So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose: it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for other things.
And Randall Garret perpetuated a story in which he alleges that the original Thor was a time-traveller with a big handgun. Yeah, there were frost giants, who were really naughty. Yeah, “It flew from his hand! Smote them! Crushed them! And returned!"
And David Brin has Thor meet Captain America, but not the way most think. And
Loki’s a good guy.
Any more candidates?
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on >> being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their >> stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll
probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for >> other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here?
(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you're >looking for.
In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4-ad31-3d646a9a93efn@googlegroups.com>,
Tony Nance <tonynance17@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on >>> being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll
probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for >>> other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here?
(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you're
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
Operation: Chaos and Operation: Luna are what I tend to refer to
as techno-magic. That said, I hope you figured out who al Buni
is in Operation: Luna.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie
Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose: it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here?
(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you're looking for.
And Randall Garret perpetuated a story in which he alleges that the original
Thor was a time-traveller with a big handgun. Yeah, there were frost giants,
who were really naughty. Yeah, “It flew from his hand! Smote them! Crushed
them! And returned!"
Garrett also treated magic as a scientific discipline in his Lord Darcy stories.
And David Brin has Thor meet Captain America, but not the way most think. And
Loki’s a good guy.
Any more candidates?
A decent amount of Brandon Sanderson's works also treat magic as
a scientific endeavor, with hypotheses, experiments, trials etc.
Tony
On 9/19/2023 12:56 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4-ad31-3d646a9a93efn@googlegroups.com>,creatures and
Tony Nance <tonynance17@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical
Was that before or after Tolkien did something very similar? :)all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on
being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll
probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for
other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here?
(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you're
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
In article <ueda3h$2ipfv$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/19/2023 12:56 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4-ad31-3d646a9a93efn@googlegroups.com>,Was that before or after Tolkien did something very similar? :)
Tony Nance <tonynance17@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical >creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone >>>> on
being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder >>>> their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll >>>> probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff >>>> for
other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here? >>> (It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what >>> you're
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
[Hal Heydt]
Gandalf got the three trolls to ague among themselves until
sunrise. I'd have to check dates, but I think Tolkien was
earlier. The *idea* is undoubtedly much older.
In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4...@googlegroups.com>,
Tony Nance <tonyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on
being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll
probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for
other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here? >(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you're
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
Operation: Chaos and Operation: Luna are what I tend to refer to
as techno-magic. That said, I hope you figured out who al Buni
is in Operation: Luna.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:01:29 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4...@googlegroups.com>,
Tony Nance <tonyn...@gmail.com> wrote:stone on
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical >creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to
plunder theirbeing exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who
sciency-stuff forstoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll
probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar
what you'reother things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here?
(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
Aha - thank you.
Operation: Chaos and Operation: Luna are what I tend to refer to
as techno-magic. That said, I hope you figured out who al Buni
is in Operation: Luna.
It has been so long since I read it, I don't remember if I figured it
out back then or not. I certainly don't remember it now - I barely
remember the character at all, and not much at all about the role
he played. Please enlighten me, unless it's some sort of super
spoiler or something.
In article <a913b6f1-8e2d-4062...@googlegroups.com>,
Tony Nance <tonyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:01:29 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <e74abcab-ab90-48f4...@googlegroups.com>,what you're
Tony Nance <tonyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical >creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to >stone on
being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who >plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll >> >> probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar >sciency-stuff for
other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here? >> >(It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit
looking for.
[Hal Heydt]
No. The reference is to Three Hearts and Three Lions. It's
where Holger Carlson engages the--not very bright--troll in a
riddle contest and keeps the troll up until sunrise.
Aha - thank you.
Operation: Chaos and Operation: Luna are what I tend to refer to
as techno-magic. That said, I hope you figured out who al Buni
is in Operation: Luna.
It has been so long since I read it, I don't remember if I figured it
out back then or not. I certainly don't remember it now - I barely >remember the character at all, and not much at all about the role
he played. Please enlighten me, unless it's some sort of super
spoiler or something.
[Hal Heydt]
Not really a spoiler. Dr. al Buni is in charge of the
governmental effort to land on the Moon, using progrssively
larger and more complex pegasi. The name 'al Buni' translates as
'the Brown'. He is that worlds analog of Werner von Braun.
Not really a spoiler. Dr. al Buni is in charge of the
governmental effort to land on the Moon, using progrssively
larger and more complex pegasi. The name 'al Buni' translates as
'the Brown'. He is that worlds analog of Werner von Braun.
On Sep 19, 2023, Tony Nance wrote
(in article<e74abcab-ab90-48f4...@googlegroups.com>):
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 6:38:46 PM UTC-4, WolfFan wrote:
So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie
Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose: it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As
gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its
eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures
and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on
being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their
stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for
other things.
Are you referencing Anderson's Operation Chaos and Operation Luna here? (It's been a while since I read them.) If not, I suggest they fit what you'reI was thinking of Three Hearts and Three Lions. I haven’t thought of the Operation books in a long time. Yeah, science-based magic. Were-whatevers having to put up with the conservation of mass/energy. Practical problems with flying carpets and broomsticks and unicorns. Movie star werewolves. Really interesting football games.
looking for.
And Randall Garret perpetuated a story in which he alleges that the original
Thor was a time-traveller with a big handgun. Yeah, there were frost giants,
who were really naughty. Yeah, “It flew from his hand! Smote them! Crushed
them! And returned!"
Garrett also treated magic as a scientific discipline in his Lord Darcy stories.he played that snarky, too. Garrett loved snark. I’d like one of those theft-protection spells that our little Irish not-quite-Watson had.
And David Brin has Thor meet Captain America, but not the way most think.
And
Loki’s a good guy.
Any more candidates?
A decent amount of Brandon Sanderson's works also treat magic as
a scientific endeavor, with hypotheses, experiments, trials etc.
him I’m not overly familiar with. Have to remedy that.
So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose: it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
Poul Anderson once had a fantasy involving all kinds of magical creatures and
all kinds of magical effects, such as certain creatures turning to stone on being exposed to sunlight... and inflicting a curse on any who plunder their stoney bodies. Obviously, if carbon is transmuted to silicon, it’ll probably be a _radioactive_ isotope of silicon... Similar sciency-stuff for other things.
And Randall Garret perpetuated a story in which he alleges that the original Thor was a time-traveller with a big handgun. Yeah, there were frost giants, who were really naughty. Yeah, “It flew from his hand! Smote them! Crushed them! And returned!"
And David Brin has Thor meet Captain America, but not the way most think. And
Loki’s a good guy.
Any more candidates?
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging >man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
though I think that solution
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
It is, though, kind of like Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's
take on MacBeth. In Tolkien's world, the wood *would* come to
the castle...under it's own power.
On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
No I didn't! Robert did.
though I think that solution"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused >stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into
the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
It is, though, kind of like Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's
take on MacBeth. In Tolkien's world, the wood *would* come to
the castle...under it's own power.
And no man could slay the Witch King....
In article <uelkem$l01b$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
No I didn't! Robert did.
though I think that solution"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very
hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into
the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
It is, though, kind of like Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's
take on MacBeth. In Tolkien's world, the wood *would* come to
the castle...under it's own power.
And no man could slay the Witch King....
[Hal Heydt]
Dorothy had things to say about that, using Latin to distinguish
between 'man' meaning male human and 'man' meaning human as
opposed to some other species. Ending with Eowyn saying
something, "Allow me to introduce you to my companion, a Halfling,
who is inserting a knife into the back of your knee."
On 9/22/2023 8:23 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelkem$l01b$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
No I didn't! Robert did.
though I think that solution"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused >>> stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into
the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
It is, though, kind of like Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's
take on MacBeth. In Tolkien's world, the wood *would* come to
the castle...under it's own power.
And no man could slay the Witch King....
[Hal Heydt]
Dorothy had things to say about that, using Latin to distinguish
between 'man' meaning male human and 'man' meaning human as
opposed to some other species. Ending with Eowyn saying
something, "Allow me to introduce you to my companion, a Halfling,
who is inserting a knife into the back of your knee."
Yes, she told us multiple times. Wish she could tell us again.
On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2...@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281...@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}No I didn't! Robert did.
You left that qualification off,
though I think that solution
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very
hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into
the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
In article <uelppg$ln3h$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 8:23 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelkem$l01b$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281-8ab9-36205612c89bn@googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint >>>>>>> or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast, >>>>>>> such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed >>>>>>> to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
No I didn't! Robert did.
though I think that solution"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused >>>> stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very >>>> hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into >>>> the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
It is, though, kind of like Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's
take on MacBeth. In Tolkien's world, the wood *would* come to
the castle...under it's own power.
And no man could slay the Witch King....
[Hal Heydt]
Dorothy had things to say about that, using Latin to distinguish
between 'man' meaning male human and 'man' meaning human as
opposed to some other species. Ending with Eowyn saying
something, "Allow me to introduce you to my companion, a Halfling,
who is inserting a knife into the back of your knee."
Yes, she told us multiple times. Wish she could tell us again.
[Hal Heydt
You and me, both. I still glance over at our bed expecting to
see her sitting there...
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 04:01:47 UTC+1, Dimensional Traveler wrote: >> On 9/22/2023 7:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <uelc2p$fvir$2...@dont-email.me>,No I didn't! Robert did.
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2023 4:39 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <1233ad19-e7a4-4281...@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
There was the character in Buffy who claimed
that "no weapon forged" could hurt him.
<https://buffy.fandom.com/wiki/Judge>
I'm not getting exactly what the flaw in his
argument was, except that no one did that
to him before.
[Hal Heydt]
Never wathced it, but right off the top of my head, flaked flint
or obsidian arrow or spear points, or anything that can be cast,
such as a sling bullet. Or just a wooden club. Maybe he needed
to just meet with a clue-by-four.
It was "no weapon forged by man" so a female fired a self-forging
man-portable anti-tank weapon at him. :D
[Hal Heydt}
You left that qualification off,
though I think that solution"Self forging" here means the detonation of the warhead causes a focused
is...iffy. Who forged the parts of the ATGM?
stream of molten metal to hit the target. The idea is basically a very
hot very focused plasma torch cutting thru the vehicle's armor and into
the crew and ammo in a fraction of a second.
Ouch. I said I didn't know, neither does that
Web page. It could be a magic thing such as
being immune to being cut by metal probably
would be. Or that he is vulnerable to being
pulled apart, as before, and the explosion
does that. That he isn't aware of explosives.
Or simply that he's been resistant to every
weapon invented before 1600 and he doesn't
understand that technology has advanced.
I think most of us will get the reference to try
mistletoe, which I am inserting but which didn't
see mentioned there.
"Forging" is a specific process. Maybe he meant
"made". A crossbow bolt gets his attention,
but I gather he says the "no weapon forged" line.
Is a crossbow arrow forged? Hit him with
big rocks?
So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose: it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 5:38:46?PM UTC-5, WolfFan wrote:Elves, at the height of their civilization duing the dinosaur age, but now they and their gods are old, tired and fading away, just remnants.
So I was re-reading Asimov recently, and one of the stories was Pate de Foie
Gras, about the goose that laid the golden egg. This is a special goose:
it’s a nuclear reactor. It converts oxygen-18 to iron-56 to gold-197. As
gold is a heavy metal and toxic, it gets rid of the gold as plating in its >> eggs. Which are infertile, thanks to the gold. There’s a lot more
sciency-style detail about the experiments which determine how it does this.
Not a story _per se_ , but the old GURPS Fantasy rpg system was so designed that you _could_ use it to create a somewhat science-based fantasy setting that happened to include magic. There was an option, for ex, to have _Reptile Men_ be older than the
There was also a _Fishmen_ race who worshipped a Lovecraft-style entity from beyond the common fantasy planet.
Speaking of Lovecraft, some of his stories would fit into 'science-based' or at least 'science influenced' category, esp. _At the Mountains of Madness_.
On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
(e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
depending on the curvature of space.
On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 21:45:06 UTC+1, Joel Polowin wrote:
On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that'sI've probably complained enough about different values
the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of space.
of pi in fiction, but if I have to do it again, I'm prepared to.
Among the things Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 21:45:06 UTC+1, Joel Polowin wrote:
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum ofI've probably complained enough about different values
mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could >>> be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
(e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
depending on the curvature of space.
of pi in fiction, but if I have to do it again, I'm prepared to.
What's that about Google spying on everything I read and watch online?
Just yesterday Matt Parker's Stand-Up Maths channel posted a video "Why does Vegas have its own value of pi?"
-------- Original Message --------
In article <5902752a-4c6c-4300...@sympatico.ca>,
Joel Polowin <jpol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2023-09-22 11:34 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set >>> of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of
mathematical converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could >> be... Archie Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's
the mathematical constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value
(e.g. the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle)
depending on the curvature of space.
Joel
Well, the context is that Professor Liad calls out the value as a adjustment factor during the inter-universal transversal, and it apparently
means nothhing to anyone else in the crew (who are all mathy spacers themselves).
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of space-time.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of
space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can change
as space is distorted.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains finite.
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of
space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:I'm not even getting past his saying infinity doubled is finite.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of
space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can
change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 19:06:53 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observeSince Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set >>>> of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie >>> Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of >>> space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of
space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can
change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
On 10/31/2023 10:44 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of >>>>> space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can
change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
I think that Pete is saying that a black hole has a throat of infinite
length and that the center point is "way down there". Wow, maybe
Disney's The Black Hole did have some science basis to it.
On 10/31/2023 9:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2023 10:44 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:There has been speculation that black holes are also wormholes or >inter-universe transit routes for pretty much as long as we've accepted
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of >>>>>> space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can
change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
I think that Pete is saying that a black hole has a throat of infinite
length and that the center point is "way down there". Wow, maybe
Disney's The Black Hole did have some science basis to it.
that black holes are real. But speculation is all it is as our current >physics breaks down at a BH event horizon.
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >> > >>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
Since Einstein, we're living in non-EuclideanPurely thought experiment until such time as we can observeof stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >> > >> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi >> > > pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
On 10/31/2023 10:44 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
I think that Pete is saying that a black hole has a throat of infinite
length and that the center point is "way down there".
pete wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >>> > >>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
Since Einstein, we're living in non-EuclideanPurely thought experiment until such time as we can observeof stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >>> > >> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi >>> > > pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. >>> > > OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
From a purely Platonic perspective perhaps?
quantum mechanics would appear to be in the strange position of
agreeing with all observations made, while disputing that any
observations can actually be made at all.
_Alice in Quantumland_ (Gilmore)
It's insane isn't it?
In article <uhslld$1f39q$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:47 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2023 10:44 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:There has been speculation that black holes are also wormholes or
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-4, meagain wrote:
I feel pretty confident that PI does not change with the curvature of >>>>>>> space-time.
The ratio between the radius of a circle and its circumference can >>>>>> change
as space is distorted.
In other words, it is no longer pi.
The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains >>>>>> finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
I think that Pete is saying that a black hole has a throat of infinite
length and that the center point is "way down there". Wow, maybe
Disney's The Black Hole did have some science basis to it.
inter-universe transit routes for pretty much as long as we've accepted
that black holes are real. But speculation is all it is as our current
physics breaks down at a BH event horizon.
