It often happens that people hear something that catches your eye and repeats it constantly. And repeats it without stopping to think if it's actually an old news cierto.Hablo (I've seen for more than a year, but today the day I've met twice), when I saw her, I was much attention. And basically says something.
Cietra unversdiad ineglsa dsecubrio that if the escrbiir the palaabrs, the pirmera and last article in its lgaur lert etsán not Improta the dmeas oerdn of one peude read "calramnete" ... Some
descurió English university if writing the words, the first and last letters are in place no matter the order of the other, one can read "clearly" the words without much effort, because the brain processes by "words" instead of letter by letter.
I've never heard to say which is the university, or anyone who tells me has actually read that article. However, with a demonstration similar to the above, everyone is convinced.
Will? Well ... NO!
This statement is incorrect and has its trap. It is clear that none of the people I mention this fact does in bad faith, and that comes with "eivdnceia." So they are not aware of the small trap that they themselves have played.
The claim is this:
enough that the first and last letters are in position, regardless of the order of the other, that we recognize "in segiuda" the palarba.
Well, if I want to prove that the afrimacóin is false, dbereía eejmpols to stop that works.
And without further ado .... return to the title. It's not as easy to read! Although the first and last letters are in place. The small catch is that in all examples that have sample letters dseordneadas, were not really so disordered.
The statement is true only if the degree disorder of the word is small. One may wonder how one can measure how messy is the word, and the answer comes in the basic course in group theory, since a messy word is, after all, a permutation of its letters. And every permutation can be expressed as a product of transpositions, and you can assign a minimum number of investments, etc ...
(if anyone is interested, send me an email asking for more details.)
So the disorder of the letters "middle" does matter. course gave many examples that do work, and so far I've only taken one that may well be the exception . So here are some examples:
- Cmoo "eacilpxr a mdnuo ddnoe mrgalio a tneie tdoo enoicacilpxn?
- Doreitucsin ptnemasorgilee puqroe Aromy sainetsoa that love the sea and not for a "RMIA uazilitr paidon
- atnalede vomas So, that ramen crtnoa Betos the ctneirroe, itnemetnasecne asodartsarrs HICA the pdasao
- The doreidicen aonmuls caibmar the FHCE of eugertna
- Asetige aetns of usrase
- The dtrepseó ptneicae htneirbmao
- The lerbie eidepolcicna
- Nsetoe in each Leni, the rlgea is clpmue
Yes, in each instance the rule is met, the first and last letters are in position, while all others are scrambled. But in my examples, disorders are not small (one or two letters wrong), but I have maximized the number of investments (ie, the greatest possible disorder) with the letters of the way, but the result and can not be read as easily as if written correctly, the statement said.
course all the examples were built with a method (which is not difficult to decipher), and knowing the method can read the examples with relative ease, but the important thing is that it can be read almost as quickly if they were successful.
must also note that in English (original language of the study), most words are of one or two syllables, while in English, frequently appearing words of 2, 3 or 4 syllables. Of course, if there are fewer lyrics, less clutter as possible (although There are counterexamples to the statement in English, but that's another story.)
Thus the correct statement is:
If a word, the first and last letters are left in place, and the other letters are changed slightly its position, it is possible to understand the word without much effort .
That's not so impressive right? It sounds a little silly make such a fuss about something that is somewhat obvious. :)
As a postscript (with a small nod to hein? ) did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?:
