--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, jp_lien <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Actually, one of our B team members negged with odd as well, so I > should admit that this question has some elements of a hose. I'd > dispute the point that it would cause a math person to get beaten, > because I'd tend to doubt that a non math person would come up with > 'surjective' very quickly (if at all). I'm not sure if the more > common (if grammatically hideous) 'onto' was acceptable, although "onto" was acceptable. > based on the stare I got from the moderator, I'm going to assume that > it wasn't. I do have to agree, though, that the unfortunate choice of > examples could easily lead knowledgeable people astray. Of course, > given the set of askable functional properties, it isn't easy to > narrow the set with just two examples, or to anticipate ways in which > people might misinterpret your intentions. Frankly, I was helped by > my inability to picture the functions as quickly as they were read, > which forced me to wait for the clues which I found useful. It *is* difficult to anticipate the way in which 160-odd teams will react to questions and we appreciate the allowances that you make for NAQT as it tries to do that. Nevertheless, we hold ourselves to high standards, standards which that question did not meet and we are more than willing to admit that. We will certainly be examining our mathematics questions more closely before the ICT. -- R. Robert Hentzel President and Chief Technical Officer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST