Author Topic: Episode #709  (Read 3938 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7641
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #105 on: February 14, 2019, 12:47:20 AM »
I tried to provide a link to the Wikipedia article, but failed.  The link baulks at the sign above the a in Bokmal.  Just google it.

Just enclose it in [url][/url].

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Norwegian_Bokmål_and_Standard_Danish
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #106 on: February 14, 2019, 01:42:53 AM »
I once heard a Dane speaking to a Norwegian fluently, and both understood each other well.  I’m not certain whether the Dane was using Norwegian, or whether the Norwegian was bilingual, but apparently the three Norse languages are very similar, just differing in pronunciation, and a little spelling.

Written Bokmål and Danish are closer than the spoken languages, but if you're used to listening to the other one, it becomes easy to understand.

I have it on good authority that native Danish speakers can only speak Norwegian while drunk.

In other news:


Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1709
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #107 on: February 14, 2019, 03:41:23 PM »
I once heard a Dane speaking to a Norwegian fluently, and both understood each other well.  I’m not certain whether the Dane was using Norwegian, or whether the Norwegian was bilingual, but apparently the three Norse languages are very similar, just differing in pronunciation, and a little spelling.

Written Bokmål and Danish are closer than the spoken languages, but if you're used to listening to the other one, it becomes easy to understand.

I have it on good authority that native Danish speakers can only speak Norwegian while drunk.

In other news:



I won’t ask you whether the ‘Swedish’ in the Gene Wilder film ‘the Producers’ was actually Swedish.  You’ve answered my question from episode 700.  It seems so unfair.  Norwegians almost automatically are trilingual.  Native English speakers have to work very hard to become bilingual, and even then many non-English native speakers want to use their English too.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Steven Novella

  • SGU Panel Member
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
    • http://www.theskepticsguide.org
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #108 on: February 16, 2019, 07:09:08 AM »
All - that was not a math puzzle segment. It was a name that logical fallacy. The whole point was to discuss the cognitive error she was making, not review the math. Most people don't care about the actual formula or wouldn't remember it - but they would get the logical point. Anyone interested in the actual formula could easily look it up, as we said.
Steven Novella
Host, The Skeptics Guide
snovella@theness.com

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4932
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #109 on: February 16, 2019, 01:28:34 PM »
I have it on good authority that native Danish speakers can only speak Norwegian while drunk.

I once heard a Dane speaking to a Norwegian fluently, and both understood each other well.  I’m not certain whether the Dane was using Norwegian, or whether the Norwegian was bilingual, but apparently the three Norse languages are very similar, just differing in pronunciation, and a little spelling.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Norwegian_Bokmål_and_Standard_Danish

I tried to provide a link to the Wikipedia article, but failed.  The link baulks at the sign above the a in Bokmal.  Just google it.

The three Scandinavian languages, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian, are considered mutually intelligible. But the degrees differ.

I as a Swedish-speaking person can read both Danish and Norwegian pretty well. I can understand spoken Norwegian reasonably well, but would really struggle to understand spoken Danish. I think both Danes and Norwegians understand Swedish better than Swedes understand their languages. This is because Sweden is the larger and more populous country, and the other two conutries have been more exposed to our movies and music than the other way around.
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1709
Re: Episode #709
« Reply #110 on: February 16, 2019, 02:07:06 PM »
All - that was not a math puzzle segment. It was a name that logical fallacy. The whole point was to discuss the cognitive error she was making, not review the math. Most people don't care about the actual formula or wouldn't remember it - but they would get the logical point. Anyone interested in the actual formula could easily look it up, as we said.

I can see your point, and it’s difficult to explain the equation, but the logic is reasonably simple.  The chance of person 1 being born is 365/365.  The chance of person 2 having a birthday on any date other than person 1’s is 364/365, the chance of person 3 having a birthday on any date other than person 1’s and 2’s is 363/365, and so on.  And the chance of person 23 having a birthday on any date other than persons 1 to 22 is 342/365.

So the chance of 23 people not sharing a birthday is the product of all those 23 numbers all less than 1 and becoming progressively smaller.  And when you multiply a large number of numbers less than one, the result progressively becomes much smaller.  To find the exact result, you need the equation.  And a very good calculator (my scientific calculator isn’t good enough).  To do it, you need something like WolframAlpha, which is easy to use.  And very neat.

And the chance of having at least one common birthday is 1 minus the chance of having no common birthdays.  Without having and using the equation it’s a laborious business calculating the chance of having no common birthdays (365/365 times 364/365 times 363/365 times 362/365 times...times 342/365), but it can be done.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?