“There is no substantive evidence that Einstein wrote or spoke the statement above. It is listed within a section called “Misattributed to Einstein” in the comprehensive reference “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein” from Princeton University Press.”

So No. I also was always very irritated by this quote, because from a scientific point of view this is rather incorrect, as (like you said) experiments need to be repeated, to verify the results.

If it happened, but nothing happened, did it really happen?

One of the classics.

This rule is however also broken. For example, if I come to you to ask for help, but you unkindly decline (cause unbeknown to me, you are really having a bad day), you will never receive any help from others, because you treated my like this. And as I will then reject your request for help, I will then be also excluded in the future from help from others. I.e. this rule will spiral into a bad state, because there is no forgiveness.

To solve this, we would need to make a new addition. And then we will be able fo identify another edge case, requiring another edge case. And this continues on and on.

The intention of these simple ethical/moral/social rules is to be as simple as possible, while still being a good approach. The are not intended to be absolutely followed, but to be a rule of thumb, until more information is available, to adapt properly to the situation.

And what if I don’t know (yet) how they treat others?

For trees, more like their exhaled breath.

With the interpretation of the internet being teleportation of data, your Webbrowser becomes a replicator of data, as e.g. the video that you are streaming from YouTube is merely being copied from its servers, but not deleted from its source.

In general computers are just copying data, i.e. replicating data.

Sure. ^_^

I am just curious. So may I ask what your math education is?

For reference, what is math education?

This case here.

In the case I am discussing, the data is generated using the exponential function exp(x).

I am well aware what a graph is and that it shows the actually values, but to obtain some actually values to perform manually some calculations we need to extract some explicit values from the image. This is however not arbitrarily precise and therefore will add some noise to the extracted values.

My data is simply y = exp(x).

Your data, no because I have no access to the actually values. But just a plot of a line that seems very straight (but does not necessarily need to be), and measuring it manually will introduce some noise.

In my data, that I generated, yes there I know for a fact that it is from an exponential.

But if the data originates from an exponential, any selection of two points will yield a different slope, because the data point lie not exactly on a straight line.

You suggested to model it linearly, that is what we are discussing here.

But this takes only into consideration the two selected point used to calculate the the slope and intercept. All other point will not exactly lie on linear function. And as you can choose any combination of two point you will get again infinitely many different parametrization a of the linear model.

But isn’t the same true also for a linear model, which of the infinite possible linear functions could fit this curve?

Because I don’t know how to.

Thanks a lot. But how does this exclude, that it might be an exponential?

Could you please show us how to determine whether the shown function graph is linear or exponential or something else?