Subject
Re: The "56 days" conundrum in "Lolita"
From
Date
Body
One person¹s love of precision is another¹s pedantry. As my favourite
T-shirts asks, Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?¹
We mathematicians treat interval-counting with numbing intensity, far beyond
the grasp of lay Nabokovians, or indeed of Nabokov himself!
Bruce Stone is correct in noting that the answer to the question How many
Xs?¹ oft depends on how X is defined. It can also depend on the definition
of counting.¹
One aspect of the problem, famous in computing folklore as OBOE (Off-by-one
Error), aliter the Fencepost problem, is far from pedantic squabbling,
having cost real money, reputations, and even lives. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error
And my own oft-quoted pearl heads the canonical debate at
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyNumberingShouldStartAtZero
Mathematicians/logicians shun any preferential treatment for literal¹
meanings, pointing to the etymological fallacy and the fact of semantic
drift. For example, yesterday¹ can be X-time-units-ago for any 0 < X <= D,
where D represents the number of time-units defining a day¹ (24 hours being
merely a convenient approximation for a complex, variable astronomical
interval.) With the human quirks of date-lines and calendars, my yesterday
can be your tomorrow, or vice versa.
Note that for values of X less than one Planck time unit (approx 0.0000
...[43 zeroes; who¹s counting?] ... 5 of a second), the AGO part of the
question/answer is widely considered devoid of physical meaning.
Summary: it¹s usually possible, and always worth trying, to avoid arguments
about rival, conflicting, dogmatic answers, by proper use of that magic IF.
(No time for a Pale Fire digression ... )
IF (def X = A1) THEN Answer = B2; ... IF (def X = An) THEN Answer = Bn.
Jansy (Happy Mothering Day!) rightly points to the problem of spurious
precision.¹ Luzhin is asked a mathematically ill-defined question (how long
has he been playing chess?), but one that¹s undeniably sensible in everyday,
informal terms. Normal¹ responses include At least 18 years ...¹ or I¹ve
really no idea ... I was quite young when I picked up the moves ... Actually
playing real chess ... That¹s hard to pin down, if you¹ll pardon the pun
...
Sirin/Luzhin¹s spuriously precise¹ answer of 18 years 4 months 3 days is a
risible reminder, if such were needed, that Luzhin is one of those daft
mono-talented geniuses, closer to Bobby Fischer, methinks, than to VN¹s
original model Count Curt von Bardeleben. La bêtise comes many varieties, as
any scrutiny of the Nobel Laureate¹s list will confirm.
Incidentally, I was chuffed to discover that Marleen Gorris 2000 film
version of Luzhin¹s Defence shows an outrageously illegal chess move. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luzhin_Defence#Cinematic_error
Other, better-versed VN-listers will know if this was an intentional error¹
based on something in VN¹s novel or memoirs. I plan to ferret when my
current abulia subsides.
Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 16/03/2012 19:39, "jansymello" <jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:
> Bruce Stone:" ...Perhaps the problem has received little attention because no
> Nabokovian has yet seen the wisdom of insisting so inflexibly on the meaning
> of the phrase "days ago" (which rings of literal-mindedness)....
>
> JM: Bruce Stone is right about VN's registered annoyance with
> literal-mindedness and stupidity (like Mr. Teste's*). He was also irritated by
> a reader's wish to find out if a story is "true." However, certain depictions
> of a disturbed mind (about those who suffer from obsessive or concrete
> thinking) are not derisive, disrespectful although he isn't particularly
> compassionate either. As we can read in the example below, in Luzin's precise
> answer. "...Then, fully aware of the stupidity of the question but incapable
> of stopping herself, she asked how long he had been playing chess. He gave no
> answer and turned away and she felt so embarrassed that she began to reel off
> a list of all the meteorological indications for yesterday, today and
> tomorrow. He continued silent and she also fell silent, and then she began to
> rummage in her handbag, searching agonizingly for a topic and finding only a
> broken comb. Suddenly he turned his face to her and said: 'Eighteen years,
> three months and four days.' For her this was an exquisite relief, and
> furthermore she was somehow flattered by the elaborate circumstantiality of
> his reply. Subsequently, however, she began to grow a little annoyed that he
> in his turn never asked any questions, taking her, as it were, for granted."
> ..............................................................................
> .....................
> * - Valèry: "La bêtise n'es pas mon fort"
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
T-shirts asks, Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?¹
We mathematicians treat interval-counting with numbing intensity, far beyond
the grasp of lay Nabokovians, or indeed of Nabokov himself!
Bruce Stone is correct in noting that the answer to the question How many
Xs?¹ oft depends on how X is defined. It can also depend on the definition
of counting.¹
One aspect of the problem, famous in computing folklore as OBOE (Off-by-one
Error), aliter the Fencepost problem, is far from pedantic squabbling,
having cost real money, reputations, and even lives. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-by-one_error
And my own oft-quoted pearl heads the canonical debate at
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyNumberingShouldStartAtZero
Mathematicians/logicians shun any preferential treatment for literal¹
meanings, pointing to the etymological fallacy and the fact of semantic
drift. For example, yesterday¹ can be X-time-units-ago for any 0 < X <= D,
where D represents the number of time-units defining a day¹ (24 hours being
merely a convenient approximation for a complex, variable astronomical
interval.) With the human quirks of date-lines and calendars, my yesterday
can be your tomorrow, or vice versa.
Note that for values of X less than one Planck time unit (approx 0.0000
...[43 zeroes; who¹s counting?] ... 5 of a second), the AGO part of the
question/answer is widely considered devoid of physical meaning.
Summary: it¹s usually possible, and always worth trying, to avoid arguments
about rival, conflicting, dogmatic answers, by proper use of that magic IF.
(No time for a Pale Fire digression ... )
IF (def X = A1) THEN Answer = B2; ... IF (def X = An) THEN Answer = Bn.
Jansy (Happy Mothering Day!) rightly points to the problem of spurious
precision.¹ Luzhin is asked a mathematically ill-defined question (how long
has he been playing chess?), but one that¹s undeniably sensible in everyday,
informal terms. Normal¹ responses include At least 18 years ...¹ or I¹ve
really no idea ... I was quite young when I picked up the moves ... Actually
playing real chess ... That¹s hard to pin down, if you¹ll pardon the pun
...
Sirin/Luzhin¹s spuriously precise¹ answer of 18 years 4 months 3 days is a
risible reminder, if such were needed, that Luzhin is one of those daft
mono-talented geniuses, closer to Bobby Fischer, methinks, than to VN¹s
original model Count Curt von Bardeleben. La bêtise comes many varieties, as
any scrutiny of the Nobel Laureate¹s list will confirm.
Incidentally, I was chuffed to discover that Marleen Gorris 2000 film
version of Luzhin¹s Defence shows an outrageously illegal chess move. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Luzhin_Defence#Cinematic_error
Other, better-versed VN-listers will know if this was an intentional error¹
based on something in VN¹s novel or memoirs. I plan to ferret when my
current abulia subsides.
Stan Kelly-Bootle
On 16/03/2012 19:39, "jansymello" <jansy@AETERN.US> wrote:
> Bruce Stone:" ...Perhaps the problem has received little attention because no
> Nabokovian has yet seen the wisdom of insisting so inflexibly on the meaning
> of the phrase "days ago" (which rings of literal-mindedness)....
>
> JM: Bruce Stone is right about VN's registered annoyance with
> literal-mindedness and stupidity (like Mr. Teste's*). He was also irritated by
> a reader's wish to find out if a story is "true." However, certain depictions
> of a disturbed mind (about those who suffer from obsessive or concrete
> thinking) are not derisive, disrespectful although he isn't particularly
> compassionate either. As we can read in the example below, in Luzin's precise
> answer. "...Then, fully aware of the stupidity of the question but incapable
> of stopping herself, she asked how long he had been playing chess. He gave no
> answer and turned away and she felt so embarrassed that she began to reel off
> a list of all the meteorological indications for yesterday, today and
> tomorrow. He continued silent and she also fell silent, and then she began to
> rummage in her handbag, searching agonizingly for a topic and finding only a
> broken comb. Suddenly he turned his face to her and said: 'Eighteen years,
> three months and four days.' For her this was an exquisite relief, and
> furthermore she was somehow flattered by the elaborate circumstantiality of
> his reply. Subsequently, however, she began to grow a little annoyed that he
> in his turn never asked any questions, taking her, as it were, for granted."
> ..............................................................................
> .....................
> * - Valèry: "La bêtise n'es pas mon fort"
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/