Is this (from Asimov) still operant?
It is quite possible, then, that the entire universe is
itself a black hole (as has been suggested by the physicist
Kip Thorne).
If it is, then very likely it has always been a black hole
and will always be a black hole. If that is so, we live
within a black hole, and if we want to know what conditions
are like in a black hole (provided it is extremely massive),
we have but to look around.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/31/2023 10:44 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not even getting past him saying infinity doubled is finite.The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains
finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
I think that Pete is saying that a black hole has a throat of infinite length and that the center point is "way down there".Whereas the diameter can be measured from the outside!
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:59:07 PM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 19:06:53 UTC, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.Since Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
pete wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Don wrote:Since Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
Michael wrote:Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio
of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >> > > >> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi >> > > > pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. >> > > > OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point?
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
Not to mention that we're living on the surface of a sphere[1],
where triangles have more than 180 degrees. (For example,
use the north pole and two points on the equator to make
a triangle.)
Tony
[1] Yeah, yeah - close enough.
Tony Nance wrote:
pete wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Don wrote:Since Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
Michael wrote:Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio >> > > >> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively >> > > >> curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought.
OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point? >> > > >
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
Not to mention that we're living on the surface of a sphere[1],
where triangles have more than 180 degrees. (For example,
use the north pole and two points on the equator to make
a triangle.)
TonyAs a philosophy newbie, allow me to post a couple of rhetorical
[1] Yeah, yeah - close enough.
questions. In other words, there's no need to answer the questions
unless my logic's flawed.
Isn't solid geometry Euclidean ergo Aristotelian? And aren't
non-Euclidean thought experiments Platonic by their very nature?
Danke,
Don wrote:
As a philosophy newbie, allow me to post a couple of rhetorical
questions. In other words, there's no need to answer the questions
unless my logic's flawed.
Isn't solid geometry Euclidean ergo Aristotelian? And aren't
non-Euclidean thought experiments Platonic by their very nature?
Not sure what you mean by 'Platonic' here.
The distortion of space by gravity is very, very real. The ideal flat
space of Euclidean geometry is not.
Tony Nance wrote:
pete wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Don wrote:Since Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
Michael wrote:Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the
value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio >>> > > >> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but
depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively
curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi
pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. >>> > > > OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point? >>> > > >
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
Not to mention that we're living on the surface of a sphere[1],
where triangles have more than 180 degrees. (For example,
use the north pole and two points on the equator to make
a triangle.)
Tony
[1] Yeah, yeah - close enough.
As a philosophy newbie, allow me to post a couple of rhetorical
questions. In other words, there's no need to answer the questions
unless my logic's flawed.
Isn't solid geometry Euclidean ergo Aristotelian? And aren't
non-Euclidean thought experiments Platonic by their very nature?
pete wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
As a philosophy newbie, allow me to post a couple of rhetorical
questions. In other words, there's no need to answer the questions
unless my logic's flawed.
Isn't solid geometry Euclidean ergo Aristotelian? And aren't
non-Euclidean thought experiments Platonic by their very nature?
Not sure what you mean by 'Platonic' here.
The distortion of space by gravity is very, very real. The ideal flat"Ideal flat Euclidean geometry" seems relatively Platonic compared to
space of Euclidean geometry is not.
the very real applications of non-ideal flat space Euclidean geometry:
<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle <https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
Don wrote:
pete wrote:
<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
I am wondering if that page is written by AI or is
just bad. Or is an afterthought in a larger and
better planned collection of essays. The first
thing I want to say is that three-dimensional
geometry of solids is Euclidean. Except when
it isn't. "Flat" has various meanings; one approach,
not the only approach, to non-Euclidean two
dimensional geometry is to consider shapes
drawn on a surface which isn't flat in the
"flat as a pancake" sense.
Another point is that strictly, astronomers have
given up on Euclidean geometry of outer space,
although it's close enough for most work.
An issue I'll admit to not studying with proper
attention is that the planet Mercury's orbit
misbehaves if you don't use Einstein's
"General Relativity" to account for it.
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
It seems to me that entities in mathematics,
specifically, are not things that exist, but are ideas
which may and may not be relevant to things that
exist, ideas such as a triangle, or the number 7.
But I don't believe that the ideas are the true
reality, with real things being inferior to the ideas.
It may be possible to contemplate reality through
other ideas. I suppose that maybe Euclidean and
non-Euclidean space are alternative ideas about
real space, for a start.
I think it won't be a spoiler for Jack Campbell's
"Lost Fleet" series, up to the volume _Implacable_,
that a space-going culture appears to get by in
science without using quantum theory uncertainty,
and they either don't have the concept, or they don't
believe in it. We may argue that like (not) Niels Bohr's
lucky horseshoe, it works whether you believe in it
or not. <https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8387/is-the-anecdote-about-niels-bohr-keeping-a-horseshoe-on-his-door-true>
I think in _Implacable_ it is a while before anyone
asks in front of us whether these no-uncertainty
people maybe are right, since they are generally
better at science than other people around.
As far as I remember from a recent read, this is
countered by a comment that their version of
science includes something that I'm going to
compare to epicycles to keep their dogma in line
with how the universe actually behaves.
