Monday, July 9, 2012 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[alietr]

I think the CC's do a great job of getting good contestants on there. The problem is that you can't tell 100% of the time what someone is going to be like once they get on. A pretty high percentage of people will perform as expected, but a small minority won't. Also, they're trying to get people who are smart, think quickly, and are (reasonably) personable. All from a self-selected sample willing to go on national television. That limits the set pretty significantly right there. Yes, I recognize that there are people on here who feel they fit all of those criteria. If you really do, you're likely to be picked sometime. But it often takes time for your number to come up, so to speak. And there are probably other factors they consider to be important that we're not even aware of.

[Magna]

I knew who the eureka guy was, but blurted out Euripides instead.

All I could think of in the moment was "bathtub guy," which I guess would have made me sound like Bill & Ted.

[mbclev]

[1-4-2008 player Heather CHapman(Dan Pawson regular run opponent) had -6200, the lowest recorded score in the J! archive. On CHapman's j-archive page, it is mentioned that a contestant got -3400 in the era of the old dollar values and Joan Kantor admitted when she appeared on Love COnnection(early Trebek J! five timer Elise Beraru also once appeared on LC) in 1989 that her final score when on J! was -5400. Ergo, tonight's score will become the lowest recorded in the archive, not taking into account new v. old dollar values.

I had thought that record was -$6500, but if you can find where that score was reached, please do.

[TenPoundHammer]

I notice that Trebek has really toned down his personal insults. That's probably a good thin, treating the contestants with a little more respect.

Personal insults? You make him sound like he was once doing the Anne Robinson thing: "Well, team, you have amassed a measly, piddling, PATHETIC $100. Did all of you *@#!ing flunk kindergarten? Do you not even know what a capital @(*#$ing letter is?! I'm surprised none of you are still in #@*($ing diapers!! Now, it's time to send one of your sorry asses crying back home to mommy. Which one of you brainless #@(*$@#heads is... THE WEAKEST LINK?!?!"

(Okay, that's what that show always felt like to me. Everyone keeps saying "but it's supposed to loosen them up and let them have a laugh at their own expense. And I can't possibly see how anything even remotely resembling an insult can be taken in jest under any circumstances. Especially when your tone doesn't suggest that you're only joking.)

[Magna]

I notice that Trebek has really toned down his personal insults. That's probably a good thin, treating the contestants with a little more respect.

Personal insults? You make him sound like he was once doing the Anne Robinson thing: "Well, team, you have amassed a measly, piddling, PATHETIC $100. Did all of you *@#!ing flunk kindergarten? Do you not even know what a capital @(*#$ing letter is?! I'm surprised none of you are still in #@*($ing diapers!! Now, it's time to send one of your sorry asses crying back home to mommy. Which one of you brainless #@(*$@#heads is... THE WEAKEST LINK?!?!"

Maybe Connery put him in his place.

[goforthetie]

1) If you tried to buy 35,345,023,423,004,235,389 pounds you'd have a problem.

Maybe a physical problem, but in theory I *could* buy that much. I'd just have to wait to repopulate the cows of the earth... many times over.

That's my point. All numbers are theoretical when you get down to it.

3) Even if you did, that's not pi. That's a physical object that stands in as an example of what pi might represent.

And there is the distinction. Pi is "real" because a physical object exists that represents it as a quantity. The same cannot be said for i terms. I'll concede on your ambiguity point from early ("imaginary" vs. "complex").

Ah, but there are physical things that can represent a quantity of i. A plane rotation by 90 degrees, for instance, or voltages in alternating current. I'll grant that the representations are harder to grasp conceptually, but that doesn't make them less real. I've seen physical representations of i. I haven't seen physical representations of 35,345,023,423,004,235,389.

[the_phil]

I haven't seen physical representations of 35,345,023,423,004,235,389.

Sure you have - that many sucrose molecules makes a whopping 1/316th tsp of table sugar.

[goforthetie]

I haven't seen physical representations of 35,345,023,423,004,235,389.

Sure you have - that many sucrose molecules makes a whopping 1/316th tsp of table sugar.

Exactly?

[the_phil]

I haven't seen physical representations of 35,345,023,423,004,235,389.

Sure you have - that many sucrose molecules makes a whopping 1/316th tsp of table sugar.

