6 ms·

When shown on a 7-segment display, the only numbers whose images don't contain a little square are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I call them "square-free numbers". Oh,

When shown on a 7-segment display, the only numbers whose images don't contain a little square are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I call them "square-free numbers". Oh, you're saying "square-free" has an established meaning in mathematics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-free_integer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-free_integer Well, you see, "square" already had an established meaning in English before number theory existed. Curious, why’d you pick that specialization of this word, out of all that are available? :)

dahart 5y ago
> “square” already had an established meaning Wasn’t your straw man example ‘square-free’, not ‘square’...?
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  It wasn't a straw man :) "Square" and the "-free" (e.g. sugar-free) suffix both have established meanings in English.
  - dahart 5y ago
    Of course it was a straw man, but you know that. ;) So your point now is that you’ve changed your mind and conceded that narrow specific technical terms with uncommon meaning that few people know and contain commonly used words have no bearing on whether people should use those common words elsewhere? It sounds like you’ve withdrawn your objection to using “ideal” in the term “ideal divisors”? Great!
    - layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
      No, I did not change my mind, and it wasn’t a straw man :) Unfortunately it is you who seem to be lacking the requisite knowledge to evaluate the merit of my argument… Suffice to say, the various divisibility-related properties of integers are very closely related to ring theory. In the ring of integers (called Z), numbers of the form n*i for all i form an ideal (called nZ). As you can see these are the numbers divisble by a given n. Thus in the context of integers and divisibility, the term “ideal” is not some niche jargon, but in fact a crucial concept that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of number theory (which is very closely related to abstract algebra) have encountered. Of course not all of us software engineers have encountered these concepts as part of our formal education, but I would expect some familiarity from the alumni of any semi-decent software engineering college or university.

dahart 5y ago

> “square” already had an established meaning Wasn’t your straw man example ‘square-free’, not ‘square’...?

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
It wasn't a straw man :) "Square" and the "-free" (e.g. sugar-free) suffix both have established meanings in English.
- dahart 5y ago
  Of course it was a straw man, but you know that. ;) So your point now is that you’ve changed your mind and conceded that narrow specific technical terms with uncommon meaning that few people know and contain commonly used words have no bearing on whether people should use those common words elsewhere? It sounds like you’ve withdrawn your objection to using “ideal” in the term “ideal divisors”? Great!
  - layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
    No, I did not change my mind, and it wasn’t a straw man :) Unfortunately it is you who seem to be lacking the requisite knowledge to evaluate the merit of my argument… Suffice to say, the various divisibility-related properties of integers are very closely related to ring theory. In the ring of integers (called Z), numbers of the form n*i for all i form an ideal (called nZ). As you can see these are the numbers divisble by a given n. Thus in the context of integers and divisibility, the term “ideal” is not some niche jargon, but in fact a crucial concept that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of number theory (which is very closely related to abstract algebra) have encountered. Of course not all of us software engineers have encountered these concepts as part of our formal education, but I would expect some familiarity from the alumni of any semi-decent software engineering college or university.