, dude. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-21, Paul Rubin http wrote: The next thing you know, there are going to be American translations of Jane Austen where a girl says to her sister dude, he is such a hottie! and she replies oh my god, for sure! I actually heard that the US film version of Pride and Prejudice finished with a treacly happy-ending scene (unlike other countries' versions, and the book). I haven't confirmed this. It does. The movie ends with a scene that reminded me very much of the end of John Hughes' Sixteen Candles[1] where the couple (Elizibeth and Darcy) are sitting there at night in a romantic setting looking at each other all googly-eyed saying sweet things and then there's a nice long kiss. Very un-Austen I thought. IMO, it should have ended with the scene where Mr. Bennett said to Mrs. Bennet that should any more young men come to propose to his daughters to show them in. Not really directly out of the book, but it had the right feel to it. I suppose if you want to be more true to the book, you'd have to have a narrator do a sort of general summing-up like Austen does in the last chapter, but it would have been awkward to introduce a narrator at that point. [1] Not that I'm dissing Sixteen Candles. I actally like that movie quite a bit, but it's not pretending to be Jane Austen. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I am a jelly donut. I at am a jelly donut. visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Roger Upole wrote: Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I mean, when you read He sat on the chair do you need to look up the dictionary to discover that chairs can have arm rests or not, they can be made of wood or steel or uphostered springs, be on legs or coasters, fixed or movable? If it mattered, a good author will tell you, and if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. But if in their dialects of English chair strongly implies a hard, straight-backed, no-arms sitting-device, they won't elaborate, even if it DOES matter, exactly because it's already implied in the word they used. Not sure if this is true of any dialect of English, today, but it might be in Italian (for sedia, the exact translation of chair). So, you've just learned that He chose to sit in a chair rather than a sofa; depending on subtle nuances of the English dialect used (varying with time and space), this may have very different implications in defining the character and mood of this individual... Alex Hmm, and what if your context for chair was that unless you were to confess, you would be placed in a comfy one ? And furthermore, what if you were told that while in this chair thing, you would be seeing the sketch about the penguin on the telly ? Lets see, sketch means a rough line drawing, and the only telly I know of is Telly Savalas, but I'm fairly sure I know what a penguin is. So while in this chair I am to be shown a crudely drawn picture of a bald man with a fat flightless bird perched upon his overlarge head. Torture indeed . No, not the comfy chair! -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Paul Rubin wrote: For an absolutely amazing translation feat, try Michael Kandel's Polish-to-English translation of Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad. Returning to the original book, why did they write a lot of it (at least the first few pages until I gave up, after having trouble understanding formulas about concepts I have no such trouble with when framed in less jargonized from) in unintelligible mathemathical notation when there's Python? I prefer a nice Python function over some strange latech symbols. If not Python there's always pseudo code or good old natural language. Don't tell me those math formulas are what it 'really' is, or even that it's more precise that way. The old trick of 'but there are some things that cannot be expressed in any other way than by using formulas' doesn't get one many optimization points in my world. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Anton Vredegoor wrote: Returning to the original book, why did they write a lot of it (at least the first few pages until I gave up, after having trouble understanding formulas about concepts I have no such trouble with when framed in less jargonized from) in unintelligible mathemathical notation when there's Python? Because the intended audience is probably reads formulas better than they read Python. The 1st sentence of the Introduction: This book is aimed at senior undergraduates and graduate students in Engineering, Science, Mathematics and Computing. Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. I prefer a nice Python function over some strange latech symbols. If not Python there's always pseudo code or good old natural language. Don't tell me those math formulas are what it 'really' is, or even that it's more precise that way. The old trick of 'but there are some things that cannot be expressed in any other way than by using formulas' doesn't get one many optimization points in my world. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Tim Peters wrote: [Paul Rubin] I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie. [Grant Edwards[ ;) That's a joke, right? Probably not, if Paul's American. For example, here in the states we have Python Parks, where you go to look at scenery from inside your python. They're actually one and the same thing: http://v8rx7.com/python_by_fibercan.htm Cheers, Nicola Musatti P.S. The way Google can find anything you look for, no matter how far out, is sort of scary. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Juho Schultz wrote: Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. Some time ago I tried to 'sell' Python to a mathematician. The crucial point was that it was not (in standard Python) possible to have a matrix A and a matrix B and then do for example: A = A * B and have a matrix multiplication performed. Since the whole conversation started because there was a need to use this notation for a standard mathematics course this didn't result in adopting Python for it. Meanwhile there has been some progress in Python use there, and of course there are specialized Python packages that enable this kind of notation, but it remains true that there *is* an abyss between computer science and mathematics. Mathematics should change ;-) But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like standard Python to have A*B for matrices. The problem is that so called 'conventional' mathematical notations leave many options for interpretation, depending on the context and on mutual understanding between mathematicians, excluding non-mathematicians very effectively. A (Python) interpreter has no such problems and will allow precise inspection of what is meant by a piece of code. It has additional advantages in that it can function as a kind of mathematical spellchecker for people like me who often miscode things. Some mathematicians I know can write formulas page after page, while I, if I were to write (or read) a page of formulas there would be at least one mistake throwing me of course for the rest of the document, so that I would need to go back again and again. Does that make me a bad mathematician or does it signify that mathematical notation should change? For me the answer is clear, but that could be because I can't read the stuff without the documentation, and the documentation (mathematics) is considered to be known to everyone (with a math education of course) but I doubt if that is really the case and, even if it were the case it doesn't imply that being explicit (in giving the procedures in computer and human readable form at the same time, for example in Python) wouldn't be even better. Anton -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock wrote: Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: UK:Harry smiled vaguely back US:Harry smiled back vaguely Terry Hancock wrote: I know you are pointing out the triviality of this, since both US and UK English allow either placement -- but is it really preferred style in the UK to put the adverb right before the verb? In US English, the end of the clause (or the beginning) is probably more common. I appreciate your desire to put the thread on (Python) topic, but as I see this discussion, it really has to do with respect for the author, but also respect for the reader. The UK version is most likely the way the author intended it to be. Then that is the way the text should be, regardless if it is preferred style or not, under the assumption that English is English is English. One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? If they are, a translation is in place. If they are not, the text should have been left as is. I guess the answer is: -Well, sort of... And that is probably the reason why opinions differ here, and also the reason why the American publisher has made some changes, but left most parts unchanged. A related important question is: Does the US version communicate the same thing (meaning aswell as feeling) to the American reader as the UK version communicates to the British reader? That should always be the objective for any translator. It also means that if the author in the UK version uses non-standard UK English, then the US version should use non-standard US English. /MiO -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Mikael Olofsson wrote: A related important question is: Does the US version communicate the same thing (meaning aswell as feeling) to the American reader as the UK version communicates to the British reader? That should always be the objective for any translator. fwiw, the Swedish Dan Brown translator fixed lots of glitches and inconsistencies without even checking with Brown; the sheer number of trivial errors made it ob- vious to him that it wasn't some clever literary device; Brown had just been careless. now, does a cleaned-up Brown communicate the same meaning/feeling to a Swede (or other european) as an inaccurate Brown does to an American ? has Brown's works been translated to British English, btw ? /F -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Hi Paul, Dr MacKay was my information studies lecturer and 4th year degree project mentor at university, about 5 years ago, and I think that this book is basically the course notes we used then! He is an excellent lecturer, and if the book is as good as the course, it should be very interesting, particularly the error correcting stuff. Very off topic I know, but it's always interesting when two areas of interest collide (my time at university, and my love of python!) Cheers, Ben Paul Rubin wrote: I came across this while looking up some data compression info today. David J.C. MacKay Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms Full text online: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/ It's a really excellent book, on the level of SICP but about information theory, probability, error correcting codes, etc. Very readable, and geeky (in a good way) at the same time. The writing style is perhaps along the lines of Numerical Recipes, though the format is more conventional. The whole text is online as a pdf, which is very nice. The printed version is somewhat expensive, but according to the following analysis it's a better bargain than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Mikael Olofsson wrote: One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? If they are, a translation is in place. If they are not, the text should have been left as is. I guess the answer is: -Well, sort of... And that is probably