Oral Ambiguity in MIT Class Numbers

“I’m in 6.01 too.”
“I’m in 6.012.”

That is often resolved by context, but the following is likely to remain confusing after consideration of context:

“I’m in 8.01 too.”
“I’m in 8.012.”

It can be confusinger:

“I’m in 18.02 too.”
“I’m in 18.022.”

Course 20 has quite the unfortunate situation here.

20.129 -> “21.29”?
20.410 -> “24.10”?

Many people like to omit the course number from the class number when referring to a class.

18.702 <-> “seven oh-two” <-> 7.02?
6.813 <-> “eight thirteen” <-> 8.13?

(Psst: it’s fun to call 6.813 “six J-lab”.)

Sometimes, MIT even accommodates.

20.507[J] = 5.07[J]

(But in the above case, 25.07?)

The rapid coming of classes with ten-thousandth digits fuels this further.

“Four three three one”? As in 4.331, or something “for 3.31”? Or 18.4331, which is now numbered 18.4531?

Fortunately, numbers are usually not both classes of extensive relevance and rooms of extensive relevance. Except for 5.111/5-111. Fortunately, the first is called “five eleven one”.

Posted in MIT

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s