2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by vinteuil »

Post any factual corrections here.
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago, Yale, East Chapel Hill

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by vinteuil »

We'll be fixing the repeat cluing of "carnivalesque" in the Rabelais and Bakhtin bonuses.
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago, Yale, East Chapel Hill

User avatar
Oh No You Didn't
Yuna
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 10:03 am

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Oh No You Didn't »

At least 2/3 of the rooms negged the production function u first line with utility functions which appears to also be correct from some cursory research
Andrew Wang
Illinois 2016

User avatar
Corry
Rikku
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Corry »

The tossup on "slave narratives" should prompt on "autobiographies," shouldn't it? Amherst B got negged for this.
Corry Wang
Arcadia High School 2013
Amherst College 2017
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
Jem Casey
Wakka
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Jem Casey »

Corry wrote:The tossup on "slave narratives" should prompt on "autobiographies," shouldn't it? Amherst B got negged for this.
There was in fact such a prompt instruction, so sounds like a moderator error.
Jordan Brownstein

sbraunfeld
Lulu
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:09 am

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by sbraunfeld »

I think the Hubble parameter question referred to it as the "first rung" on the cosmic distance ladder. I believe it is standard to number the rungs from the bottom (i.e. measurements for closer objects). Furthermore, attempting to correct this by saying something like "top rung" or "farthest rung" would still leave the clue a hose for "redshift", since the distance ladder is not some standardized thing, but varies from account to account, and the way Hubble's law is used in determining distances is via redshift measurements.
Sam Braunfeld
Berkeley '13
Rutgers '18

User avatar
hftf
Lulu
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by hftf »

sbraunfeld wrote:I think the Hubble parameter question referred to it as the "first rung" on the cosmic distance ladder. I believe it is standard to number the rungs from the bottom (i.e. measurements for closer objects). Furthermore, attempting to correct this by saying something like "top rung" or "farthest rung" would still leave the clue a hose for "redshift", since the distance ladder is not some standardized thing, but varies from account to account, and the way Hubble's law is used in determining distances is via redshift measurements.
Hi Sam – apologies if the question was misleading and affected the outcome of your game. It’s possible the moderator misread the question or you misheard it, but I intended to refer to the Hubble parameter as the first rung of the “inverse distance ladder” (and not the “standard” distance ladder):
Packet 9 wrote:6. This quantity names a bubble or void that attempts to solve a paradox of Sandage and de Vaucouleurs, who debated its size. Baryon acoustic oscillations constrain this quantity, the first rung of the “inverse” distance ladder. Sandage wrote about a search for two numbers: the deceleration parameter and this one. Slipher’s work on spectra enabled this quantity’s first measurement, which was very large since clusters were assumed to be (*) bright stars. This quantity was the slope of a line through the origin on a plot of 24 “nebulae” whose values were obtained from Cepheid variables. This parameter is defined as a-dot over a, where a is the scale factor. Its reciprocal is an estimate of the Universe’s age, and its current value is around 67 km per second per megaparsec. This constant relates distance to redshift, or velocity, in a “law” for galaxies far, far away. For 10 points, identify this “constant” that describes the Universe’s expansion and is named for an American astronomer.
ANSWER: Hubble constant [or Hubble parameter; prompt on “the rate the Universe’s expansion” or equivalents until read]
The term “inverse distance ladder” has popped up quite recently (i.e., last few years). Had the question just said “distance ladder,” I would agree with your points.

Still, I may not have worded the question perfectly. So far, I’ve italicized the word “inverse” to make sure it gets emphasized, but PM me if you have more suggestions (especially to disambiguate the answer from things like redshift, neutrino mass, etc.).
Ophir
Maryland
Walter Johnson
I use email.

User avatar
Oh No You Didn't
Yuna
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 10:03 am

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Oh No You Didn't »

Looks like the elimination tu also probably could use a few prompts on the leadin (I negged on the leadin with "degradations" and then sat there confused)
Andrew Wang
Illinois 2016

User avatar
Judson Laipply
Rikku
Posts: 492
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:02 pm
Location: Bucyrus, Ohio

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Judson Laipply »

hftf wrote:
sbraunfeld wrote:I think the Hubble parameter question referred to it as the "first rung" on the cosmic distance ladder. I believe it is standard to number the rungs from the bottom (i.e. measurements for closer objects). Furthermore, attempting to correct this by saying something like "top rung" or "farthest rung" would still leave the clue a hose for "redshift", since the distance ladder is not some standardized thing, but varies from account to account, and the way Hubble's law is used in determining distances is via redshift measurements.
Hi Sam – apologies if the question was misleading and affected the outcome of your game. It’s possible the moderator misread the question or you misheard it, but I intended to refer to the Hubble parameter as the first rung of the “inverse distance ladder” (and not the “standard” distance ladder):
Packet 9 wrote:6. This quantity names a bubble or void that attempts to solve a paradox of Sandage and de Vaucouleurs, who debated its size. Baryon acoustic oscillations constrain this quantity, the first rung of the “inverse” distance ladder. Sandage wrote about a search for two numbers: the deceleration parameter and this one. Slipher’s work on spectra enabled this quantity’s first measurement, which was very large since clusters were assumed to be (*) bright stars. This quantity was the slope of a line through the origin on a plot of 24 “nebulae” whose values were obtained from Cepheid variables. This parameter is defined as a-dot over a, where a is the scale factor. Its reciprocal is an estimate of the Universe’s age, and its current value is around 67 km per second per megaparsec. This constant relates distance to redshift, or velocity, in a “law” for galaxies far, far away. For 10 points, identify this “constant” that describes the Universe’s expansion and is named for an American astronomer.
ANSWER: Hubble constant [or Hubble parameter; prompt on “the rate the Universe’s expansion” or equivalents until read]
The term “inverse distance ladder” has popped up quite recently (i.e., last few years). Had the question just said “distance ladder,” I would agree with your points.

Still, I may not have worded the question perfectly. So far, I’ve italicized the word “inverse” to make sure it gets emphasized, but PM me if you have more suggestions (especially to disambiguate the answer from things like redshift, neutrino mass, etc.).

Baryon acoustic oscillations are being used not only to constrain H_0, but also w, Omega_M, and many other cosmological parameters. However, they are most effective at measuring H_0. I have never heard of the inverse distance ladder until this question, and even after looking over those papers, I'm still not 100% sure what it is, but it doesn't look like H_0 is a rung in the ladder, but that it is an output. I would scrap that sentence entirely and put in something about the ~2 sigma** tension between Planck's Hubble constant and ones obtained from local measurements (Cepheids, nearby SNe, etc).

**EDIT: Exciting news today from Adam Riesshttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.01424.pdf We have now reached 3 sigma tension.
James L.
Kellenberg '10
UPenn '14
UChicago '20 (probably, who gives a fuck)

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by vinteuil »

Based on protests from today:
I'll be rewording the first clue of the "basis" tossup to make it explicit that the clue applies to all field extensions (so "Galois group" no longer becomes acceptable).

I'll change the answerline of the "Jacob wrestling the angel" question; the distinction between "Jacob" and "Israel" was not a well-thought-out idea.
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago, Yale, East Chapel Hill

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Cheynem »

Can you post the bonus part asking for the Whig party? I thought it claimed John Tyler was a member of it.
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by vinteuil »

Cheynem wrote:Can you post the bonus part asking for the Whig party? I thought it claimed John Tyler was a member of it.
Stephen just pointed out to me that the bonus claims that Tyler and Fillmore were the only elected Whig presidents, when in fact they were the only Whig presidents who were *not* elected. That'll get fixed too.

On the other hand, is it not true that Tyler was elected to the vice-presidency on a Whig ticket?
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago, Yale, East Chapel Hill

User avatar
Cheynem
Sin
Posts: 6782
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by Cheynem »

Yeah, he was--I should have clarified that I wanted to figure out of it really said Tyler and Fillmore were elected, when they were not. Tyler was more of a Democrat than a Whig, although he was elected on the Whig ticket (he held no Whig beliefs and was basically kicked out).
Mike Cheyne
Formerly U of Minnesota

"You killed HSAPQ"--Matt Bollinger

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: 2016 MYSTERIUM Errata

Post by vinteuil »

Cheynem wrote:Yeah, he was--I should have clarified that I wanted to figure out of it really said Tyler and Fillmore were elected, when they were not. Tyler was more of a Democrat than a Whig, although he was elected on the Whig ticket (he held no Whig beliefs and was basically kicked out).
OK, I'll make sure to reflect that in the wording—thanks!
Jacob Reed (he/him/his)
Chicago, Yale, East Chapel Hill

Locked