3 ms·

I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the dig

by dstyrb 11y ago

I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the digit.

mikeash 11y ago
Your ellipses completely change the meaning. The clause may be unnecessary (as is the entire article) but the bit you complain about is useful if you don't chop things out first.
- dstyrb 11y ago
  Well, not sure it was a complaint, I was just lightheartedly commenting that it was a bit redundant, but ok, umbrage seems a reasonable response. And yeah, that's pretty much the point of eliding bits of text, to put things together that weren't together before; I'm almost positive that's why we invented that specific punctuation mark. It's like saying: "The 35th president of the United States, JFK, who was widely known for the space race and the bay of pigs, was elected after the 34 presidents before him." And my comment is like: "The 35th president of the United States ... was elected after the 34 presidents before him."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    My point is that ellipses are for when you're excising something that is redundant to your purposes and whose omission doesn't change the overall meaning. Your example with JFK is fine. Here's a counterexample where it doesn't work: "JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, who was a famous Hollywood actress." -> "JFK... was a famous Hollywood actress." I maintain that your shortened quote is more like this. The article says that 142857, when multiplied, produces numbers which correspond to the digits of 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, etc. Your version of the quote omits the words "correspond to," changing it from an observation about how an integer matches the decimal expansion of a fraction to an observation about how multiplying a number gets you a multiple of that number.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

by dstyrb 11y ago

I said the clause was an unnecessary inclusion, the ellipses are there specifically to highlight that. The rest of the article is about the cyclicity of the digit.

mikeash 11y ago

Your ellipses completely change the meaning. The clause may be unnecessary (as is the entire article) but the bit you complain about is useful if you don't chop things out first.

dstyrb 11y ago
Well, not sure it was a complaint, I was just lightheartedly commenting that it was a bit redundant, but ok, umbrage seems a reasonable response. And yeah, that's pretty much the point of eliding bits of text, to put things together that weren't together before; I'm almost positive that's why we invented that specific punctuation mark. It's like saying: "The 35th president of the United States, JFK, who was widely known for the space race and the bay of pigs, was elected after the 34 presidents before him." And my comment is like: "The 35th president of the United States ... was elected after the 34 presidents before him."
- mikeash 11y ago
  My point is that ellipses are for when you're excising something that is redundant to your purposes and whose omission doesn't change the overall meaning. Your example with JFK is fine. Here's a counterexample where it doesn't work: "JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, who was a famous Hollywood actress." -> "JFK... was a famous Hollywood actress." I maintain that your shortened quote is more like this. The article says that 142857, when multiplied, produces numbers which correspond to the digits of 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, etc. Your version of the quote omits the words "correspond to," changing it from an observation about how an integer matches the decimal expansion of a fraction to an observation about how multiplying a number gets you a multiple of that number.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]