Official "Faits erronés dans de belles-lettres" thread

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Notice how when you actually indicate why the link you post is relevant to the thread, the post doesn't get junked? Notice how annotation-free "apropos of nothing?" Utube links and ones shown to to be relevant to the discussion also get disparate treatment?

If you still don't get it, let me spell it out: You long ago used up your "random links posted sans annotation or indication of relevance" privileges. If you saved your keystrokes for actual on-topic content rather than loud whining and PM-spamming the mods to whine some more, people might actually start getting the impression that you have something worthwhile to say.

I deduce from your typical verbiage that it was you.

I have heeded two pieces of sensible advice from you:

1) Don't disrupt threads in which you have no interest.
2) Give some indication of the content of a link.

What do I get?

Who's pissed the most?

'KING LEAVE OFF.

David

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by davieddy

I have heeded two pieces of sensible advice from you:

1) Don't disrupt threads in which you have no interest.
2) Give some indication of the content of a link.

(2) needs to append "... and relevance to the thread", and that precisely describes the initial Omar Khayyam-link post I junked - simply wrapping the raw URL in the page title - trivially deducible from the raw URL - doesn't count as "indication of content or relevance". Your re-post in which you bothered to describe the relevance was fine.

I am happy leave off as long as you follow the above 2 rules which you claim to have taken to heart. Whenever you relapse into your old thread-spamming ways, as you still frequently do, expect to get junked. I also suggest not pushing our patience with the YouTube links.

And don't forget that we wouldn't be here if you hadn't misbehaved in a rather large fraction of your first 5000-plus posts.

Any further complaints should be posted in a more suitable venue, not here - fair warning.

Now, back to the topic, if you please.

[philmoore]

You know, if this were any thread other than in the Lounge or the Soapbox, I would agree with Ernst, but I think that in this case, moving the post is unwarranted. I vote that it be restored.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by philmoore

You know, if this were any thread other than in the Lounge or the Soapbox, I would agree with Ernst, but I think that in this case, moving the post is unwarranted. I vote that it be restored.

No point - It's just the Wikipedia link in post #10, without any of the accompanying text. If you don't believe me, you can view it in all its original glory here (post #845), right above an even more content-free bizarro-post from cmd - also to this thread - which I similarly junked at the same time.

[ewmayer]

[Ed. note: changed thread title to reflect original "factual fubars in highbrow lit" theme of topic split off here]

We move from astronomy to math: In the 17th [of 20] novel of his famous Aubrey/Maturin naval series, Patrick O'Brian fubars pretty much the most basic number theory there is - from page 280 of 282 of my edition:

[Naval physician] Stephen [Maturin] looked at the pale wine, raised his glass and said 'God bless you,' with a bow. He took out his elegant watch and laid it in the light, watching the centre second-hand make its full revolution.

His friend too watched it with close attention. 'You are taking your pulse, I make no doubt?' he said.

'So I am, too,' said Stephen. 'I have had a variety of emotions recently and I wished to assign a number at least to the general effect, to the physical effect, since quality is not subject to measure. My number is one hundred and seventeen to the minute.'

'That is the luckiest number in the world, I believe; a prime number, to be divided or multiplied by no other.'

'You are in the right of it, Stanislas Roche: it is neither too much nor too little.'

[davieddy]

He had obviously failed to twig that 117 = 11² - 2²

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

[Ed. note: changed thread title to reflect original "factual fubars in highbrow lit" theme of topic split off here]

We move from astronomy to math: In the 17th [of 20] novel of his famous Aubrey/Maturin naval series, Patrick O'Brian fubars pretty much the most basic number theory there is - from page 280 of 282 of my edition:

We need to define a new class of numbers. Let's call them "superprimes". Unlike your ordinary bog-standard primes, superprimes can be divided by no other, not even 1. Also they can be multiplied by no other. Ordinary primes fail to distinguish themselves from composites in this respect.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

We need to define a new class of numbers. Let's call them "superprimes". Unlike your ordinary bog-standard primes, superprimes can be divided by no other, not even 1. Also they can be multiplied by no other. Ordinary primes fail to distinguish themselves from composites in this respect.

Like IEEE NaNs you mean?

[ewmayer]

Astronomical fubar #2 in Anna Karenina, on p.877 (of 1759) of my PDF edition:

Over the snow-covered roofs could be seen a decorated cross with chains, and above it the rising triangle of Charles’s Wain with the yellowish light of Capella.

Capella is the brightest star in the constellation Auriga, so at first I thought Charles’s Wain (a.k.a. Chuck's wagon) was an old-fashioned reference to that constellation. Nope:

Charles's Wain archaic chiefly Brit.
the Big Dipper.

ORIGIN Old English Carles wægn [the wain of Carl (Charlemagne),]perhaps because the star Arcturus was associated with King Arthur, with whom Charlemagne was connected in legend.

Before you shout "but Arcturus ain't in the Big Dipper, either!", note that that connection does in fact make sense:

Arcturus |ärkˈt(y)oŏrəs| Astronomy the fourth brightest star in the sky, and the brightest in the constellation Boötes. It is an orange giant.

ORIGIN from Greek arktos ‘bear’ + ouros ‘guardian’ (because of its position in line with the tail of Ursa Major).

[cheesehead]

It's common for beginners' guides to the stars to note that following the handle of the Big Dipper in the direction away from the bowl and extending along a similar arc is a handy way of finding Arcturus.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

It's common for beginners' guides to the stars to note that following the handle of the Big Dipper in the direction away from the bowl and extending along a similar arc is a handy way of finding Arcturus.

Yup. And if you continue along a spike, you come to Spica.