Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. For we pedants...

For we pedants...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
18 Posts 8 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Daniel Pfeffer

    Shouldn't that be "for us pedants"? :) (The same form as "for us the living")

    Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

    C Offline
    C Offline
    Chris C B
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    Almost certainly not! :-\ The ellipsis after 'pedants' indicates this phrase is part of a sentence, in which case the subject would be 'pedants' and the previous pronoun would take the same form - as in "We the people...". The grammar pedant strikes again! :laugh:

    D C 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • C Chris C B

      Almost certainly not! :-\ The ellipsis after 'pedants' indicates this phrase is part of a sentence, in which case the subject would be 'pedants' and the previous pronoun would take the same form - as in "We the people...". The grammar pedant strikes again! :laugh:

      D Offline
      D Offline
      Daniel Pfeffer
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      Perhaps I was wrong. (Wouldn't be the first time...) EDIT: It all depends on whether Madison or Lincoln was the better grammarian. :)

      Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

      C 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • D Daniel Pfeffer

        Perhaps I was wrong. (Wouldn't be the first time...) EDIT: It all depends on whether Madison or Lincoln was the better grammarian. :)

        Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

        C Offline
        C Offline
        Chris C B
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        It is possible to construct a sentence following the ellipsis where 'pedants' is not the subject, but it would be a cumbersome construct.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • C Chris C B

          Almost certainly not! :-\ The ellipsis after 'pedants' indicates this phrase is part of a sentence, in which case the subject would be 'pedants' and the previous pronoun would take the same form - as in "We the people...". The grammar pedant strikes again! :laugh:

          C Offline
          C Offline
          CPallini
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          But, what would be the target of 'for'?

          "In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • D Daniel Pfeffer

            No need to apologise. I just wanted to point out that grammar is not quite extinct even among the "youf". :) Sorry if I came on a bit too hard.

            Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            Daniel Pfeffer wrote:

            Sorry if I came on a bit too hard.

            Be assured you did not, no apology necessary.

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P PIEBALDconsult

              On another site, I just saw a post saying, "My OnlyFans is under 5‼️" :omg:

              J Offline
              J Offline
              jsc42
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              5!! ~= 6.6895029134491270575881180540904e+198 That is about 4.84e+188 times older than the universe, assuming that the units are years (and that the universe is 1.38e10 years old) I may be a pedant but I am not pedantic

              P M 2 Replies Last reply
              0
              • J jsc42

                5!! ~= 6.6895029134491270575881180540904e+198 That is about 4.84e+188 times older than the universe, assuming that the units are years (and that the universe is 1.38e10 years old) I may be a pedant but I am not pedantic

                P Offline
                P Offline
                PIEBALDconsult
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                I believe the units would be U.S. Dollars, but I didn't research it further.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • J jsc42

                  5!! ~= 6.6895029134491270575881180540904e+198 That is about 4.84e+188 times older than the universe, assuming that the units are years (and that the universe is 1.38e10 years old) I may be a pedant but I am not pedantic

                  M Offline
                  M Offline
                  MarkTJohnson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  The Calculator on my Mac says 5! = 120 120! = Not a number. (Actually starts at 102!)

                  I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.

                  D J 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • M MarkTJohnson

                    The Calculator on my Mac says 5! = 120 120! = Not a number. (Actually starts at 102!)

                    I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.

                    D Offline
                    D Offline
                    Daniel Pfeffer
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    Use [Stirling's Approximation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling's\_approximation) to estimate N! for larger N. ln(n!) = n ln(n) - n + O(ln(n))

                    Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • M MarkTJohnson

                      The Calculator on my Mac says 5! = 120 120! = Not a number. (Actually starts at 102!)

                      I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      jsc42
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      I used the calculator that comes as part of Windows (in Scientific mode)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups