* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers @ 1997-06-05 0:00 Jon S Anthony 1997-06-06 0:00 ` H. Blakely Williford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5n45ou$cio@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst > others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist > anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and > diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A > mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It > may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at > it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. Spoken like an engineer. I don't think many scientists would actually say this sort of thing. Go read G.H.Hardy's _A Mathematician's Apology_. Considering that (in my experience anyway), the (vast) majority of mathematicians hold basically the views expressed there, you will immediately see what a "hornet's nest" you have just kicked. > I don't see it as being different from any other language in that it You're still kicking... > Distant unknown planets do not crash into their sun because no one there > has *discovered* the inverse square law. That relationship continues > to exist in a form unexpressable to the local inhabitants. So - how do you feel about the "Copenhagen interpretation" of QM? Bohr's notion of "complimentarity"? Just curious... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-05 0:00 Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` H. Blakely Williford 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony wrote: > > In article <5n45ou$cio@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > > > What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst > > others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist > > anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and > > diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A > > mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It > > may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at > > it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. So is mathematicis like an adjective? > Spoken like an engineer. I don't think many scientists would actually > say this sort of thing. > > Go read G.H.Hardy's _A Mathematician's Apology_. Considering that (in > my experience anyway), the (vast) majority of mathematicians hold > basically the views expressed there, you will immediately see what a > "hornet's nest" you have just kicked. > > > I don't see it as being different from any other language in that it > > You're still kicking... > is there such thing as mathematical poetry? That is poetry not made up as words, but of pure mathematical thought? Could 1 + 1 = 2 be a poem, or is it just a statement? Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Pascal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? @ 1997-05-15 0:00 Jon S Anthony 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.970514190923.17085C-100000@tower.york.ac.uk> T Wheeley <tw104@york.ac.uk> writes: > On 2 May 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote: > > > In article <3369FCAF.41C6@cca.rockwell.com> Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com> writes: > > > > > "We're teaching Computer Science here. If you want engineering, go to > > > an engineering school." That's the prevailing attitude with many of the > > > CompSci programs at small liberal arts colleges. They teach the > > > "science" of programming almost as a subfield of Mathematics. The > > > > This is actually very apropos to the problem. Most of what passes as > > so called "computer science" is just watered down mathematics - > > discrete mathematics (asymptotic algorithm analysis is fundamentally > > various techniques of counting, i.e., a bit of combinatorics) and some > > bits of formal logics (which is where the oft mentioned "halting > > problem" and such comes from.) Take this away and you don't have much > > left - unless you have the _application_ of that mathematics, i.e., > > software engineering. > > > > Well, there is the AI camp, but there too, if you look at what much of > > this is, it's being/been covered by philosophers and CogScis (and > > often with rather more perspicacity). > > Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just Sounds like a good idea to me. > make people do Maths + Philosophy degrees. Yes it's the same stuff, but > don't Physics and Chemistry both cover atoms and electron shells? Don't > both Biology and Chemistry cover Biological Chemistry? Incorrect analogies. These are all sciences which have their own core subject which is well delineated. The fact that they borrow from ideas in other related sciences is irrelevant. The point is that CS has no such core subject area - _all_ it has is borrowed and then watered down from other disciplines. > The fact is that a CS degree combines all these factors into a single > degree related to the study of computers, and puts them in the correct > context. This would be the start of something that made sense if the core subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > Yes the idea of dominance in sequences is part of computer science, > but they way I was taught it in maths is not particularly relvant to > the complexity of algorithms. This sounds irrelevant. _Counting_ is the core of complexity analysis and that is a part of Combinatorics. _Applying_ the various relevant results of Combinatorics to _engineering_ problems in software is perfectly sensible. Attempting to dream up new ways of counting or more sophisticated ways, or ways that handle new situations or whatever is Combinatorics - not CS. > Unless you have a very good understanding of the principles behind > the maths in a maths degree, it will take you a lot of experience to > become a good programmer (e.g. Knuth) I seriously doubt this (as it is written). As an example, exactly how does understanding the ideas behind the proof of Quadratic Reciprocity help you in "programming"?? How does an understanding of the topology of the linear continuum needed to understand a proof of the FTC help you in "programming"? As far as that goes, how does a understanding of the notions underlying FTC help? Schroder-Bernstein theorem? No other engineering discipline needs this sort of understanding. Heck, no other _science_ needs this level of understanding. > Of course there is a strong element of theory in CS degrees -- they want > to get good research students to boost the department's standing against > other universities, but you would have to have a poor department or be a > poor student if you didn't pick up some of the fundamentals of good > software design. I think you just crossed over into Jay Martin flamage land - prepare to be blow torched! :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: > This sense of realism is excellent, and is frequently the one thing that > makes the difference between a project that succeeds, and one which fails. > And let's face it, the software industry has had its fair share of failed > projects, has it not? > However, I would argue that there is sometimes a flip side to this realism, > in the engineering sciences in general, and computer science in particular. > All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology > have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly > directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley > collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_. Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in the project above. The synchronization problem is with a new system, and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently fielded system AND integrate with the new system. Enough complexity that you don't want any more. But build three has room for all the customer wants, and new technology. So in this case the build one design has to support evolution, build two is required to integrate with a system that does not yet exist, and build three has room for all the bells and whistles that the original design allows. Quite a spectrum, and a need to keep focused on today's goal. > These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they > invented the science. Noting wrong with dreaming, and in fact the project manager was reacting to features/hooks in the design which are there to support evolution. Our job was to convince him that they were needed--but were for use much later. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org>, Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote: > Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in >the project above. The synchronization problem is with a new system, >and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently >fielded system AND integrate with the new system. