lol I never made that connection — in Turkish, zero is sıfır, which does sound a lot like cipher. Also, password is şifre, which again sounds similar. Looking online, apparently the path is sifr (Arabic, meaning zero) -> cifre (French, first meaning zero, then any numeral, then coded message) -> şifre (Turkish, code/cipher)
Nice! Imagine the second meaning going back to Arabic and now it's a full loop! It can even override the original meaning given enough time and popularity (not especially for "zero", but possibly for another full-loop word).
It gives it a different implication. As I read it, an article titled "Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" has three possible subjects:
1. Literally, Carroll would do matrix math. I know, like many on HN, that he was a mathematician. So this would be a dull and therefore unlikely subject.
2. Carroll invented determinates. This doesn't really fit the timeline of math history, so I doubt it.
3. Carroll computed determinates, and this was surprising. Maybe because we thought he was a bad mathematician, or the method had recently been invented and we don't know how he learned of it. This is slightly plausible.
4. (The actual subject). Carroll invented a method for computing determinates. A mathematician inventing a math technique makes sense, but the title doesn't. It'd be like saying "Newton and Leibnitz Used Calculus." Really burying the lede.
Of course, this could've been avoided had the article not gone with a click-bait style title. A clearer one might've been "Lewis Carroll's Method for Calculating Determinates Is Probably How You First Learned to Do It." It's long, but I'm not a pithy writer. I'm sure somebody could do better.
"How Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" is fine and not clickbait because it provides all the pertinent information and is an accurate summary of its contents. Clickbait would be "you would never guess how this author/mathematician computed determinants" since it requires a clickthrough to know who the person is. How is perfectly fine IMO to have in the title because I personally would expect the How to be long enough to warrant a necessary clickthrough due to the otherwise required title length.
> Dodgson’s original paper from 1867 is quite readable, surprisingly so given that math notation and terminology changes over time.
Given that Jabberwocky is also quite readable, we shouldn't be too astonished.
> Arrange the given block, if necessary, so that no ciphers [zeros] occur in its interior.
I forgot that cipher used to have a different meaning: zero, via Arabic. In some languages it means digit.
Dutch too: "Cijfer", German, "Ziffer", French: "Chifre", Spanish: "Cifra".
lol I never made that connection — in Turkish, zero is sıfır, which does sound a lot like cipher. Also, password is şifre, which again sounds similar. Looking online, apparently the path is sifr (Arabic, meaning zero) -> cifre (French, first meaning zero, then any numeral, then coded message) -> şifre (Turkish, code/cipher)
Nice! Imagine the second meaning going back to Arabic and now it's a full loop! It can even override the original meaning given enough time and popularity (not especially for "zero", but possibly for another full-loop word).
All world languages are a deviation from Arabic
This doesn’t sound right. What about Chinese?
HN title filter cut off the initial "How".
You can manually edit it back in.
“Drop the ‘how.’ It’s cleaner.”
It gives it a different implication. As I read it, an article titled "Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" has three possible subjects:
1. Literally, Carroll would do matrix math. I know, like many on HN, that he was a mathematician. So this would be a dull and therefore unlikely subject.
2. Carroll invented determinates. This doesn't really fit the timeline of math history, so I doubt it.
3. Carroll computed determinates, and this was surprising. Maybe because we thought he was a bad mathematician, or the method had recently been invented and we don't know how he learned of it. This is slightly plausible.
4. (The actual subject). Carroll invented a method for computing determinates. A mathematician inventing a math technique makes sense, but the title doesn't. It'd be like saying "Newton and Leibnitz Used Calculus." Really burying the lede.
Of course, this could've been avoided had the article not gone with a click-bait style title. A clearer one might've been "Lewis Carroll's Method for Calculating Determinates Is Probably How You First Learned to Do It." It's long, but I'm not a pithy writer. I'm sure somebody could do better.
"How Lewis Carroll Computed Determinates" is fine and not clickbait because it provides all the pertinent information and is an accurate summary of its contents. Clickbait would be "you would never guess how this author/mathematician computed determinants" since it requires a clickthrough to know who the person is. How is perfectly fine IMO to have in the title because I personally would expect the How to be long enough to warrant a necessary clickthrough due to the otherwise required title length.