Re: ICT Comments

• From: ponyisi <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:17:35 -0000
• Message-ID: <b79l7v+thhp_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Alexander Richman <arichman_at_b...>
wrote:
> At 04:19 PM 4/12/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> >--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Alexander Richman <arichman_at_b...>
> >wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, I wasn't there, and I haven't seen the question, but from my
> >point of
> > > view, this comment is ridiculous.  Acfraud is lambasting NAQT
for
> >starting
> > > a question with a clue which the experts will know quickly while
> >other
> > > people will still have a chance later by putting it in
(sometimes
> >advanced)
> > > calculus terms or in more basic terms at the end.  Of course,
the
> > > "inverse-image" definition is the most general one, but very few
> >people
> > > meet it before their senior year as math majors, or even in grad
> > > school.  I, for one, much prefer this to something with vague
> >similies or
> > > ambiguous characterizations at the start, which happens much
more
> >frequently.
> > >
> > > Alex
> >
> >Experts? Senior year as math majors? That's an exaggeration.
> 
> Maybe this is the whole root of the disagreement.  I don't consider
NAQT 
> (even ICT) to be a place where only grad students (or beyond)
should be 
> "experts" in any field for the purpose of askability of 
> questions. 

Give me a break.  *Any* math major at Chicago knows this by the middle
of their sophomore year, and I'm sure we're not unusual in this.  If
somehow one passes quals in math grad school without having this fact
so deeply embedded in one's mind that it would survive severe head
trauma, well ...

> >Even if you think only "experts" could answer the question at this
> >point (if so, there were a large number of "experts" at the ICT!),

Buzzer race in my room, certainly.  And not just among teammates of
mine.

> >that clue is inexcusable in the first line of the tossup. The point
> >is, starting a math question with a straightforward definition is
> >*always* a bad idea.
> 
> So may I ask what you would prefer in this case?  An operator based 
> definition in which the most expert will be sitting asking
themselves 
> whether they want continuous or bounded?  Or perhaps a list of
functions 
> that might have to be quite long before only the only common 
> characteristic, and again the most expert will likely be sitting
longer 
> than some who know less?  For many mathematical terms, an
unfamiliar, or 
> unusually formulated definition is often the best way to get an
unambiguous 
> clue quickly into the question.

Yes, but this definition was not unfamilar, nor was it unusually
formulated.

Simple solution: unless you manage to find something unique and
difficult for an expert to get (I'm not going to expend the mental
effort to try in this case) don't write tossups whose answer is
"continuous."

- Peter