Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On 26/10/2015 11:43 AM, Ming-Lun Ho wrote: Hi All, So, coming back to the original point, how do I get the info to change the documentation to someone who has the capability to do so? For all I know, that could be one of you who responded, but I wouldn't know. Posting the suggestion here is easiest; it's not 100% reliable (because people who can make the change might miss it), but it usually works. If it doesn't (i.e. you post and get no response), you can post it as a bug report on bugs.r-project.org, but that's more work to handle, so it shouldn't be your first place to go. If you post here and get an argument about whether your suggestion is correct (as in this case), then you shouldn't post it as a bug report. This is the place for arguments, the bug list is *not*. Duncan Murdoch Thanks. --Ming On Sun, Oct 25, 2015, 08:11 peter dalgaard wrote: > > > On 25 Oct 2015, at 14:37 , Bert Gunter wrote: > > > > Yes. Too cute, maybe? > > > > ...as in "charming" or... > > > > > > Oh. > > ;-) > pd > > > -- Bert > > Bert Gunter > > > > "Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge > > is certainly not wisdom." > > -- Clifford Stoll > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Rolf Turner > wrote: > >> On 25/10/15 17:14, John Sorkin wrote: > >>> > >>> Bert Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of > >>> English, which sense of sanction do you mean > >>> > >>> to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by > >>> educated usage. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. to impose a > >>> sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline. > >> > >> > >> > >> Uh, that was Bert's point I believe. I.e. he was deliberately striving > for > >> ambiguity. > >> > >> > >> cheers, > >> > >> Rolf > >> > >> -- > >> Technical Editor ANZJS > >> Department of Statistics > >> University of Auckland > >> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > > > __ > > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- > Peter Dalgaard, Professor, > Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School > Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark > Phone: (+45)38153501 > Email: pd@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
Hi All, So, coming back to the original point, how do I get the info to change the documentation to someone who has the capability to do so? For all I know, that could be one of you who responded, but I wouldn't know. Thanks. --Ming On Sun, Oct 25, 2015, 08:11 peter dalgaard wrote: > > > On 25 Oct 2015, at 14:37 , Bert Gunter wrote: > > > > Yes. Too cute, maybe? > > > > ...as in "charming" or... > > > > > > Oh. > > ;-) > pd > > > -- Bert > > Bert Gunter > > > > "Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge > > is certainly not wisdom." > > -- Clifford Stoll > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Rolf Turner > wrote: > >> On 25/10/15 17:14, John Sorkin wrote: > >>> > >>> Bert Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of > >>> English, which sense of sanction do you mean > >>> > >>> to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by > >>> educated usage. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. to impose a > >>> sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline. > >> > >> > >> > >> Uh, that was Bert's point I believe. I.e. he was deliberately striving > for > >> ambiguity. > >> > >> > >> cheers, > >> > >> Rolf > >> > >> -- > >> Technical Editor ANZJS > >> Department of Statistics > >> University of Auckland > >> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > > > __ > > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- > Peter Dalgaard, Professor, > Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School > Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark > Phone: (+45)38153501 > Email: pd@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On 25/10/2015 7:44 PM, Boris Steipe wrote:
> Ming is right. I can't imagine other discipline's standards are substantially
> different from ours, but e.g. the ACS style manual is very explicit to
> require ...
>
>"Label each axis with the parameter or variable being measured and the
> units of measure in parentheses."
>
> The _units_ are not lb/1000. 1/1000 is a _transformation_ of the value, the
> unit is lb, or in that case (1000 lb). Writing lb/1000 is just as nonsensical
> as writing g/k instead of (kg). 1000 is simply a numerical prefix to the
> unit, like kilo.
>
> It gets worse: According to the UK metric association:
>"The symbol for "per" (meaning "divided by") is “/” (slash)."
How is that relevant? We aren't trying to represent "per" here, we are
trying to represent "divided by".
The only valid argument I've heard so far is that we should use what the
cited paper used. That was "1000 lbs", so I'll change it.
Duncan Murdoch
>
> Accordingly, "lb/1000" is to be read "pounds per 1000" which is actually
> wrong by six orders of magnitude.
>
> I don't think there is ambiguity here nor occasion for sophistry: as written,
> the label is wrong. It would be more than appropriate for a community that is
> passionate about data to correct this.
>
>
> :-)
> Boris
>
> (Good Lord! https://xkcd.com/386/)
>
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
>> On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
>>> Hi Ming,
>>> In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
>>> weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
>>> particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
>>> has caused confusion previously.
>>
>> I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
>> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
>> 12.345 lb.
>>
>> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
>> arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
>> *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
>>
>> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
>> "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to mean
>> milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>>
>> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given in
>> the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be
>> inappropriate to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added to
>> the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Rolf
>>
>> --
>> Technical Editor ANZJS
>> Department of Statistics
>> University of Auckland
>> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ming-Lun Ho wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I used "?mtcars" to read the documentation for the dataset. I found a
mistake in how unit is listed, namely, that for the variable "wt," the unit
should be listed as "1000 lb," not "lb/1000." However, I don't know whom to
contact exactly for the correction. Please point me to the right place.