the reason why opinions differ here, and also the reason why the American publisher has made some changes, but left most parts unchanged. The company I work for sells computer-based training courses. We consider UK English to be a separate localization and sell some courses in both US and UK versions. Kent -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:04:51 +0100 in comp.lang.python, Mikael Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Hancock wrote: Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: UK:Harry smiled vaguely back US:Harry smiled back vaguely Terry Hancock wrote: I know you are pointing out the triviality of this, since both US and UK English allow either placement -- but is it really preferred style in the UK to put the adverb right before the verb? In US English, the end of the clause (or the beginning) is probably more common. Indeed, the UK version (stripped of context) means something completely different than the US (vaguely modifies back rather than smiled.). At least, to this American. I appreciate your desire to put the thread on (Python) topic, but as I see this discussion, it really has to do with respect for the author, but also respect for the reader. The UK version is most likely the way the author intended it to be. Then that is the way the text should be, regardless if it is preferred style or not, under the assumption that English is English is English. I've not read any of the books, but from the critiques I've read, Rowling's skills as a writer in no way match (and indeed, often interfere with) her gifts as a storyteller. Sometimes a writer needs an editor. Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 19 Jan 2006 13:57:06 +0100 Anton Vredegoor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some time ago I tried to 'sell' Python to a mathematician. The crucial point was that it was not (in standard Python) possible to have a matrix A and a matrix B and then do for example: A = A * B and have a matrix multiplication performed. Um, why not? I'm trying to think what would be the stumbling block. I don't use matrix multiplies much, but I have implemented 3D vector math so that * is the dot product and % is the cross product, which is pretty trivial to do. The only obstacle I've run into is that you can't (easily) define *new* operators and precedence levels. There *is* a trick for doing this that was posted on the list some time back, which involved overloading an operator to apply an operator: It would've allowed you to do something like this: a |dot| b a |cross| b or perhaps a dot b a cross b I don't remember where this is posted. The trick was in overloading the , , or | to interact specially with operator objects. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't remember where this is posted. The trick was in overloading the , , or | to interact specially with operator objects. http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/384122 -- Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. - Qualquer coisa dita em latim soa profundo. - Anything said in Latin sounds smart. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:31:35 -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Nothing at all. But I still prefer tales of people who have hacked their DVD players to be multi-region :-) It isn't illegal in Canada anyway. And yes, it would be possible for me to pay a very high price to get a region-free player in the USA, but I'm certainly not going to. Me neither! I got mine for about $50 from a well-rated web merchant, as I recall -- is that what you mean by a very high price? My information may be out of date, but while I certainly feel there is nothing wrong with such a purchase, I think it may in fact be illegal. It doesn't sound like the seller is paying the royalty fees required to provide for all regions (they would be guilty of patent infringement, AFAIK). In many cases, these are actually after-market modifications, which may be illegal. Of course, you should rest assured that it is not *you* who is breaking the law in this case. As with pirated tapes and DVDs, it is the distributor, not the purchaser who can be prosecuted. There is also the point, that if the seller is not in the USA, they may be outside the jurisdiction of such laws, yet it may still be legal to import the products. But, IANAL, and this is one of the stickiest areas of the law, so I should hesitate even to speculate what the truth is here. It is also possible that the aforementioned royalty fees have been reduced since I last checked into this stuff. None of which changes my opinion that region coding is an evil conspiracy or that the DMCA is just plain wrong. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mikael Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? A few years ago I was in a French bookshop in London. On the counter was a leaflet advertising recent translations; some were from the English and others from the American. :-)) -- David Wild using RISC OS on broadband -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-19, David H Wild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mikael Olofsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question here is: Are US English and UK English different languages or not? A few years ago I was in a French bookshop in London. On the counter was a leaflet advertising recent translations; some were from the English and others from the American. :-)) I guess I'm bilingual after all! What the hell, though perhaps not fluent enough to be confused with a native, I can get by in Australian as well. I'm going to start claiming I'm trilingual. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. I don't understand at the HUMOR of the THREE visi.comSTOOGES!