Date: 2010-01-05 11:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
I find that explanation a lot more complicated than it needs to be!
Back recursion is good for computers, but silly for humans. Start the other way round and use induction: two people are siblings; their children are cousins; their grandchildren are 2nd cousins, etc.
The problem with removal is that it's symmetric, which is silly, because we have a different word for nephew/uncle.

Date: 2010-01-05 12:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Though I'm not convinced that an explanation for "normal people" should include the terms "absolute difference" and "minimum" :)

My explanation would be similar, and for mathematicians definitely use the 0'th cousins terminology, but to try to be clearer, be something like:

* If Joe and Sally are siblings, their children are first cousins
* if Joe and Sally are n'th cousins, their children are n+1'th cousins
* if Joe the First and Sally are n'th cousins, Joe The N+1 and Sally are first cousins N times removed.

I used to find it very confusing before anyone explained it to me, which took a long time, but it didn't seem especially complicated once someone HAD explained it.

Date: 2010-01-05 12:43 pm (UTC)
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
For me, the biggest problem isn't understanding it; it's remembering, for Nth cousins M times removed, which of M and N represents which parameter.

(It therefore seemed particularly silly to me that the explicitly worked example on that page was one in which M=N.)

Date: 2010-01-05 12:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com
Ah, I see. I don't know, I always remember that "first cousins" is the commonest and synonymous with normal cousins, and from there you can see which is which.

Date: 2010-01-05 12:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
Even that one was bit convoluted...

Date: 2010-01-05 11:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com
Blogosphere consensus seems to be that the second story is a publicity stunt by that website, which seems to have worked a storm. I wonder what there ad venue spike looks like?

Date: 2010-01-05 01:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
Really? Because I went to take a look and once I got over the hideous interface, I found most of women on there were grim.

Date: 2010-01-05 01:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com
Which may well be why they are trying a publicity stunt! By 'worked', I meant 'got them a lot of irate discussion and news coverage' which if nothing else will have prompted people to take a look.

Date: 2010-01-05 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] d-c-m.livejournal.com
Israeli pathologists harvested Palestinian organs without consent
*raspberry*

A a person who is part Jewish this INFURIATES me.

September 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 1st, 2025 08:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios