Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I take it that maths is not one of your strong points? 
I have to confess that when I read a book, my enjoyment of it can really be spoiled by elementary errors, and that's what happened to me in "1632". There's a scene in which a priest makes a "pithy comment" in Latin, and gets the Latin wrong. Studying Latin is one of my interests, and this mistake did, I'm afraid, really annoy me, and put me off the book and its sequels. |
Actually, and sadly I might add, I have a couple degrees in mathematics...but not arithmetic. Therein lies the difference. I have a fairly relaxed sense of need for applied numeric accuracy...at least that has been my, ummm, rational, for the past few decades.
need an answer, eh, in the ballpark is enough. In reality I can be slightly dyslexic in my addition at times. It's weird as it can come and go...but that might be why I was drawn toward theoretical work vs. applied (which I have no use for applied at all...EXCEPT non-linear/chaotic systems...I LOVE that stuff.)
One of my grad profs once teased me that I was the only person on the planet who could multiply (-1)*(-1) and get -2 or square -1 and get 3...I just get caught up in the equations and forget to check my arithmetic...and boy can that change the solution space.
So, 1632, is near enough to 2032 is near enough to now....hehehehe....
ok, FINE I stand corrected!! hahahaha...geeze, some days I scare even myself.