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:12:24 +0200, Juho Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anton Vredegoor wrote: Returning to the original book, why did they write a lot of it (at least the first few pages until I gave up, after having trouble understanding formulas about concepts I have no such trouble with when framed in less jargonized from) in unintelligible mathemathical notation when there's Python? Because the intended audience is probably reads formulas better than they read Python. The 1st sentence of the Introduction: This book is aimed at senior undergraduates and graduate students in Engineering, Science, Mathematics and Computing. Last month I spent about an hour trying to explain why a*2.5e-8 = x raises a SyntaxError and why it should be written x = a*2.5e-8 The guy who wrote the 1st line has MSc in Physics from Cambridge (UK). In mathematics, there is no difference between the two lines. ISTM probable that his original equation was really saying assert a*2.5e-8 == x which is not very different from assert x == a*2.5e-8 Did you mention that = is not == in python? I too would resist the idea that assert a*2.5e-8 == x should be written as x = a*2.5e-8 Regards, Bengt Richter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:28:15 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Grant Edwards wrote: Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. I'll pass on the snobbery. I don't know what snobbery is involved: the same is true of the average English reader, but the book was written in English. The real reason is that it was an expensively promoted book. Customizing it for an American audience was a way to suck money out of that flow into the pockets of the American publisher. In order to justify that expense, they have to have something to show for their efforts. Or if you want to put it another way, if you pay somebody to fiddle with the prose, fiddle they will. If you say so. Stranger things have happened. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-18, Paul Rubin wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. ... The real reason is that it was an expensively promoted book. Customizing it for an American audience was a way to suck money out of that flow into the pockets of the American publisher. In order to justify that expense, they have to have something to show for their efforts. I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie. ;) That's a joke, right? -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Have my two-tone, at 1958 Nash METRO brought visi.comaround... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
[Paul Rubin] I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie. [Grant Edwards[ ;) That's a joke, right? Probably not, if Paul's American. For example, here in the states we have Python Parks, where you go to look at scenery from inside your python. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Martelli wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, I have a region-free DVD player here in CA -- N.B.: CA, in addition to being the postal abbreviation for the US state of California, is also the the two-letter country code for Canada. In an international forum such as this, confusion may result, especially as Legal in California and Legal in Canada are slightly different. You're right - guess I'm going native!-) I did mean California. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Alex Martelli wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, I have a region-free DVD player here in CA -- N.B.: CA, in addition to being the postal abbreviation for the US state of California, is also the the two-letter country code for Canada. In an international forum such as this, confusion may result, especially as Legal in California and Legal in Canada are slightly different. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Tim Peters wrote: Probably not, if Paul's American. For example, here in the states we have Python Parks, where you go to look at scenery from inside your python. As an American residing in Canada, I'll say that Python Parks are only fun if they spring for hydro -- otherwise it's kind of dark. Parse that, non-Canadians. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:58:10 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Hancock wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:28:15 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. I'll pass on the snobbery. I don't know what snobbery is involved: the same is true of the average English reader, but the book was written in English. My apologies, then, I thought you were making a nationalist remark. I'll agree that people in general are lazy. ;-) Getting overly sensitive, I guess: Once your country goes and violates international conventions and UN sanctions, invades foreign countries who haven't attacked it, and starts taking political prisoners, spies on its own citizens, punishes dissent against the ruling party, and starts torturing people, everybody thinks they have a right to criticize you on every nitpicking little thing! I wish I was kidding about all of that. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock wrote: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:58:10 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Terry Hancock wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:28:15 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. I'll pass on the snobbery. I don't know what snobbery is involved: the same is true of the average English reader, but the book was written in English. My apologies, then, I thought you were making a nationalist remark. I'll agree that people in general are lazy. ;-) Getting overly sensitive, I guess: Once your country goes and violates international conventions and UN sanctions, invades foreign countries who haven't attacked it, and starts taking political prisoners, spies on its own citizens, punishes dissent against the ruling party, and starts torturing people, everybody thinks they have a right to criticize you on every nitpicking little thing! I wish I was kidding about all of that. So the only thing you (the USA) lack is the hundreds of years of experience at those activities that Britain has. Sometimes I wonder whose name governments *do* govern in. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-18, Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Getting overly sensitive, I guess: Once your country goes and violates international conventions and UN sanctions, invades foreign countries who haven't attacked it, and starts taking political prisoners, spies on its own citizens, punishes dissent against the ruling party, and starts torturing people, everybody thinks they have a right to criticize you on every nitpicking little thing! I wish I was kidding about all of that. So the only thing you (the USA) lack is the hundreds of years of experience at those activities that Britain has. Just wait. I hear that Cheney is having a tower built alongside the Potomac river. As soon as they figure out what the GS rating for royal executioner is going to be, they can start scheduling the public beheadings. The only question left is how much Fox News will pay for exclusive broadcast rights. Sometimes I wonder whose name governments *do* govern in. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Catsup and Mustard at all over the place! It's visi.comthe Human Hamburger! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:55:50 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alex Martelli wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, I have a region-free DVD player here in CA -- considering that I brought with me a hundred or more DVDs from the old country, and I get as many more here in shops or via netflix, I really couldn't do without. I legally ordered it on the web and it was legally delivered. What's illegal about it?! Nothing at all. But I still prefer tales of people who have hacked their DVD players to be multi-region :-) It isn't illegal in Canada anyway. And yes, it would be possible for me to pay a very high price to get a region-free player in the USA, but I'm certainly not going to. IMHO, region coding is an immoral abuse of the economy -- the corporation that produces the video benefits from cost-savings resulting from the globalization of the labor market, but then uses cryptography to prevent the consumer from benefitting from the same globalization. If it were just a matter of breaking cryptography, though, that wouldn't be such a big deal: they write it, we break it. Tough cookies. But the US has made that illegal -- even when it is a practical necessity to exercise fair use rights on legally-purchased media. I am disgusted by that. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. ... The real reason is that it was an expensively promoted book. Customizing it for an American audience was a way to suck money out of that flow into the pockets of the American publisher. In order to justify that expense, they have to have something to show for their efforts. I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie Just as another isolated data point, the first time I saw the expression car park, I went and looked it up. Even though from the context the meaning seemed obvious, I was left with some doubts as to whether it might have some more specific connotations. For instance, it could have referred to a metered lot, or to a parking garage with time tickets, or even some kind of valet parking. Often, assuming that the obvious literal meaning is correct can have hilarious (or disastrous!) results. Roger == Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News== http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:15:25 -0500 Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should enjoy: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html and especially the links near the bottom to try-to-be-exhaustive listings of all differences between the Bloomsbury (UK) and Scholastic (US) editions. More Britishisms are surviving in the Scholastic editions as the series goes on, but as the list for Half-Blood Prince shows the editors still make an amazing number of seemingly pointless changes: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html like: UK:Harry smiled vaguely back US:Harry smiled back vaguely I know you are pointing out the triviality of this, since both US and UK English allow either placement -- but is it really preferred style in the UK to put the adverb right before the verb? In US English, the end of the clause (or the beginning) is probably more common. This actually gets back on topic ( ;-) ), because it might affect the localization of a Python interactive fiction module I'm working on -- it's a GUI to generate sentences that are comprehensible to the IF engine. My base locale (which would be en or maybe en_US) uses the order: subj verb dobj prep iobj advb (subject) (verb) (direct object) (preposition) (indirect object) (adverb). The order is forced by the GUI, for usability reasons, but I'm planning to make it part of the localization. (For example I currently imagine the Japanese locale would use: subj dobj prep advb verb with preposition glossed as particle, which is usually pretty accurate). Using a meaningful adverb at all is kind of unusual, but it mates fairly well with new fuzzy logic concepts inside in the IF engine. I stuck the adverb at the end as the most natural sounding place to my ear. Should the locale en_UK use instead: subj advb verb dobj prep iobj ? E.g.: en_US: Sally, gently put flower in basket vs en_UK: Sally, put flower in basket gently Non-English translations have real challenges, and because this series is more popular than the Python Reference Manual these days, there's a lot of fascinating info to be found. For example, I think the Japanese translator deserves a Major Award for their heroic attempt to translate Ron's Uranus pun: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/wordplay/uranus.html That's a terrific site, BTW, thanks for posting it. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Nothing at all. But I still prefer tales of people who have hacked their DVD players to be multi-region :-) It isn't illegal in Canada anyway. And yes, it would be possible for me to pay a very high price to get a region-free player in the USA, but I'm certainly not going to. Me neither! I got mine for about $50 from a well-rated web merchant, as I recall -- is that what you mean by a very high price? Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Roger Upole wrote: I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie Just as another isolated data point, the first time I saw the expression car park, I went and looked it up. Even though from the context the meaning seemed obvious, I was left with some doubts as to whether it might have some more specific connotations. For instance, it could have referred to a metered lot, or to a parking garage with time tickets, or even some kind of valet parking. But a car park can be any one of those things, or something else such as an unmetered lot. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Roger Upole wrote: I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie Just as another isolated data point, the first time I saw the expression car park, I went and looked it up. Even though from the context the meaning seemed obvious, I was left with some doubts as to whether it might have some more specific connotations. For instance, it could have referred to a metered lot, or to a parking garage with time tickets, or even some kind of valet parking. But a car park can be any one of those things, or something else such as an unmetered lot. -- Steven. And this is exactly my point. Without already knowing that it's used as a general term, one doesn't know just what the expression implies (or doesn't imply). Roger == Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News== http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups = East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption = -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Roger Upole wrote: I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie Just as another isolated data point, the first time I saw the expression car park, I went and looked it up. Even though from the context the meaning seemed obvious, I was left with some doubts as to whether it might have some more specific connotations. For instance, it could have referred to a metered lot, or to a parking garage with time tickets, or even some kind of valet parking. But a car park can be any one of those things, or something else such as an unmetered lot. And this is exactly my point. Without already knowing that it's used as a general term, one doesn't know just what the expression implies (or doesn't imply). And you won't get that from the dictionary, only from context. And having got the context, you don't need the dictionary definition to know whether it is paid or unpaid or even whether it matters. I mean, when you read He sat on the chair do you need to look up the dictionary to discover that chairs can have arm rests or not, they can be made of wood or steel or uphostered springs, be on legs or coasters, fixed or movable? If it mattered, a good author will tell you, and if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. I cheer your willingness to look unfamiliar words in the dictionary, no sarcasm implied, but the dictionary rarely gives you either context or connotations (see the difference between describing somebody as wearing sensible shoes and practical shoes). -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock wrote: I find that bizarre. There is no mythological basis for a Sourceror's Stone, but the Philosopher's Stone, was of course the mythical Alchemists' goal of a catalyst for converting lead into gold (it had other properties, IIRC). As an American, I was somewhat mystified by the Americani[zs]ed version of the title. Learning the real title was illuminating, since, as you point out, philosopher's stone actually has mythological meaning--even here in the USA. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I mean, when you read He sat on the chair do you need to look up the dictionary to discover that chairs can have arm rests or not, they can be made of wood or steel or uphostered springs, be on legs or coasters, fixed or movable? If it mattered, a good author will tell you, and if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. But if in their dialects of English chair strongly implies a hard, straight-backed, no-arms sitting-device, they won't elaborate, even if it DOES matter, exactly because it's already implied in the word they used. Not sure if this is true of any dialect of English, today, but it might be in Italian (for sedia, the exact translation of chair). So, you've just learned that He chose to sit in a chair rather than a sofa; depending on subtle nuances of the English dialect used (varying with time and space), this may have very different implications in defining the character and mood of this individual... Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I mean, when you read He sat on the chair do you need to look up the dictionary to discover that chairs can have arm rests or not, they can be made of wood or steel or uphostered springs, be on legs or coasters, fixed or movable? If it mattered, a good author will tell you, and if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. But if in their dialects of English chair strongly implies a hard, straight-backed, no-arms sitting-device, they won't elaborate, even if it DOES matter, exactly because it's already implied in the word they used. Not sure if this is true of any dialect of English, today, but it might be in Italian (for sedia, the exact translation of chair). So, you've just learned that He chose to sit in a chair rather than a sofa; depending on subtle nuances of the English dialect used (varying with time and space), this may have very different implications in defining the character and mood of this individual... Alex Hmm, and what if your context for chair was that unless you were to confess, you would be placed in a comfy one ? And furthermore, what if you were told that while in this chair thing, you would be seeing the sketch about the penguin on the telly ? Lets see, sketch means a rough line drawing, and the only telly I know of is Telly Savalas, but I'm fairly sure I know what a penguin is. So while in this chair I am to be shown a crudely drawn picture of a bald man with a fat flightless bird perched upon his overlarge head. Torture indeed . Roger (who has obviously had too much coffee) == Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News== http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups = East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption = -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:31:58 - Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. translated into American, I'm sure refers to the American version of the book, which is titled Harry Potter and the Sourceror's Stone. I find that bizarre. There is no mythological basis for a Sourceror's Stone, but the Philosopher's Stone, was of course the mythical Alchemists' goal of a catalyst for converting lead into gold (it had other properties, IIRC). Apparently the publisher was of the opinion that American children just aren't cultured enough to know about that, even though I knew the reference when I was 12. I am really, really insulted by that. They even went so far as to shoot two versions of every scene in the movie that referred to the stone so that it would agree with the book. AFAICT, you cannot purchase the original movie or book within the United States, and due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, do to that other Evil Conspiracy, the DMCA -- don't let your country pass a law like this). Now I don't suppose I should really get my nose all out of joint over this sort of thing, but it's symbolic of a lot of things that are wrong with the world right now. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Grant Edwards wrote: On 2006-01-16, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html [Grant Edwards] That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. You should enjoy: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Grant Edwards wrote: On 2006-01-16, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html [Grant Edwards] That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. You should enjoy: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. regards Steve A rather less cynical interpretation is that they are attempting to make a children's book accessible to as many children as possible, i.e., the youngest readers as is practical. I don't mean to disparage the book by calling it a children's book, I have read and enjoyed several of them, but the target audience for the books is clearly kids. max -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:28:15 + Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Grant Edwards wrote: Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. They know that the average American could work it out. They also know that the average American doesn't like to do anything remotely like hard thinking, hence they make these changes so the books don't read like foreign literature. I'll pass on the snobbery. The real reason is that it was an expensively promoted book. Customizing it for an American audience was a way to suck money out of that flow into the pockets of the American publisher. In order to justify that expense, they have to have something to show for their efforts. Or if you want to put it another way, if you pay somebody to fiddle with the prose, fiddle they will. -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. ... The real reason is that it was an expensively promoted book. Customizing it for an American audience was a way to suck money out of that flow into the pockets of the American publisher. In order to justify that expense, they have to have something to show for their efforts. I wouldn't have figured out that a car park was a parking lot. I might have thought it was a park where you go to look at scenery from inside your car. Sort of a cross between a normal park and a drive-in movie. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, I have a region-free DVD player here in CA -- considering that I brought with me a hundred or more DVDs from the old country, and I get as many more here in shops or via netflix, I really couldn't do without. I legally ordered it on the web and it was legally delivered. What's illegal about it?! Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Alex Martelli wrote: Terry Hancock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... due to the Evil Conspiracy of region-coding, I couldn't watch the British DVD even if I were to import it (Well, yeah I could, but it would be painful, and probably illegal, I have a region-free DVD player here in CA -- considering that I brought with me a hundred or more DVDs from the old country, and I get as many more here in shops or via netflix, I really couldn't do without. I legally ordered it on the web and it was legally delivered. What's illegal about it?! Nothing at all. But I still prefer tales of people who have hacked their DVD players to be multi-region :-) Interestingly, when I made the converse move from America to Europe several retailers were anxious to assure me that their products, while single region, could easily be hacked into multi-region players using information available from web sites which they would deny having told me about. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-16, Paul Rubin wrote: I came across this while looking up some data compression info today. David J.C. MacKay Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms Full text online: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/ It's a really excellent book, on the level of SICP but about information theory, probability, error correcting codes, etc. Very readable, and geeky (in a good way) at the same time. The writing style is perhaps along the lines of Numerical Recipes, though the format is more conventional. The whole text is online as a pdf, which is very nice. The printed version is somewhat expensive, but according to the following analysis it's a better bargain than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Don't SANFORIZE me!! at visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Grant Edwards wrote: [snip] That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. In a bid for a US Government contract I had to rewrite British documents to use the official American terms and words. Bill to be paid by the US tax payer. Andrew Swallow -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. The US edition even changed the title from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone. American schoolkids weren't expected to know what a philosopher was (or anyway what the Philosopher's Stone was). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
[Paul Rubin] ... David J.C. MacKay Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms Full text online: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/ ... The printed version is somewhat expensive, but according to the following analysis it's a better bargain than Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html [Grant Edwards] That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. You should enjoy: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html and especially the links near the bottom to try-to-be-exhaustive listings of all differences between the Bloomsbury (UK) and Scholastic (US) editions. More Britishisms are surviving in the Scholastic editions as the series goes on, but as the list for Half-Blood Prince shows the editors still make an amazing number of seemingly pointless changes: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html like: UK:Harry smiled vaguely back US:Harry smiled back vaguely Non-English translations have real challenges, and because this series is more popular than the Python Reference Manual these days, there's a lot of fascinating info to be found. For example, I think the Japanese translator deserves a Major Award for their heroic attempt to translate Ron's Uranus pun: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/wordplay/uranus.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, I think the Japanese translator deserves a Major Award for their heroic attempt to translate Ron's Uranus pun: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/wordplay/uranus.html Gad, I'm surprised that was in the original. For an absolutely amazing translation feat, try Michael Kandel's Polish-to-English translation of Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
On 2006-01-16, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itila/Potter.html [Grant Edwards] That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. You should enjoy: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html Very interesting. And rather sad that editors think the average Amermican reader too dim-witted to figure out (in context, even) that a car park is a parking lot and a dustbin is a trash can. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! It don't mean a at THING if you ain't got visi.comthat SWING!! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That made me smile on a Monday morning (not an insignificant accomplishment). I noticed in the one footnote that the H.P. book had been translated into American. I've always wondered about that. I noticed several spots in the H.P. books where the dialog seemed wrong: the kids were using American rather than British English. I thought it rather jarring. The US edition even changed the title from Philosopher's Stone to Sorcerer's Stone. American schoolkids weren't expected to know what a philosopher was (or anyway what the Philosopher's Stone was). Which is downright annoying. Children are capable of learning a word - and causing discongruence in semantics causes a serious problem when making a movie -- LTP :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: OT: excellent book on information theory
Tim Peters wrote: Non-English translations have real challenges, and because this series is more popular than the Python Reference Manual these days, there's a lot of fascinating info to be found. For example, I think the Japanese translator deserves a Major Award for their heroic attempt to translate Ron's Uranus pun: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/wordplay/uranus.html The translations of Pratchett's works are also quite amazing feats. I think that when they were looking for a polish translator one of the people they auditioned told them something along the lines of You can't even think like this in polish. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
