Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Author Topic: PET PEEVES FUCK  (Read 182004 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ocksi

  • Guy on a buffalo
  • Tested
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 575
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2160 on: November 07, 2012, 10:29:33 AM »

By being two away?
Logged

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2161 on: November 07, 2012, 07:23:30 PM »

Yeah, I fail to see the problem as well. BEFORE the next would be impossible.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2162 on: November 07, 2012, 09:12:27 PM »

BEFORE the next would be impossible.

Er, how?

EVERYTHING happens before the next thing.  Except the final thing.

"One after the next" -- what the fuck does that mean?  Next relative to what?  Relative to "one", right?  Because THERE IS NO OTHER FUCKING NOUN IN THE SENTENCE.  There are two things in the sentence: "one" and "next".

If "next" is "the next, relative to one", then it by definition cannot fucking occur BEFORE the one.  You know what "next" means, right?  It implies a thing that is AFTER a different thing.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2163 on: November 07, 2012, 09:13:47 PM »

It's a linguistic form of Mathematical Induction.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2164 on: November 07, 2012, 09:20:17 PM »

But i does not occur after i+1.
Logged

patito

  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 1181
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2165 on: November 07, 2012, 09:20:46 PM »

Is this going to be the next left handed coffee mug?
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2166 on: November 07, 2012, 09:30:47 PM »

In that it's a non sequitur people throw out periodically because it was mildly amusing six years prior?  Motherfuckin' snakes on a motherfuckin' plane, apply directly to the forehead!  Attack its weak point for massive damage!  I wish I could quit you!
Logged

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2167 on: November 07, 2012, 09:35:16 PM »

BEFORE the next would be impossible.

Er, how?


Only impossible if we're talking about things of the same category, but that's what I assumed without any context.

If you're talking about houses on a street, there can be no house before the next house, because that would be the current one. But there can be any number of them after the next house. If you're talking about something else, like a fire hydrant, then sure, it can be before the next house.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2168 on: November 07, 2012, 09:38:51 PM »

No, I'm referring to the phrase "One after the next", a corruption of "One after the other", implying a constant stream of things.  As in "They just keep coming, one after the next."

The correct phrase is "One after the other" (or "One after another").  "One after the next" doesn't make a lick of damn sense.

Tron used it in an episode I watched this morning and it bugged me.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2169 on: November 07, 2012, 09:43:18 PM »

But i does not occur after i+1.

i+1 occurs after i though, even when the current i+1 is considered i.  That's the point of both the phrase and the proof.  It implies an endless progression, because when the next thing becomes the current, there is one thing after it.  You could imply the same with one thing after the current, but the subtext of that phrase invokes more of "just one more thing and I'm done" mentality, rather than looking ahead and not seeing any actual endpoint.

Now explain "One thing after the other", because I have no idea what the logic behind it is.  I think it's a corruption of "One thing after another", which is the same exact thing as "One thing after the next".
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2170 on: November 07, 2012, 09:57:19 PM »

i+1 occurs after i though, even when the current i+1 is considered i.

Yes, but "the next" is always after "the current", whether i=0, 1, 100, n, or infinity.  Infinite progression still doesn't mean you suddenly reverse direction.

That's the point of both the phrase and the proof.  It implies an endless progression, because when the next thing becomes the current, there is one thing after it.

Yes, there is A THING after IT.  IT is not after A THING.

You could imply the same with one thing after the current, but the subtext of that phrase invokes more of "just one more thing and I'm done" mentality, rather than looking ahead and not seeing any actual endpoint.

I'll buy that as a reason not to say "one thing after the current", not a reason to say "one thing after the next".

Now explain "One thing after the other", because I have no idea what the logic behind it is.  I think it's a corruption of "One thing after another", which is the same exact thing as "One thing after the next".

No, "one thing after another" is NOT the same thing as "one thing after the next".  A thing occurring after something that is after itself is logically impossible; a thing occurring after something is not.  The word "another" does not imply a chronological order; the words "after" and "next" do.

"The other" -- well, I suppose the definite article throws a wrench in the works of a visual implying an endless stream of things, but unlike "the next" it still makes logical sense in an inductive proof.  "Another" or "the other" implies that i follows some n; "the next" implies that i follows i+1, which it logically cannot.

"One after the current" (i+1 follows i) or "one after the previous" (i follows i-1) would be more precise than "one after another" or "one after the other" (i follows some n), but they sound awkward.  "One after the next" (i follows i+1) rolls off the tongue but is nonsensical.
Logged

Cthulhu-chan

  • Tested
  • Karma: 10
  • Posts: 2036
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2171 on: November 07, 2012, 10:35:52 PM »

No, I'm referring to the phrase "One after the next", a corruption of "One after the other", implying a constant stream of things.  As in "They just keep coming, one after the next."

The correct phrase is "One after the other" (or "One after another").  "One after the next" doesn't make a lick of damn sense.

Tron used it in an episode I watched this morning and it bugged me.

Well now that you've explained the context, I can say I've never heard this turn of phrase, and never hope to.
Logged

Friend

  • Meow see here..
  • Tested
  • Karma: 4
  • Posts: 321
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2172 on: November 07, 2012, 11:00:41 PM »

In that it's a non sequitur people throw out periodically because it was mildly amusing six years prior?  Motherfuckin' snakes on a motherfuckin' plane, apply directly to the forehead!  Attack its weak point for massive damage! I wish I knew how to quit you!

If I understand your argument properly, you're saying that

a = "one thing"
b = "after the next"

one thing after the next is akin to a pattern like:
a b a ... etc

Because the "one thing after the next" implies that "the next" is after "one thing"

whereas one thing after another would be the standard
a b c ... etc
 
Is that what you mean? Because if that is the case, I would have to disagree with that view.

I think that when people say that phrase, what they mean is that there is "one thing" that happens "after the next", but the thing "after the next" in their context doesn't apply to the "one thing". There is an implied pile of things on their plate, which, "after the next" thing has occurred, there is "one thing" piled on top of that heap as well. In list form:

x y z b a...etc

At least that's how I've understood that phrase to mean.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2173 on: November 07, 2012, 11:30:47 PM »

Oy vey.

If I do this quote by quote, I'll end up in an endurance race.

If I cut all the fat out and just show you where you seem confused, you'll chastise me for quoting you out of context.

And if I go nuts and ban you because I'm the King, a lot of people who normally scream ADMIN ABUSE BOO HOO will congratulate me on my rational decision making.

...

I hate you all.

So, bear with me here:

i+1 occurs after i though, even when the current i+1 is considered i.

Yes, but "the next" is always after "the current",

Right...

Quote
whether i=0, 1, 100, n, or infinity.

Right...

Quote
Infinite progression still doesn't mean you suddenly reverse direction.

And... lost you.  Linguistically or mathematically we're not talking about that.

Problem numero uno is, you keep using i, when the ill-advised math analogy uses k pretty specifically to mean "any number that is a positive integer".  Not a constant.  This is important, and the nomenclature you threw out that I naively ran with means I have no idea if we're talking about the same thing or not.

The idea is not that i comes after i+1, but that k and k+1 describe an iteration, and in the next iteration, what WAS k+1 is now k, and what is now k+1 was - pause for readability - k+1+1.

Not k.

Which is the idea you seem to have latched onto somehow with...

Quote
Yes, there is A THING after IT.  IT is not after A THING.

and

Quote
No, "one thing after another" is NOT the same thing as "one thing after the next".  A thing occurring after something that is after itself is logically impossible; a thing occurring after something is not.

So what we have here is:

k+1+1: One thing after the next, or one thing after another.
k+1: The next, or another.
k: Not specified in either case.  It is certainly NOT referred to as "one thing" and I don't know why you're obsessed with that idea.