Exactly?

Ok, not exactly... but ±0.1%

[Beginner's_Luck_500]

I was confused about this FJ! clue: "1910 winner Albrecht Kossel studied a new material in the control center of cells; today, we know it as this."
I don't know if my thought on this one was similar to Stephanie's response.
Stephanie - DNA
Me - Chromosomes
Think you guys can give me feedback on this?

[TenPoundHammer]

My sister also said "chromosome" and wondered if it would be correct.

[Austin Powers]

I was confused about this FJ! clue: "1910 winner Albrecht Kossel studied a new material in the control center of cells; today, we know it as this."
I don't know if my thought on this one was similar to Stephanie's response.
Stephanie - DNA
Me - Chromosomes
Think you guys can give me feedback on this?

And this is why it's a bad question. He was, in fact, studying chromosomes. Chromosomes were sorta "new" - their existence was established around 1850, and this guy is doing his thing around 1890. Now, reading between the lines, they want DNA - that's what the Nobel was for (or just "nucleic acids") and they specifically said "control center" so as to avoid saying "nucleus," which points toward them wanting the answer to be about nucleic acids. However, by implication he was studying chromosomes, since DNA is a chief component of chromosomes, and chromosomes were a relatively new concept whose actually role was still speculative when Kossel was studying them (keep in mind, we didn't have Mendelian genetics yet).

Should you be right? Probably not; Kossel's famous because of his work with nucleic acids. But, technically, are you right? Wellllllll.......

[Magna]

Hard to say - DNA is part of the chromosomes, so it might be acceptable. I'm struggling with the "new material" part of the clue, which AP mentioned. The "today we know it as this" part of the clue is tough to apply to chromosomes, because that name was already being used by the time Kossel did his work. Also, "material" suggests a chemical or substance, rather than a structure.

[Beginner's_Luck_500]

Hard to say - DNA is part of the chromosomes, so it might be acceptable. I'm struggling with the "new material" part of the clue, which AP mentioned. The "today we know it as this" part of the clue is tough to apply to chromosomes, because that name was already being used by the time Kossel did his work. Also, "material" suggests a chemical or substance, rather than a structure.

Thanks for the info. I really appreciate it.

[Beginner's_Luck_500]

I was confused about this FJ! clue: "1910 winner Albrecht Kossel studied a new material in the control center of cells; today, we know it as this."
I don't know if my thought on this one was similar to Stephanie's response.
Stephanie - DNA
Me - Chromosomes
Think you guys can give me feedback on this?

And this is why it's a bad question. He was, in fact, studying chromosomes. Chromosomes were sorta "new" - their existence was established around 1850, and this guy is doing his thing around 1890. Now, reading between the lines, they want DNA - that's what the Nobel was for (or just "nucleic acids") and they specifically said "control center" so as to avoid saying "nucleus," which points toward them wanting the answer to be about nucleic acids. However, by implication he was studying chromosomes, since DNA is a chief component of chromosomes, and chromosomes were a relatively new concept whose actually role was still speculative when Kossel was studying them (keep in mind, we didn't have Mendelian genetics yet).

Should you be right? Probably not; Kossel's famous because of his work with nucleic acids. But, technically, are you right? Wellllllll.......

I'm still going to need to do more research on this, either on google, or something like that.

[jpahk]

I bet Joon insta-got that Zelda question

why yes, yes i did. my eyes practically bugged out of my head when i saw it.

i also was cheering for stephanie even more after her awesome battle of manzikert peeps anecdote. manzikert! if, theoretically, there were a magical place you could play jeopardy on the internet where austin powers once wrote a clue about north by northwest, i might/would have once written a bottom-row clue there about manzikert which nobody but austin powers has ever gotten right.

on FJ my first thought was "nucleic acids", then "DNA", then "there's nothing in the clue to really distinguish. they'd have to take either one, but i bet they want DNA." it's kind of unfortunate for us science types that FJ is so rarely about science, but given the writers' abilities in the various categories, perhaps that's actually a good thing. anyway, it was nice to actually get one after an embarrassing 2/5 last week.

the discussion here about real & imaginary numbers was pretty painful for me to read, or even skim (which is what i did). i've come to the sad conclusion that the vast majority of people don't know what numbers mean. if you ask the deli guy for 3 pounds of meat, he won't give you exactly 3 pounds, of course, but if you get 3.07, that is 3 pounds for the purposes of buying meat (or cooking it). all measurements have an error bar (or uncertainty, tolerance, or probably some other synonyms i'm not thinking of right now), even if they're implicit. that's why asking for π pounds is nonsensical.

Ah, but there are physical things that can represent a quantity of i. A plane rotation by 90 degrees, for instance, or voltages in alternating current. I'll grant that the representations are harder to grasp conceptually, but that doesn't make them less real. I've seen physical representations of i. I haven't seen physical representations of 35,345,023,423,004,235,389.

the complex numbers used in analysis of alternating circuits don't actually represent physical quantities; their real parts do. the use of complex numbers is a mathematical trick to help with the bookkeeping. (i don't have an opinion about the terms "real" and "imaginary", but i do know about "physical" and "unphysical".)

[the_phil]

All measurements have an error bar (or uncertainty, tolerance, or probably some other synonyms i'm not thinking of right now), even if they're implicit. that's why asking for π pounds is nonsensical.

Is it entirely nonsensical if you don't go in expecting that exact quantity? The key is realizing that at best you can get the measurement accurate to the resolution of the instrument. Certainly none of us would complain if we ordered π lbs of meat and got 3.14 lbs on a meat scale accurate to hundredths.

In real life, when I eat out I take every opportunity to leave my tip in terms of π (because I'm a nerd like that). My bill comes to 11.86? Looks like the tip's going to be π. I realize I'm leaving $3.14, not $3.14159265. It confuses the crap out of most servers, but they finalize the total on my card just fine.

[stevo4212]

Truly painful.

Pet peeve time: I hate the term "imaginary numbers". All numbers occupy the same spot on the concrete-to-abstract spectrum. i is no less "real" than pi is (or 2, for that matter).

More to the point, I remember learning in school, that a complex number is defined as a + bi, a being the real portion and bi being the imaginary portion, or an "imaginary number." If that is the case, then "imaginary number" is a defined term in mathematics - whether the etymology of the term is based on an erroneous belief or not.

Griping about that would be like getting upset that the ownership interest is called fee simple absolute. After all, there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE ownership, right?

On the pi question, I was actually looking forward to saying that pi is a transcendental number. We've known it is irrational for a while, but the idea of a transcendental number fascinates me. if you can remember the proof that pi is not algebraic, I commend you, for I could never quite grasp it.

A transcendental number is a number that cannot be the solution to any polynomial, of any order, with rational coefficients.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I notice that Trebek has really toned down his personal insults. That's probably a good thin, treating the contestants with a little more respect.

Personal insults? You make him sound like he was once doing the Anne Robinson thing: "Well, team, you have amassed a measly, piddling, PATHETIC $100. Did all of you *@#!ing flunk kindergarten? Do you not even know what a capital @(*#$ing letter is?! I'm surprised none of you are still in #@*($ing diapers!! Now, it's time to send one of your sorry asses crying back home to mommy. Which one of you brainless #@(*$@#heads is... THE WEAKEST LINK?!?!"

Maybe Connery put him in his place.

Yes he did. Long and hard.

Then again, I whiffed big time on FJ. My first thought was (believe it or not)....

Spoiler: show

CELLOPHANE!!

but then shifted to something inside the cell, like mitochondria (sp?). Obviously way wrong.

[goforthetie]

More to the point, I remember learning in school, that a complex number is defined as a + bi, a being the real portion and bi being the imaginary portion, or an "imaginary number." If that is the case, then "imaginary number" is a defined term in mathematics - whether the etymology of the term is based on an erroneous belief or not.

Most would say "purely imaginary" to make absolutely clear that's what is meant. The term "imaginary" by itself is unfortunately used in ambiguous ways (usually by people who aren't concerned with "official" definitions).

On the pi question, I was actually looking forward to saying that pi is a transcendental number. We've known it is irrational for a while, but the idea of a transcendental number fascinates me. if you can remember the proof that pi is not algebraic, I commend you, for I could never quite grasp it.

I can't remember it off the top of my head, but I did write a paper on it once. Proving that e is transcendental is slightly easier. Not that I can remember that proof, either, although I do remember the proof that it is irrational.