Thanks.
--Ming
>>
>> __
>> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
> __
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Boris Steipe wrote: > Ming is right. ... Having started all this trouble, I suppose I should offer a modest explanation. The OP was indeed "right" in the sense that the column heading did not indicate the correct _units_ for the values. I suppose that "kilopounds" would be the correct units if such a unit was acceptable to the relevant standards committee. As Boris noted, lb/1000 is (sort of) the transformation used to get the values. Given the burning interest in this distinction between units (as used to explicitly back transform the values) and and explanatory labels (how did these values come to be?) I should state that the objection I refrained from adding to my original answer was, 'Why didn't they just leave the values in the initial units?" I was reminded of a long past physics lecturer's favorite units of velocity - furlongs per fortnight. Jim [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
Ming is right. I can't imagine other discipline's standards are substantially
different from ours, but e.g. the ACS style manual is very explicit to require
...
"Label each axis with the parameter or variable being measured and the units
of measure in parentheses."
The _units_ are not lb/1000. 1/1000 is a _transformation_ of the value, the
unit is lb, or in that case (1000 lb). Writing lb/1000 is just as nonsensical
as writing g/k instead of (kg). 1000 is simply a numerical prefix to the unit,
like kilo.
It gets worse: According to the UK metric association:
"The symbol for "per" (meaning "divided by") is “/” (slash)."
Accordingly, "lb/1000" is to be read "pounds per 1000" which is actually wrong
by six orders of magnitude.
I don't think there is ambiguity here nor occasion for sophistry: as written,
the label is wrong. It would be more than appropriate for a community that is
passionate about data to correct this.
:-)
Boris
(Good Lord! https://xkcd.com/386/)
On Oct 24, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
>> Hi Ming,
>> In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
>> weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
>> particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
>> has caused confusion previously.
>
> I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
> 12.345 lb.
>
> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
> arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
> *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
>
> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
> "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to mean
> milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>
> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given in the
> original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be inappropriate
> to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added to the mtcars help
> file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
>
> cheers,
>
> Rolf
>
> --
> Technical Editor ANZJS
> Department of Statistics
> University of Auckland
> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ming-Lun Ho wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I used "?mtcars" to read the documentation for the dataset. I found a
>>> mistake in how unit is listed, namely, that for the variable "wt," the unit
>>> should be listed as "1000 lb," not "lb/1000." However, I don't know whom to
>>> contact exactly for the correction. Please point me to the right place.
>>> Thanks.
>>> --Ming
>
> __
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
Dear all, As to stating units in graphs: IMHO it should be as follows: If an axis reads 0 ... 10 ... 20 ... etc and the unit is pounds (lb), the legend should read "weight/lb" (pronounced "weight in pound"). The logic is: 10 lb/lb = 10. In orther words, dividing a dimensioned number by the dimension leaves the bare number, which is what the axis shows. So in the case of the OP the legend should read: "weight/1000lb". Thus, 2 lb/1000lb = 20, which is what the axis shows. Best, Frank Franklin Bretschneider Dept of Biology Utrecht University brets...@xs4all.nl __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
> On 25 Oct 2015, at 14:37 , Bert Gunter wrote: > > Yes. Too cute, maybe? > ...as in "charming" or... Oh. ;-) pd > -- Bert > Bert Gunter > > "Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge > is certainly not wisdom." > -- Clifford Stoll > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: >> On 25/10/15 17:14, John Sorkin wrote: >>> >>> Bert Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of >>> English, which sense of sanction do you mean >>> >>> to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by >>> educated usage. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. to impose a >>> sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline. >> >> >> >> Uh, that was Bert's point I believe. I.e. he was deliberately striving for >> ambiguity. >> >> >> cheers, >> >> Rolf >> >> -- >> Technical Editor ANZJS >> Department of Statistics >> University of Auckland >> Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 > > __ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. -- Peter Dalgaard, Professor, Center for Statistics, Copenhagen Business School Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark Phone: (+45)38153501 Email: pd@cbs.dk Priv: pda...@gmail.com __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
Yes. Too cute, maybe? -- Bert Bert Gunter "Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge is certainly not wisdom." -- Clifford Stoll On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Rolf Turner wrote: > On 25/10/15 17:14, John Sorkin wrote: >> >> Bert Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of >> English, which sense of sanction do you mean >> >> to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by >> educated usage. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. to impose a >> sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline. > > > > Uh, that was Bert's point I believe. I.e. he was deliberately striving for > ambiguity. > > > cheers, > > Rolf > > -- > Technical Editor ANZJS > Department of Statistics > University of Auckland > Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On 25/10/15 17:14, John Sorkin wrote: Bert Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of English, which sense of sanction do you mean to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law. to impose a sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline. Uh, that was Bert's point I believe. I.e. he was deliberately striving for ambiguity. cheers, Rolf -- Technical Editor ANZJS Department of Statistics University of Auckland Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276 __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
Bert
Talking about Loglan and problems with the imprecise nature of English, which
sense of sanction do you mean
to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage.
to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law.
to impose a sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline
> John David Sorkin M.D., Ph.D.
> Professor of Medicine
> Chief, Biostatistics and Informatics
> University of Maryland School of Medicine Division of Gerontology and
> Geriatric Medicine
> Baltimore VA Medical Center
> 10 North Greene Street
> GRECC (BT/18/GR)
> Baltimore, MD 21201-1524
> (Phone) 410-605-7119
> (Fax) 410-605-7913 (Please call phone number above prior to faxing)
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Bert Gunter wrote:
>
> I sanction this discussion.
>
> (Google on "auto-antonyms")
>
> Cheers,
> Bert
> Bert Gunter
>
> "Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge
> is certainly not wisdom."
> -- Clifford Stoll
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Duncan Murdoch
> wrote:
>> On 24/10/2015 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
Hi Ming,
In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
has caused confusion previously.
>>>
>>> I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
>>> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
>>> 12.345 lb.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
>>> arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
>>> *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
>>
>> And we insane ones would read "lb/1000" literally as "pounds divided by
>> one thousand".
>>
>> The problem is that English is ambiguous. In many, many ways. We
>> should rewrite all the help files in Loglan.
>>
>> Duncan Murdoch
>>
>>> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
>>> "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to
>>> mean milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>>>
>>> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given
>>> in the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be
>>> inappropriate to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added
>>> to the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
>>
>> __
>> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
> __
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Confidentiality Statement:
This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
all copies of the original message.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
Hi Ming,
In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
has caused confusion previously.
I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
"lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
12.345 lb.
I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
*sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
"Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to
mean milligrams and *not* kilograms!
Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given
in the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be
inappropriate to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added
to the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
cheers,
Rolf
--
Technical Editor ANZJS
Department of Statistics
University of Auckland
Phone: +64-9-373-7599 ext. 88276
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Ming-Lun Ho wrote:
Hi,
I used "?mtcars" to read the documentation for the dataset. I found a
mistake in how unit is listed, namely, that for the variable "wt," the unit
should be listed as "1000 lb," not "lb/1000." However, I don't know whom to
contact exactly for the correction. Please point me to the right place.
Thanks.
--Ming
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
I sanction this discussion.
(Google on "auto-antonyms")
Cheers,
Bert
Bert Gunter
"Data is not information. Information is not knowledge. And knowledge
is certainly not wisdom."
-- Clifford Stoll
On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Duncan Murdoch
wrote:
> On 24/10/2015 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
>> On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
>>> Hi Ming,
>>> In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
>>> weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
>>> particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
>>> has caused confusion previously.
>>
>> I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
>> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
>> 12.345 lb.
>>
>> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
>> arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
>> *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
>
> And we insane ones would read "lb/1000" literally as "pounds divided by
> one thousand".
>
> The problem is that English is ambiguous. In many, many ways. We
> should rewrite all the help files in Loglan.
>
> Duncan Murdoch
>
>> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
>> "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to
>> mean milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>>
>> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given
>> in the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be
>> inappropriate to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added
>> to the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
>
> __
> R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] [FORGED] Re: How to correct documentation?
On 24/10/2015 6:07 PM, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 24/10/15 21:10, Jim Lemon wrote:
>> Hi Ming,
>> In fact, the notation lb/1000 is correct, as the values represent the
>> weight of the cars in pounds (lb) divided by 1000. I am not sure why this
>> particular transformation of the measured values was used, but I'm sure it
>> has caused confusion previously.
>
> I disagree --- and agree with Ming. The notation is incorrect. Surely
> "lb/1000" means thousandths of pounds. E.g. 12345 lb/1000 is equal to
> 12.345 lb.
>
> I'm sure that others will come up with all sorts of convoluted lawyerish
> arguments that the case is otherwise, but as far as I am concerned, any
> *sane* person would interpret "lb/1000" to mean thousandths of pounds.
And we insane ones would read "lb/1000" literally as "pounds divided by
one thousand".
The problem is that English is ambiguous. In many, many ways. We
should rewrite all the help files in Loglan.
Duncan Murdoch
> If in the unlikely event that the documentation for some data set said
> "Weight (gm/1000)", I'm pretty sure that this would be interpreted to
> mean milligrams and *not* kilograms!
>
> Since the description of the data was presumably taken from that given
> in the original source ("Motor Trend" magazine) it would probably be
> inappropriate to "correct" it. However a note/warning should be added
> to the mtcars help file indicating that Motor Trend got things upside-down.
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
