You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

prase comments on [LINK] The half-life of a fact - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: David_Gerard 06 October 2012 11:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (9)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: prase 11 October 2012 06:01:51PM 0 points [-]

Although you are right, as a nitpicker I don't think non sequitur, i.e. "doesn't follow", is correct to use here.

Comment author: DanArmak 11 October 2012 06:07:18PM 0 points [-]

Well, as it turned out, I was mostly wrong: "atomic weight" refers to the average weight of the most common isotope mix of the element (on Earth), and our data about the isotope distribution changes. I didn't remember that, but that's probably what that original quote meant.

You seem to be right about the non sequitur.