Pericles,
I knew that much mirth and amusement can come from an autocorrection of a spelling error, but I didn’t know how much until now. It’s sent several people scurrying through the dictionaries. It’s almost like Christmas come early.

I wrote expediential, when I was thinking of the word expodential. Antiseptic saw the fun in that, and I thanked him straight away for picking me up on the error. I struck an e when I should have struck o and the autocorrect inserted the i; thigh slapping stuff.

Expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function that is often associated with population growth modelling. It was the word that I was taught in school when learning about geometric series. That the word exponential is the current term in vogue these days when raising a base number to a power is possibly due to the Americanisation of English. If so, this makes me wonder why someone who calls himself Antiseptic (considering the obvious rhyming slang) would want to support it.

Just to increase your delight, an exponential function is the function e^x where e is the number (approximately 2.7182818) such that the function e^x equals its own derivative. Sometimes the term exponential function is used more generally for functions of the form cb^x, where the base b is any positive real number, not necessarily e. This usage is now more fashionable, though the term expodential is acceptable for the wider family of functions.

I stand to be corrected, no doubt.

Rusty,
A religious work (as you call them) such as the Bible has been subjected and analysed to the nth degree by innumerable scholars for Millennia. Scholars have not taken short cuts in the investigation of its last jot and tittle (and even contentious spelling variations). Yet they still can’t print them fast enough for the bookshelves.

For instance, it is expediential to assert without a reference. Go on, whatever you try will be within easy access. Since you claim to be a teacher, give an accessible reference for the proles as well.

It is further expediential to use a rather special case for your counterexample. I could use the "creationist quote book" as a reason to say that any "christian" using it as a bolster for their faith was dishonestly self-serving and a disgrace to any church. This is more accurately equivalent to your use of a particularly slanted book to attempt to conflate societal failings with evolution.

Since you mention it, the "bible" may well be excellent literature. The popularity is entirely due to fanatical pressures that other books do not routinely enjoy outside of scientology and other nutty religions. Hubbards books were fixtures in the NYT best-seller list, but not because people who wanted them were paying money to keep them. The heavy use of marketing will sell anything.

Merit, there's another thing.

Rusty

It's a step forward that you recognize the inevitable, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I stand to be corrected, no doubt.<<

Expodential is not a word. It never has been. It has no validity, even in mathematics. If you were indeed taught the word at school (which I take leave to doubt), your teacher was in error. You will not find it anywhere in literature, mathematical textbooks, the Bible, or anywhere in the full Oxford English Dictionary.

The only amusing part is the lengths you are prepared to go to in order to avoid reality.

Which is absolutely par for the course for you, as we have discovered in other discussions - notably, of course, in your attachment to creationism.

You are in denial. It was, after all, a simple misstep that could easily have been passed off as a spelling mistake, upon which no-one would have given a second glance. Now, each attempt you make to justify yourself serves only to deepen the embarrassment you will feel when you admit that you got it wrong.

Think of it as a character self-assessment, Dan S de Merengue. And ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"

Actually, 'expodental', while not appearing in my spell-checker, is in fact an adjective describing something that exposes teeth to an onlooker.

E.g. "she has an expodental smile".

Basically, it's a nice way of saying 'toothy'.

But there is no such word 'expodential'.

Did you mean toothy?

Someone please take Liz45 out to one of the less savoury aboriginal communities - the sort that triggered 'intervention' about 15 years too late. Leave her there for a month to absorb the 'culture' and she might realise how ridiculous her following comments are ..
"the same as the accusations against aboriginal men in the NT re child sexual abuse.They assert that their faith dictates respect for women!"
Aboriginal women suffer the highest rates of death and injury by aboriginal men compared to any other demographic. Ditto children as result of abuse, neglect and lack of education.

And what makes Liz think that assertations made by aboriginal men on the subject carry any more truth than those of the Catholic Church when confronted with the appalling instances of abuse by clergy? Oh hang on ... I'm probably being unforgivably racist by even suggesting such a thing is possible ....

Not that this has much to do with whether it is acceptable for Australian citizens, residents or visitors to completely conceal their identity ....

Cast off the religious fixation Liz. The burqa belongs to a male dominated CULTURE which dictates that women are basically property, firstly of father, then husband and should she find herself without either it will be a 'senior male' such as uncle, brother or even son who controls her life. This CULTURE requires that the woman, from onset of menstruation (can be much earlier), be covered completely as to obliterate her from the view of anyone outside her immediate family. To be 'exposed' to others is a dishonour to her family and tribe - not her 'religion'. I guess you think that the practice and trappings of this CULTURE are quite desirable in modern day Australia?

I, and most others don't care if 'Jihad Jenny' wants to cover up from tips of toes to the top of her head - as long as the face is exposed and her identity is open. This goes for every man woman & child regardless of race, religion, personal idiosyncracy ... whatever! NO DISCRIMINATION!

Rusty, I don’t claim to be a teacher. I was a teacher many years ago.

I don’t know why you call the book I mentioned slanted. You could say that it was anachronistic, but it’s not renegade. It is representative of the views held by the mainstream of educators and others back in the 1960s.

Thanks, Trashcanman. No I didn’t mean toothy.

But I think a light has gone on in somewhere in my dim recesses, and I think I know now what’s going on with this word.

You are all correct. Expodential is not a real word, and yet it does appear in usage, even in print sometimes.

For instance, in this discussion on the Yahoo Answers website, one Cbear asks, “With expodential population growth what steps do you think the world should do to prevent this?” The website moderator responds, “Been reading some of your anwsers I'm glad I got some really good views of people who have read what expodential growth rate is.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060628191849AAoPxDm

So the word does live on in discussions, but only as a non standard varient. It’s a phonological mutant. It won’t be found in a standard dictionary. Yet some who have mastered mathematical concepts beyond that which I ever did do occasionally use it in discussions, such as in this exchange:

On the Physics Forums website, FrankR asks for help in ‘expressing a trig function as a complex expodential’. Claude Bile responds. He understands his question, and doesn’t bother explicitly correcting him on his use of the non standard word, expodential, as he well knows what he is talking about, but uses the correct word, exponential, in his answer.
You need to put: - cos(A1+A2+A3) + isin(A1+A2+A3) into exponential form: e^-i(A1+A2+A3), then ...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=643