Re:142857
by mikeash on Wednesday August 05, 2015 @10:55AM
(#10010157)
My point is that ellipses are for when you're excising something that is redundant to your purposes and whose omission doesn't change the overall meaning.
Your example with JFK is fine. Here's a counterexample where it doesn't work: "JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, who was a famous Hollywood actress." -> "JFK... was a famous Hollywood actress."
I maintain that your shortened quote is more like this. The article says that 142857, when multiplied, produces numbers which correspond to the digits of 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, etc.
Your version of the quote omits the words "correspond to," changing it from an observation about how an integer matches the decimal expansion of a fraction to an observation about how multiplying a number gets you a multiple of that number.
Your example with JFK is fine. Here's a counterexample where it doesn't work: "JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe, who was a famous Hollywood actress." -> "JFK... was a famous Hollywood actress."
I maintain that your shortened quote is more like this. The article says that 142857, when multiplied, produces numbers which correspond to the digits of 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, etc.
Your version of the quote omits the words "correspond to," changing it from an observation about how an integer matches the decimal expansion of a fraction to an observation about how multiplying a number gets you a multiple of that number.