Epicycles rather imply that you're doing it wrong.
It is a plot point because the other culture is not
communicating fluently. It is hypothesised that
the other culture wants events to develop in a
particular way, unfortunately unknown, and that
they expect to be able to control the outcome...
which is much harder to do in quantum theory.
But also that they don't want to say anything
that could spoil their plan.
On Thursday, 2 November 2023 at 15:27:31 UTC, Don wrote:
pete wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
"Ideal flat Euclidean geometry" seems relatively Platonic compared toAs a philosophy newbie, allow me to post a couple of rhetorical
questions. In other words, there's no need to answer the questions
unless my logic's flawed.
Isn't solid geometry Euclidean ergo Aristotelian? And aren't
non-Euclidean thought experiments Platonic by their very nature?
Not sure what you mean by 'Platonic' here.
The distortion of space by gravity is very, very real. The ideal flat
space of Euclidean geometry is not.
the very real applications of non-ideal flat space Euclidean geometry:
<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
I am wondering if that page is written by AI or is
just bad. Or is an afterthought in a larger and
better planned collection of essays. The first
thing I want to say is that three-dimensional
geometry of solids is Euclidean. Except when
it isn't. "Flat" has various meanings; one approach,
not the only approach, to non-Euclidean two
dimensional geometry is to consider shapes
drawn on a surface which isn't flat in the
"flat as a pancake" sense.
Another point is that strictly, astronomers have
given up on Euclidean geometry of outer space,
although it's close enough for most work.
An issue I'll admit to not studying with proper
attention is that the planet Mercury's orbit
misbehaves if you don't use Einstein's
"General Relativity" to account for it.
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
It seems to me that entities in mathematics,
specifically, are not things that exist, but are ideas
which may and may not be relevant to things that
exist, ideas such as a triangle, or the number 7.
But I don't believe that the ideas are the true
reality, with real things being inferior to the ideas.
It may be possible to contemplate reality through
other ideas. I suppose that maybe Euclidean and
non-Euclidean space are alternative ideas about
real space, for a start.
-------- Original Message --------
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not even getting past his saying infinity doubled is finite.The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains finite. >>>Its circumference remains finite.
Well, mathematicians have recently proved that there is a minimum size for a mobius loop, so that ought to demonstrate something.
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Don wrote:
pete wrote:
<snip>
<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
I am wondering if that page is written by AI or is
just bad. Or is an afterthought in a larger and
better planned collection of essays. The first
thing I want to say is that three-dimensional
geometry of solids is Euclidean. Except when
it isn't. "Flat" has various meanings; one approach,
not the only approach, to non-Euclidean two
dimensional geometry is to consider shapes
drawn on a surface which isn't flat in the
"flat as a pancake" sense.
Another point is that strictly, astronomers have
given up on Euclidean geometry of outer space,
although it's close enough for most work.
An issue I'll admit to not studying with proper
attention is that the planet Mercury's orbit
misbehaves if you don't use Einstein's
"General Relativity" to account for it.
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
It seems to me that entities in mathematics,
specifically, are not things that exist, but are ideas
which may and may not be relevant to things that
exist, ideas such as a triangle, or the number 7.
But I don't believe that the ideas are the true
reality, with real things being inferior to the ideas.
It may be possible to contemplate reality through
other ideas. I suppose that maybe Euclidean and
non-Euclidean space are alternative ideas about
real space, for a start.
I think it won't be a spoiler for Jack Campbell's
"Lost Fleet" series, up to the volume _Implacable_,
that a space-going culture appears to get by in
science without using quantum theory uncertainty,
and they either don't have the concept, or they don't
believe in it. We may argue that like (not) Niels Bohr's
lucky horseshoe, it works whether you believe in it
or not. <https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8387/is-the-anecdote-about-niels-bohr-keeping-a-horseshoe-on-his-door-true>
I think in _Implacable_ it is a while before anyone
asks in front of us whether these no-uncertainty
people maybe are right, since they are generally
better at science than other people around.
As far as I remember from a recent read, this is
countered by a comment that their version of
science includes something that I'm going to
compare to epicycles to keep their dogma in line
with how the universe actually behaves.
Epicycles rather imply that you're doing it wrong.
It is a plot point because the other culture is notThe outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
communicating fluently. It is hypothesised that
the other culture wants events to develop in a
particular way, unfortunately unknown, and that
they expect to be able to control the outcome...
which is much harder to do in quantum theory.
But also that they don't want to say anything
that could spoil their plan.
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
"Real applications of non-ideal flat space Euclidean geometry exist"
is an Aristotelian argument.
Danke,
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Don wrote:
pete wrote:
<snip>
<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
I am wondering if that page is written by AI or is
just bad. Or is an afterthought in a larger and
better planned collection of essays. The first
thing I want to say is that three-dimensional
geometry of solids is Euclidean. Except when
it isn't. "Flat" has various meanings; one approach,
not the only approach, to non-Euclidean two
dimensional geometry is to consider shapes
drawn on a surface which isn't flat in the
"flat as a pancake" sense.
Another point is that strictly, astronomers have
given up on Euclidean geometry of outer space,
although it's close enough for most work.
An issue I'll admit to not studying with proper
attention is that the planet Mercury's orbit
misbehaves if you don't use Einstein's
"General Relativity" to account for it.
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
It seems to me that entities in mathematics,
specifically, are not things that exist, but are ideas
which may and may not be relevant to things that
exist, ideas such as a triangle, or the number 7.
But I don't believe that the ideas are the true
reality, with real things being inferior to the ideas.
It may be possible to contemplate reality through
other ideas. I suppose that maybe Euclidean and
non-Euclidean space are alternative ideas about
real space, for a start.
I think it won't be a spoiler for Jack Campbell's
"Lost Fleet" series, up to the volume _Implacable_,
that a space-going culture appears to get by in
science without using quantum theory uncertainty,
and they either don't have the concept, or they don't
believe in it. We may argue that like (not) Niels Bohr's
lucky horseshoe, it works whether you believe in it
or not. <https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8387/is-the-anecdote-about-niels-bohr-keeping-a-horseshoe-on-his-door-true>
I think in _Implacable_ it is a while before anyone
asks in front of us whether these no-uncertainty
people maybe are right, since they are generally
better at science than other people around.
As far as I remember from a recent read, this is
countered by a comment that their version of
science includes something that I'm going to
compare to epicycles to keep their dogma in line
with how the universe actually behaves.
Epicycles rather imply that you're doing it wrong.
It is a plot point because the other culture is notThe outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
communicating fluently. It is hypothesised that
the other culture wants events to develop in a
particular way, unfortunately unknown, and that
they expect to be able to control the outcome...
which is much harder to do in quantum theory.
But also that they don't want to say anything
that could spoil their plan.
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
On 31/10/2023 16.05, meagain wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
On 10/31/2023 6:12 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 30/10/2023 17.57, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not even getting past his saying infinity doubled is finite.The radius of a black hole is infinite, while the diameter remains finite.
Its circumference remains finite.
Well, mathematicians have recently proved that there is a minimum size for a mobius loop, so that ought to demonstrate something.
Interesting. Do you have a pointer to something? Maybe on arXiv?
Don wrote:
The outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
I'd say it was the opposite. The non-flat nature of space is an observed reality. Plato did not think that observations mattered.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
On 31/10/2023 16.05, meagain wrote:
Well, mathematicians have recently proved that there is a minimum size for a mobius loop, so that ought to demonstrate something.
Interesting. Do you have a pointer to something? Maybe on arXiv?
He might be referring to this: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mobius-strip-mystery-solved-math
If so, it's not as interesting as it sounds (at least not to me - ymmv).
On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 11:23:40 UTC, Don wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Don wrote:
pete wrote:
<snip>
The outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the<https://www.otranation.com/real-life-applications-of-euclidean-geometry/>
I am wondering if that page is written by AI or is
just bad. Or is an afterthought in a larger and
better planned collection of essays. The first
thing I want to say is that three-dimensional
geometry of solids is Euclidean. Except when
it isn't. "Flat" has various meanings; one approach,
not the only approach, to non-Euclidean two
dimensional geometry is to consider shapes
drawn on a surface which isn't flat in the
"flat as a pancake" sense.
Another point is that strictly, astronomers have
given up on Euclidean geometry of outer space,
although it's close enough for most work.
An issue I'll admit to not studying with proper
attention is that the planet Mercury's orbit
misbehaves if you don't use Einstein's
"General Relativity" to account for it.
Here's a canonical answer to the dilemma:
Aristotle rejects the transcendence, the /chorismos/, of the ideas,
i.e. Plato's conviction that the true existence, the idea, is
absolutely separated from the objects of this world; in their
finite, particular, and perishable existence these objects reflect
only in an image, as it were, the eternal and universal subsistence
of an unique idea; they "imitate it" and "partake of it", without
ever being able to reproduce it themselves.
The Fundamental Opposition of Plato and Aristotle
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/291434>
It seems to me that entities in mathematics,
specifically, are not things that exist, but are ideas
which may and may not be relevant to things that
exist, ideas such as a triangle, or the number 7.
But I don't believe that the ideas are the true
reality, with real things being inferior to the ideas.
It may be possible to contemplate reality through
other ideas. I suppose that maybe Euclidean and
non-Euclidean space are alternative ideas about
real space, for a start.
I think it won't be a spoiler for Jack Campbell's
"Lost Fleet" series, up to the volume _Implacable_,
that a space-going culture appears to get by in
science without using quantum theory uncertainty,
and they either don't have the concept, or they don't
believe in it. We may argue that like (not) Niels Bohr's
lucky horseshoe, it works whether you believe in it
or not.
<https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/8387/is-the-anecdote-about-niels-bohr-keeping-a-horseshoe-on-his-door-true>
I think in _Implacable_ it is a while before anyone
asks in front of us whether these no-uncertainty
people maybe are right, since they are generally
better at science than other people around.
As far as I remember from a recent read, this is
countered by a comment that their version of
science includes something that I'm going to
compare to epicycles to keep their dogma in line
with how the universe actually behaves.
Epicycles rather imply that you're doing it wrong.
