<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Geoffrey West: What Does Exponential Mean?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://nothans.com/geoffrey-west-what-does-exponential-mean/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://nothans.com/geoffrey-west-what-does-exponential-mean</link>
	<description>Life, Comedy, Games, Tech, Marketing, and Community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:36:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris		</title>
		<link>https://nothans.com/geoffrey-west-what-does-exponential-mean#comment-277</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 15:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nothans.com/?p=1107#comment-277</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Hans,

Sure &quot;politicians and policy makers&quot; do not understand what an exponential is. But probably worse, mathematicians end up linearizing most problems because first order is the only one that doesn&#039;t make calculations too complex for the human mind. And this leads to mistakes. 

OTOH, I discoverd recently that assuming exponential when it&#039;s clearly non-linear is also a mistake. Case in point, I wanted to explain why Ethernet displaced all other networking technologies. The argument was that going from 1Mbps to 10Mbps to 100Mbps to 1Gbps to 10Gbps to 100Gbps was each time _only_ around doubling/tripling the price, for a tenfold capacity. Other technologies like ATM were following powers of 2, and doubling/tripling the price between generations only brought a gain of 4 (STM-1 STM-4 STM-16). And I thought directly  ln(10)=2.3, I got it ! It&#039;s exponential.

Guess what, it&#039;s not! Because if ln(10) and ln(100) gave promising results, ln(1000) _adds_ 2.3 making 6.9 while I expected it would be multiplied to give something around 10. Actually the ln(100) is also smaller than ln(10)², but it was less obvious to catch.

So I ended up with some square root/third root approximation that can be used. Any comment on this ? Another way of using exponentials that would fit my case ?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Hans,</p>
<p>Sure &#8220;politicians and policy makers&#8221; do not understand what an exponential is. But probably worse, mathematicians end up linearizing most problems because first order is the only one that doesn&#8217;t make calculations too complex for the human mind. And this leads to mistakes. </p>
<p>OTOH, I discoverd recently that assuming exponential when it&#8217;s clearly non-linear is also a mistake. Case in point, I wanted to explain why Ethernet displaced all other networking technologies. The argument was that going from 1Mbps to 10Mbps to 100Mbps to 1Gbps to 10Gbps to 100Gbps was each time _only_ around doubling/tripling the price, for a tenfold capacity. Other technologies like ATM were following powers of 2, and doubling/tripling the price between generations only brought a gain of 4 (STM-1 STM-4 STM-16). And I thought directly  ln(10)=2.3, I got it ! It&#8217;s exponential.</p>
<p>Guess what, it&#8217;s not! Because if ln(10) and ln(100) gave promising results, ln(1000) _adds_ 2.3 making 6.9 while I expected it would be multiplied to give something around 10. Actually the ln(100) is also smaller than ln(10)², but it was less obvious to catch.</p>
<p>So I ended up with some square root/third root approximation that can be used. Any comment on this ? Another way of using exponentials that would fit my case ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
