0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
Usage

"exponential growth", "exponentially"

I guess this is how new words supplant old ones.
One of those nasty shocks like learning in childhood that everyone eventually dies
(ok, intentional hyperbole, expressive of a certain degree of exasperation; do not take the above completely literally)
is when you find out that to some people, the phrase "exponential growth" means, simply, extremely or surprisingly fast growth. Now imagine that you're talking about a population that grows at a rate jointly proportional to the present population size and the amount by which the population falls short of the carrying capacity. The population is NOT growing exponentially when it's growing fastest not anywhere near exponentially. But when it's near the beginning of its growth, and growing much more slowly, then it's growing approximately exponentially. Pointing this out seems sure to cause illiterates to find this contradictory.
In childhood, one goes through the reasoning that makes it clear why exponential functions eventually grow faster than polynomials even if in the short run they grow more slowly. Thereafter one understands what "exponential growth" is.

Somehow , it seems, persons who never go throught that line of reasoning come to absorb the phrase "exponential growth" into their vocabulary, and of course, do not even suspect that they are clueless about what it means.
Then someone says something like "We would need an exponentially larger budget in order to ...", so that the word "exponential" now means "very much larger". A new word that is spelled and pronounced the same way as the old one but means something completely different has appeared. What the new word has to do with exponents (those things written in superscript in math) becomes obscure. The whole concept of exponential growth is about the dependence of one quantity on another, but in the new usage, it's about just one quantity. Mike Hardy
  

Top answer

[nq:1]I guess this is how new words supplant old ones. One of those nasty shocks like learning in childhood that ... dependence of one quantity on another, but in the new usage, it's about just one quantity.

  • [nq:1]I guess this is how new words supplant old ones.
  • One of those nasty shocks like learning in childhood that ...
  • dependence of one quantity on another, but in the new usage, it's about just one quantity.
  • Mike Hardy[/nq] I have never expected mathematical terms to be applied appropriately in common speech.
  • Even percentages are often abused.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

104 Answers
0
[nq:1]I guess this is how new words supplant old ones. One of those nasty shocks like learning in childhood that ... dependence of one quantity on another, but in the new usage, it's about just one quantity. Mike Hardy[/nq]
I have never expected mathematical terms to be applied appropriately in common speech. Even percentages are often abused. Does 500% bigger mean 5 times as big or 6 times as
0
[nq:1]There is a phrase which is becoming popular in marketing recently which amuses me: "The fastest growing X". X could ... bank in the country. The established banks might need to get the whole country as customers to match this growth.[/nq]
When I started at HP in 1989, there was a joke going round that Sun was bragging about how their MTBF(1) had doubled, while HP's had only gone up by te
0
[nq:1]When I started at HP in 1989, there was a joke going round that Sun was bragging about how their ... The Innovator's Dilemma knows that when it comes to technologies, you ignore fast-growing, but small, competitors at your peril.[/nq]
My favorite percentage joke is a Dilbert cartoon wherein the boss was demanding an investigation into why employees were calling in sick 40% of the time on
0
Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote in part:
[nq:1]Trying to apply mathematical terms to common speech could have amusing consequences. Imagine insisting that the terms: rational, irrational, transcendental, real, imaginary and complex were appropriately applied to numbers.[/nq]
From
on re us/trucker rules:

They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically a
0
[nq:1]Sean O'Leathlobhair wrote in part:[/nq]
[nq:2]Trying to apply mathematical terms to common speech could have ... transcendental, real, imaginary and complex were appropriately applied to numbers.[/nq]
[nq:1]From http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040716/ap on re us/trucker
0
[nq:1]From on re us/trucker rules They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically after the 10th and 11th hour of driving. Huh?[/nq]
Could you please expand on that "huh"? I figure you probably know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression, so that's not it. I don't see a problem with the basic idea that, after a certain point,
0
[nq:1]From on re us/trucker rules They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically after the 10th and 11th hour of driving. Huh?[/nq]
Could you please expand on that "huh"? I figure you probably know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression, so that's not it. I don't see a problem with the basic idea that, after a certain point,
0
[nq:1]From on re us/trucker rules They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically after the 10th and 11th hour of driving. Huh?[/nq]
Could you please expand on that "huh"? I figure you probably know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression, so that's not it. I don't see a problem with the basic idea that, after a certain point,
0
[nq:1]From on re us/trucker rules They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically after the 10th and 11th hour of driving. Huh?[/nq]
Could you please expand on that "huh"? I figure you probably know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression, so that's not it. I don't see a problem with the basic idea that, after a certain point,
0
[nq:1]From on re us/trucker rules They pointed to studies showing that the risk of crashes rises geometrically after the 10th and 11th hour of driving. Huh?[/nq]
Could you please expand on that "huh"? I figure you probably know the difference between an arithmetic progression and a geometric progression, so that's not it. I don't see a problem with the basic idea that, after a certain point,

Related Questions