I'll grant that "another" is somewhat more specific in the case that "one thing" occurs after something besides "this thing", but "the next" is linguistically accepted as meaning, specifically, "the next after the current".  Next time, next customer, next door.

"Next Tuesday", of course, is an inconstant that everybody hates.  Don't use that.

Quote
The word "another" does not imply a chronological order; the words "after" and "next" do.

So "one thing after the next" would be better, right?  Because it specifically implies a chronological progression, where "one thing after another" could simply refer to something occurring after something else, at some point.  "This is just one thing after another" starts to become something Yogi Berra would say.  Yogi Berra probably did say it.

Quote
"The other" -- well, I suppose the definite article throws a wrench in the works of a visual implying an endless stream of things, but unlike "the next" it still makes logical sense in an inductive proof.

What are you defining as "the other"?  It sounds more like x and y, not k and k+1.

Quote
"the next" implies that i follows i+1

Why do you think this?

Quote
"One after the next" (i follows i+1) rolls off the tongue but is nonsensical.

Oh that's why.

If you're conflating this with something like "Tuesday after the next", I can see where you get into the TIME PARADOX argument.  But it's invalid.  "One" or "one thing" is just that, a thing, not defined.  k, not i.  "After the next thing after this thing, is another thing."  Not "After the next thing after this thing, is this thing."  Otherwise it would be "This after the next," which isn't at all impossible and describes an actual cycle, but sounds kind of dumb.

I think that when people say that phrase, what they mean is that there is "one thing" that happens "after the next", but the thing "after the next" in their context doesn't apply to the "one thing". There is an implied pile of things on their plate, which, "after the next" thing has occurred, there is "one thing" piled on top of that heap as well. In list form:

x y z b a...etc

At least that's how I've understood that phrase to mean.

Ugh fuck if I knew I'd have to have an argument about my humor analogy I'd have gone with stack (EDIT: queue) in the first place.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2174 on: November 08, 2012, 08:46:12 AM »

While we're on the subject of being confused by the word "one":

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8A707720121108?irpc=932

"Taliban suicide attack on base in Pakistan's biggest city kills one".  There's no clarification in the article whether that means "just the suicide bomber", or someone else.  Of course they probably meant the latter, but that's both incorrect AND irreverent.

Hmph.
Logged

R^2

  • Not in the game.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -61931
  • Posts: 5164
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2175 on: November 08, 2012, 09:04:32 AM »

A lot of English idioms, or I guess in this case idiom drift, don't make sense. It used to bug me but all of the sudden I could care less.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2176 on: November 08, 2012, 09:29:29 AM »

But there is nothing in the phrase "one after the next" to refer to more than one iteration.  Again, there are two things in the sentence: "one" and "next".  Implying an additional iteration somewhere in the middle of the sentence, sans any actual reference to it, is...well, I can see where you're coming from that it's clear that's what people who use the phrase MEAN to do, but it's still paradoxical on its face.

"One after the last" would be good but then you hit up on the ambiguity that last can mean "final", not just "previous".
Logged

Lottel

  • You know that's right
  • Tested
  • Karma: 81
  • Posts: 3723
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2177 on: November 08, 2012, 09:06:31 PM »

"I've got autism or something pretty bad. I mean, I'm really good at remembering lyrics."
Logged

Beat Bandit

  • be entranced by my sexy rhythm
  • High-Bullshit
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65418
  • Posts: 4293
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2178 on: November 09, 2012, 04:46:05 AM »

Also while we're yelling at them, people who one time got some stuff in order because they're "totally OCD".
Logged

Niku

  • MEAT
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65350
  • Posts: 6705
    • View Profile
Re: PET PEEVES FUCK
« Reply #2179 on: November 09, 2012, 05:33:39 AM »

I get legitimately agitated when small things are not as they should be, and I'm never honestly sure if I've got some level of OCD or if I'm just a picky asshole.
Logged
i'm a blog now, blogs are cool: a fantastic machine made of meat