It is a plot point because the other culture is not
communicating fluently. It is hypothesised that
the other culture wants events to develop in a
particular way, unfortunately unknown, and that
they expect to be able to control the outcome...
which is much harder to do in quantum theory.
But also that they don't want to say anything
that could spoil their plan.
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
"Real applications of non-ideal flat space Euclidean geometry exist"
is an Aristotelian argument.
Danke,
I assert that the reason we haven't abandoned
Euclidean geometry is that it is approximately
correct when dealing with the real world.
And it's much easier to do than Einstein's
stuff, too.
In a sense, we have largely abandoned Euclid
inasmuch as geometry is done with the numeric
coordinate system named after Descartes.
So that numbers (0, 0) represent a point in
two-dimensional space. I would say that
since geometry is abstract anyway, for
practical purposes (0, 0) /is/ a point - except
that I also count these symbols as being ideas
about numbers, and not being the actual numbers.
This is a Plato's-cave thing, I think - we can only
ever have numbers as ideas. Numbers in particular
may not be anything but ideas.
William Hyde wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
The outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
I'd say it was the opposite. The non-flat nature of space is an observed reality. Plato did not think that observations mattered.Careful there, the Platonic argument above addresses only the existence
of "ideal flat space" and says nothing about non-flat space.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:09:07?PM UTC-4, Don wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Careful there, the Platonic argument above addresses only the existenceThe outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
I'd say it was the opposite. The non-flat nature of space is an observed >> > reality. Plato did not think that observations mattered.
of "ideal flat space" and says nothing about non-flat space.
The above is not an argument. It is a statement. Worthless in
itself.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 14:54:29 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:09:07?PM UTC-4, Don wrote:
William Hyde wrote:
Don wrote:
<snip>
Careful there, the Platonic argument above addresses only the existence >> of "ideal flat space" and says nothing about non-flat space.The outcome of this thread's argument is irrelevant to me. Only the
taxonomy of argument matters.
"The ideal flat space of Euclidean geometry is not [real]" is a
Platonic argument.
I'd say it was the opposite. The non-flat nature of space is an observed
reality. Plato did not think that observations mattered.
The above is not an argument. It is a statement. Worthless inIt's /worse/ than useless.
itself.
If we regard the flat space of Euclid as participating in the Form (or
Idea) of Flat Space -- that is, the ideal flat space, then Plato /most assuredly would/ say that that Form existed.
So it's flat-out wrong, ascribing to Plato the position of Aristotle.
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 13:13:12 -0000 (UTC), Don <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
pete wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/31/2023 9:39 AM, Don wrote:
Michael wrote:
Joel Polowin wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >>>>>>>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different set
Since Einstein, we're living in non-EuclideanPurely thought experiment until such time as we can observeof stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathematical
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Archie
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathematical
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio between
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature of
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio >>>>>>> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >>>>>>> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively >>>>>>> curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi >>>>>> pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. >>>>>> OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point? >>>>>>
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
From a purely Platonic perspective perhaps?
quantum mechanics would appear to be in the strange position of
agreeing with all observations made, while disputing that any
observations can actually be made at all.
_Alice in Quantumland_ (Gilmore)
It's insane isn't it?
Even the explanations in /Science News/, particularly of "quantum
pairs" (for some reason), often don't make sense to me. Granted I
never studied quantum physics -- but the articles are supposed to be
written so an educated but not in the topic of the article person can understand the concepts.
Well, for quantum physics, that's "understand the concepts in a
cartoony way", of course.
Don wrote:
Paul wrote:
pete wrote:
Robert wrote:
Dimensional wrote:
Don wrote:Since Einstein, we're living in non-Euclidean
Michael wrote:Purely thought experiment until such time as we can observe
Joel wrote:
Ted wrote:
That's not the way the Liaden old universe worked. For instance, the >>>>>>>>>> value of Pi was not the same, setting aside a completely different se
of stars & planets.
Given that pi can be calculated in multiple ways as the sum of mathema
converging infinite series, it's hard to see how that could be... Arch
Plutonium's "theories" notwithstanding. Of course, that's the mathemat
constant, which can differ from the _physical_ value (e.g. the ratio b
the circumference and diameter of a circle) depending on the curvature
space.
Of course, in anything other than flat, Euclidean space, the ratio >>>>>>>> of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is not constant, but >>>>>>>> depends on its diameter (at least) and position (in a negatively >>>>>>>> curved space, I think).
Allow me to use the groups as an adhoc classroom. Let me know if my pi >>>>>>> pertinent philosophy shown below doesn't make sense.
The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is an
observable fact. And accordingly associated with Aristotlean thought. >>>>>>> OTOH, notions of non-Euclidean space are Platonic. And non-
Euclidean space Platonically pulls pi apart to the breaking point? >>>>>>>
non-Euclidean space to conduct actual experiments.
space. I think it goes as far as planets
moving in "straight lines" that just happen to
become ellipses because spacetime is bendy.
This is correct.
From a purely Platonic perspective perhaps?
quantum mechanics would appear to be in the strange position of
agreeing with all observations made, while disputing that any
observations can actually be made at all.
_Alice in Quantumland_ (Gilmore)
It's insane isn't it?
Even the explanations in /Science News/, particularly of "quantum
pairs" (for some reason), often don't make sense to me. Granted I
never studied quantum physics -- but the articles are supposed to be
written so an educated but not in the topic of the article person can
understand the concepts.
Well, for quantum physics, that's "understand the concepts in a
cartoony way", of course.
Richard Feynman said, "Anyone who says they understand quantum physics, doesn't."
I believe that school geometry is educationally very useful, because it allows people to learn and practice with mathematical proof. I was entranced by proof, perhaps because almost every other form of argument I had seen before was, at best, occupyinga position that might need to be abandoned in the light of further evidence or the other side of the story - and few enough paid even that much attention to the facts of the case.
I believe that school geometry is educationally very useful, because it all= >ows people to learn and practice with mathematical proof. I was entranced b= >y proof, perhaps because almost every other form of argument I had seen bef= >ore was, at best, occupying a position that might need to be abandoned in t= >he light of further evidence or the other side of the story - and few enoug= >h paid even that much attention to the facts of the case.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:35:11 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell ><mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:a position that might need to be abandoned in the light of further evidence or the other side of the story - and few enough paid even that much attention to the facts of the case.
<snippo>
I believe that school geometry is educationally very useful, because it allows people to learn and practice with mathematical proof. I was entranced by proof, perhaps because almost every other form of argument I had seen before was, at best, occupying
The teacher of the Geometry course I took in High School (long, long
ago ... but not far, far away) /explicitly stated/ that the purpose of
the course was to teach Deductive Reasoning.
We had to list and justify each and every step in our proofs. A
skipped step or a wrong justification produced a failure.
I suppose you had to do as well.
When I eventually read Euclid, as part of the set known as The Great
Books of the Western World, I found that we had covered only a part of
the material. But that's not as bad as it seems -- a lot of what we
didn't cover was covered in algebra and what we got of number theory.
Still, his proof that you can multiply two irrational numbers and get
a rational result (that is, that a rectangle with two irrational sides
can have a rational area) was interesting.
On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 16:59:20 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:occupying a position that might need to be abandoned in the light of further evidence or the other side of the story - and few enough paid even that much attention to the facts of the case.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:35:11 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell
<mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
<snippo>
I believe that school geometry is educationally very useful, because it allows people to learn and practice with mathematical proof. I was entranced by proof, perhaps because almost every other form of argument I had seen before was, at best,
The teacher of the Geometry course I took in High School (long, long
ago ... but not far, far away) /explicitly stated/ that the purpose of
the course was to teach Deductive Reasoning.
We had to list and justify each and every step in our proofs. A
skipped step or a wrong justification produced a failure.
I suppose you had to do as well.
When I eventually read Euclid, as part of the set known as The Great
Books of the Western World, I found that we had covered only a part of
the material. But that's not as bad as it seems -- a lot of what we
didn't cover was covered in algebra and what we got of number theory.
Still, his proof that you can multiply two irrational numbers and get
a rational result (that is, that a rectangle with two irrational sides
can have a rational area) was interesting.
Is that Euclid or your high school teacher?
I'm not sure if the clever bit is simply casting
it in geometry or... Let me see, a square of
unit side has a diagonal of length square root
of 2. A square whose side is sqrt(2) has...
diagonal length 2 and area 2 (?), which if it's
right may be a coincidence. Then I suppose
we want the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number>
which considers the matter more generally,
records that (long before Euclid) that may have been
fighting talk amongst followers of Pythagoras.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 08:59:12 -0800, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:occupying a position that might need to be abandoned in the light of further evidence or the other side of the story - and few enough paid even that much attention to the facts of the case.
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 23:35:11 -0800 (PST), Andrew McDowell >><mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:
<snippo>
I believe that school geometry is educationally very useful, because it allows people to learn and practice with mathematical proof. I was entranced by proof, perhaps because almost every other form of argument I had seen before was, at best,
The teacher of the Geometry course I took in High School (long, long
ago ... but not far, far away) /explicitly stated/ that the purpose of
the course was to teach Deductive Reasoning.
We had to list and justify each and every step in our proofs. A
skipped step or a wrong justification produced a failure.
I suppose you had to do as well.
When I eventually read Euclid, as part of the set known as The Great
Books of the Western World, I found that we had covered only a part of
the material. But that's not as bad as it seems -- a lot of what we
didn't cover was covered in algebra and what we got of number theory.
Still, his proof that you can multiply two irrational numbers and get
a rational result (that is, that a rectangle with two irrational sides
can have a rational area) was interesting.
Why? (pi + 1) is an irrational number which is obviously exactly one
more than pi and the proof that e^*(i*pi)+1 = 0 is a 2nd year vector
calculus problem.
(My junior high math teacher put it on the blackboard one day without
proof in response to a question from a student about "what's the best
part of mathematics?" and said "come back and discuss it with me in
ten years when you've done university level math". Since after
university graduation I signed up for teacher's training I did just
that "Hey Mr Peters, you remember the day in grade 9 when you
said...")
Heh - over many years, I've worn out two t-shirts with that equation on
it. Hm...now that I think about it, I should start looking for #3.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 81:54:22 |
| Calls: | 6,762 |
| Files: | 12,289 |
| Messages: | 5,378,194 |