This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
1. I'll be as close to the pub as I can at exactly 5:15pm
2. I'll be at exactly that location as close to 5:15pm as I can.
I need to know now as it's going to get harder to work it out once I arrive.
Thanks.
2. I'll be at exactly that location as close to 5:15pm as I can.
I need to know now as it's going to get harder to work it out once I arrive.
Thanks.
In reply to edunn:
are you trying to use a bus timetable to get to the pub or are you a quantum particle trying to get your head around what the uncertainty principle means to your drinking?
Did you really mean mutually exclusive?
If you were to plot the areas you could be in with ranges for each case there would possibly be an intersection between the two. In that case they are not exclusive.
are you trying to use a bus timetable to get to the pub or are you a quantum particle trying to get your head around what the uncertainty principle means to your drinking?
Did you really mean mutually exclusive?
If you were to plot the areas you could be in with ranges for each case there would possibly be an intersection between the two. In that case they are not exclusive.
Post edited at 12:35
In reply to ultrabumbly:
Not really sure what it is you are asking.
The inclusion of "as I can" in both statements means that no matter where you are at 5:15, as long as you visit the pub at some point in your life the statements are both true. (depending on your definition of "as I can")
Not really sure what it is you are asking.
The inclusion of "as I can" in both statements means that no matter where you are at 5:15, as long as you visit the pub at some point in your life the statements are both true. (depending on your definition of "as I can")
In reply to edunn:
I've got no idea about that, but your cat is dead.
> 1. I'll be as close to the pub as I can at exactly 5:15pm
> 2. I'll be at exactly that location as close to 5:15pm as I can.
I've got no idea about that, but your cat is dead.
11
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm not sure where you are, but I can tell you exactly how fast you're going
I'm not sure where you are, but I can tell you exactly how fast you're going
Post edited at 13:25
5
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
Yes, the inclusion of "as I can" introduces some doubt as to whether he's going to get to the pub.
He needs to be more positive!
> The inclusion of "as I can" in both statements means that no matter where you are at 5:15, as long as you visit the pub at some point in your life the statements are both true. (depending on your definition of "as I can")
Yes, the inclusion of "as I can" introduces some doubt as to whether he's going to get to the pub.
He needs to be more positive!
In reply to Lusk:
he may have already been and be resisting the strong pull of kebab and the weak pull of salad.
he may have already been and be resisting the strong pull of kebab and the weak pull of salad.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Did you hear the one about the electron that got stopped for speeding? Policeman says "Do you realise you were doing 84mph sir?" and the electron replies "Great, thanks. Now I'm completely lost!"
Did you hear the one about the electron that got stopped for speeding? Policeman says "Do you realise you were doing 84mph sir?" and the electron replies "Great, thanks. Now I'm completely lost!"
10
In reply to edunn:
If you're in the pub at 5.15pm, both statements are true.
So, no, they're not mutually exclusive.
I realise this may have been an attempt at uncertainty principle-related humour, but (a) spatial position and time are not complementary variables, and (b) being late for the pub is no laughing matter.
If you're in the pub at 5.15pm, both statements are true.
So, no, they're not mutually exclusive.
I realise this may have been an attempt at uncertainty principle-related humour, but (a) spatial position and time are not complementary variables, and (b) being late for the pub is no laughing matter.
4
In reply to edunn:
no they're not. It would work 3d, but to keep it simple draw a line from starting position to the pub. in the first and second statement you can be anywhere along that line at the given time. They're essentially the same thing to be honest, just one is more complicated gramatically.
no they're not. It would work 3d, but to keep it simple draw a line from starting position to the pub. in the first and second statement you can be anywhere along that line at the given time. They're essentially the same thing to be honest, just one is more complicated gramatically.
In reply to skog:
No they're not. Being 'close to' a location is not the same as being 'exactly at' a location. It's basic English, plus a little bit of logic.
> If you're in the pub at 5.15pm, both statements are true.
No they're not. Being 'close to' a location is not the same as being 'exactly at' a location. It's basic English, plus a little bit of logic.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Being at a location is as close as you can get to it.
"... without actually being there" is normally added if that's what is meant.
It's basic logic, plus a little bit of English...
Being at a location is as close as you can get to it.
"... without actually being there" is normally added if that's what is meant.
It's basic logic, plus a little bit of English...
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
The closest you can be to a location is exactly at that location.
It's basic English, plus a little bit of logic...
[rats: skog beat me to it, even with the sarcasm...]
> 1. I'll be as close to [...] as I can at exactly 5:15pm
> 2. I'll be at exactly that location as close to 5:15pm as I can.
The closest you can be to a location is exactly at that location.
It's basic English, plus a little bit of logic...
[rats: skog beat me to it, even with the sarcasm...]
Post edited at 18:21
In reply to captain paranoia:
Quite bizarre. You are using a scientific definition of being 'close to an (infinitesimal) point', which is not at all what we mean in ordinary english by being 'close to a pub'. You are either close to a pub or in it. I am not 'close to' my home at the moment, I'm in it. 'Close to' does not mean 'close to or at (exactly the same place)'.
> The closest you can be to a location is exactly at that location.
> It's basic English, plus a little bit of logic...
> [rats: skog beat me to it, even with the sarcasm...]
Quite bizarre. You are using a scientific definition of being 'close to an (infinitesimal) point', which is not at all what we mean in ordinary english by being 'close to a pub'. You are either close to a pub or in it. I am not 'close to' my home at the moment, I'm in it. 'Close to' does not mean 'close to or at (exactly the same place)'.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
surely the crux is that the OP says that he will be less able to compute his location once he's arrived.
assuming, of course that by "arriving" he is implying that he has stopped.
surely the crux is that the OP says that he will be less able to compute his location once he's arrived.
assuming, of course that by "arriving" he is implying that he has stopped.
Post edited at 18:43
In reply to skog:
No, that's what close to means. If I'm close to someone I am next to them (there need be no gap between us), but it doesn't mean I occupy the same space/their space. When I'm 'at' a pub I'm not 'close to' it. If I was meeting someone at a pub and they rang me to say they they were close to it, I wouldn't take that to mean that they were in it.
Nor would anyone who speaks/understands ordinary English.
> Being at a location is as close as you can get to it.
> "... without actually being there" is normally added if that's what is meant.
No, that's what close to means. If I'm close to someone I am next to them (there need be no gap between us), but it doesn't mean I occupy the same space/their space. When I'm 'at' a pub I'm not 'close to' it. If I was meeting someone at a pub and they rang me to say they they were close to it, I wouldn't take that to mean that they were in it.
Nor would anyone who speaks/understands ordinary English.
In reply to edunn:
Well ... I'm no logician but I feel uneasy about the semantics here. Does "as close ... as I can" necessarily have the scientific sense of meaning as close as physically possible in time or space ... or can it instead have the more casual but common connotation "as close as I can contrive to be, allowing for late buses or meeting garrulous friends en route" ?
Always glad to muddy the waters of dogmatic certitude ...
Well ... I'm no logician but I feel uneasy about the semantics here. Does "as close ... as I can" necessarily have the scientific sense of meaning as close as physically possible in time or space ... or can it instead have the more casual but common connotation "as close as I can contrive to be, allowing for late buses or meeting garrulous friends en route" ?
Always glad to muddy the waters of dogmatic certitude ...
In reply to wercat:
How can 'arriving' mean that someone has stopped? There's a present activity of nearing .. er, arriving ... at the destination still going on. It's not completed.
Am I alone in thinking that UKC forums have recently (over the last year or so) going completely batty, as well as illiterate?
> assuming, of course that by "arriving" he is implying that he has stopped.
How can 'arriving' mean that someone has stopped? There's a present activity of nearing .. er, arriving ... at the destination still going on. It's not completed.
Am I alone in thinking that UKC forums have recently (over the last year or so) going completely batty, as well as illiterate?
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
to be fair, originally close did probably allow for something being at or in the object as it comes from something being closed or enclosed within another thing. It is only by usage that we don't typically use it this way now.
to be fair, originally close did probably allow for something being at or in the object as it comes from something being closed or enclosed within another thing. It is only by usage that we don't typically use it this way now.
In reply to skog:
Actually, I was slightly sloppy above in saying that if I am close to someone I am next to them. Of course, in a close gathering of people (e.g. a drinks party) I could be close to someone, but not necessarily next to them. There could be intervening people. (I was often 'close to' a lot of famous movie stars when I was in the film industry in the 1980s, and in the Pinewood bar, but very rarely next to them.)
Actually, I was slightly sloppy above in saying that if I am close to someone I am next to them. Of course, in a close gathering of people (e.g. a drinks party) I could be close to someone, but not necessarily next to them. There could be intervening people. (I was often 'close to' a lot of famous movie stars when I was in the film industry in the 1980s, and in the Pinewood bar, but very rarely next to them.)
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
The process of arriving includes stopping. Stopping means losing velocity, which is now a measured quantity. Hence position becomes uncertain? So he'll never know whether he is actually at the pub or just near it. I might have just gone off at a tangent of course.
The process of arriving includes stopping. Stopping means losing velocity, which is now a measured quantity. Hence position becomes uncertain? So he'll never know whether he is actually at the pub or just near it. I might have just gone off at a tangent of course.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
What if the OP gets to the pub at 5, buys a pint, then stands outside touching the door from 5:14 - 5:16?
What if the OP gets to the pub at 5, buys a pint, then stands outside touching the door from 5:14 - 5:16?
In reply to ultrabumbly:
The OED says: 'In immediate proximity, very near 1489'. I don't think 600 years is 'now' exactly
The OED says: 'In immediate proximity, very near 1489'. I don't think 600 years is 'now' exactly
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
But being "close to" something does not mean the same as being "as close to" something as you can be. Indeed, in the latter case, our protagonist might not be close to their destination at all - due, perhaps, to a variety of vexing obstacles encountered enroute.
Further, your interpretation appears to suggest that, should our pub-seeking friend find that they are making better time than they had feared, they would deliberately hold off arriving until after the designated moment - possibly using the time to consult a variety of esteemed philosophers, logicians and literary experts on the best way of interpreting their solemn promise.
But being "close to" something does not mean the same as being "as close to" something as you can be. Indeed, in the latter case, our protagonist might not be close to their destination at all - due, perhaps, to a variety of vexing obstacles encountered enroute.
Further, your interpretation appears to suggest that, should our pub-seeking friend find that they are making better time than they had feared, they would deliberately hold off arriving until after the designated moment - possibly using the time to consult a variety of esteemed philosophers, logicians and literary experts on the best way of interpreting their solemn promise.
1
In reply to wercat:
Fear not - as a pub is not a single point, it is possible to arrive and remain at it, without reducing one's velocity to zero.
Velocity can remain poorly-defined, allowing location to be well-defined. Acceleration and jolt should be carefully monitored and controlled, however, to avoid transferring too much momentum to the contents of one's glass.
Fear not - as a pub is not a single point, it is possible to arrive and remain at it, without reducing one's velocity to zero.
Velocity can remain poorly-defined, allowing location to be well-defined. Acceleration and jolt should be carefully monitored and controlled, however, to avoid transferring too much momentum to the contents of one's glass.
In reply to wercat:
Well, the tangent is that the two words 'arriving' and 'stopping' are not synonyms. That's why we have the different words. That's the beauty of the English language, its vast vocabulary. Arriving still suggests a notion of closing distance. Stopping does not. An engine, already in one fixed place, can stop.
> I might have just gone off at a tangent of course.
Well, the tangent is that the two words 'arriving' and 'stopping' are not synonyms. That's why we have the different words. That's the beauty of the English language, its vast vocabulary. Arriving still suggests a notion of closing distance. Stopping does not. An engine, already in one fixed place, can stop.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Ah, but perhaps we can agree that the final infinitesimal process included in "arriving" is "stopping". So when the process of arriving is complete then so is the process of stopping. When both are complete he now knows that he is no longer travelling and therefore can no longer be certain of his position. Therefore he may or may not be at the pub but he knows at least that he is near it. That was my interpretation, at any rate.
Ah, but perhaps we can agree that the final infinitesimal process included in "arriving" is "stopping". So when the process of arriving is complete then so is the process of stopping. When both are complete he now knows that he is no longer travelling and therefore can no longer be certain of his position. Therefore he may or may not be at the pub but he knows at least that he is near it. That was my interpretation, at any rate.
Post edited at 19:17
1
In reply to skog:
Well, yes, the 'as close to' in the OP was very odd indeed. Because it's not how we would ordinarily speak. 99.99 per cent of English-speaking people would take him to mean that he was pressed to the pub door or walls, but not actually in it.
> But being "close to" something does not mean the same as being "as close to" something as you can be. Indeed, in the latter case, our protagonist might not be close to their destination at all - due, perhaps, to a variety of vexing obstacles encountered enroute.
Well, yes, the 'as close to' in the OP was very odd indeed. Because it's not how we would ordinarily speak. 99.99 per cent of English-speaking people would take him to mean that he was pressed to the pub door or walls, but not actually in it.
In reply to Nick Alcock:
none, as they were unable to get to the bar before the beer was all drunk, on account of all the talking
none, as they were unable to get to the bar before the beer was all drunk, on account of all the talking
Post edited at 19:18
1
In reply to wercat:
Yes, 'last infinitesimal'. Once the process is over we would say (in a very simple, Anglo-Saxon way) that he/she's 'arrived' and no longer 'arriving'. Only a sloppy writer would prefer to use the word 'stopped', though it could work fine in many contexts. I.e. 'Stop' is much more context-bound. Of course, a good writer will always want to be far less ambiguous than this and would say e.g. that the person has 'pulled to halt (outside the inn, or whatever)', 'entered the pub', 'arrived at the bar', is 'close to the bar', is 'close to the pub', is 'close to the pub door', is 'arriving at the pub', is 'still a few hundred yards away but quite close', etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I.e we would want to say as accurately as we can exactly what we mean. In ordinary language, that everyone can understand.
Yes, 'last infinitesimal'. Once the process is over we would say (in a very simple, Anglo-Saxon way) that he/she's 'arrived' and no longer 'arriving'. Only a sloppy writer would prefer to use the word 'stopped', though it could work fine in many contexts. I.e. 'Stop' is much more context-bound. Of course, a good writer will always want to be far less ambiguous than this and would say e.g. that the person has 'pulled to halt (outside the inn, or whatever)', 'entered the pub', 'arrived at the bar', is 'close to the bar', is 'close to the pub', is 'close to the pub door', is 'arriving at the pub', is 'still a few hundred yards away but quite close', etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I.e we would want to say as accurately as we can exactly what we mean. In ordinary language, that everyone can understand.
In reply to Nick Alcock:
'Another?' I take it that you mean you'll be in one pub, that happens to be extremely close to another pub, at exactly 5:30. BTW, Belper has no less than four pubs around the market place alone, so that statement would work very well here.
> I'll be as close to another pub as I can at exactly 5:30pm
'Another?' I take it that you mean you'll be in one pub, that happens to be extremely close to another pub, at exactly 5:30. BTW, Belper has no less than four pubs around the market place alone, so that statement would work very well here.
1
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I'd think they were trying to get to the pub for about 17:15, expected to be a little late, and had overthought how best to express this. I'd be slightly surprised to go outside and find them pressed bodily against the wall.
We mix in different social circles, I suppose...
I'd think they were trying to get to the pub for about 17:15, expected to be a little late, and had overthought how best to express this. I'd be slightly surprised to go outside and find them pressed bodily against the wall.
We mix in different social circles, I suppose...
In reply to skog:
If they were in circles then they would all be close to each other would they not?
> We mix in different social circles, I suppose...
If they were in circles then they would all be close to each other would they not?
In reply to Nick Alcock:
Dancing's fine - the problems come later.
"I am sorry, my dear, but I must withdraw. I have realised that we are no longer close."
Dancing's fine - the problems come later.
"I am sorry, my dear, but I must withdraw. I have realised that we are no longer close."
Post edited at 20:37
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Even in plain language, 'closest to' can mean 'exactly correct'. Any number of games, such as 'pin the tail on the donkey', 'spot the ball', 'guess the number of sweets', etc. have 'closest guess wins'.
Are you suggesting that guessing the exact number of sweets wouldn't win...?
As for infinitesimal approach, I am reminded of the old, but now non-PC joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer, the girl and the four halving step approach.
Even in plain language, 'closest to' can mean 'exactly correct'. Any number of games, such as 'pin the tail on the donkey', 'spot the ball', 'guess the number of sweets', etc. have 'closest guess wins'.
Are you suggesting that guessing the exact number of sweets wouldn't win...?
As for infinitesimal approach, I am reminded of the old, but now non-PC joke about the mathematician, the physicist and the engineer, the girl and the four halving step approach.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
No, it's just you, Gordon...
> Am I alone in thinking that UKC forums have recently (over the last year or so) going completely batty, as well as illiterate?
No, it's just you, Gordon...
In reply to skog:
I have, on occasion, agreed to meet friends in a pub, arrived by the agreed time, as have they, only not to meet for some time...
> Fear not - as a pub is not a single point, it is possible to arrive and remain at it
I have, on occasion, agreed to meet friends in a pub, arrived by the agreed time, as have they, only not to meet for some time...
In reply to skog:
Are they mutually exclusive circles?
> We mix in different social circles, I suppose...
Are they mutually exclusive circles?
3
In reply to captain paranoia:
No, it's just you, Gordon...
OK. I'll just shut up then?
> Am I alone in thinking that UKC forums have recently (over the last year or so) going completely batty, as well as illiterate?
No, it's just you, Gordon...
OK. I'll just shut up then?
In reply to edunn:
He'll be a few yards from the pub at exactly 5:15:00pm, he will enter the pub no earlier than 5:15:01pm
He'll be a few yards from the pub at exactly 5:15:00pm, he will enter the pub no earlier than 5:15:01pm
In reply to skog:
Well . . . it's taken a while to digest the information above. Very interesting (even with a hangover!).
So just to clarify some points. On language - the use of 'as close to . . . as I can' was in fact what sparked the debate. I was saying it to placate my drinking partner who wanted me there dead-on 17:15, but I couldn't guarantee it. Although I like to be a little less ambiguous in every day life, yesterday it just came out that way. Honest.
On the specifics of being close - By 'as close to . . . as I can' I was including the possibility of actually being there at the pub/on time.
I think my friend and I agreed they are not mutually exclusive.
Well . . . it's taken a while to digest the information above. Very interesting (even with a hangover!).
So just to clarify some points. On language - the use of 'as close to . . . as I can' was in fact what sparked the debate. I was saying it to placate my drinking partner who wanted me there dead-on 17:15, but I couldn't guarantee it. Although I like to be a little less ambiguous in every day life, yesterday it just came out that way. Honest.
On the specifics of being close - By 'as close to . . . as I can' I was including the possibility of actually being there at the pub/on time.
I think my friend and I agreed they are not mutually exclusive.
In reply to edunn:
Excellent - and I hope it was as close to being a good night out as you could have wished.
Excellent - and I hope it was as close to being a good night out as you could have wished.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...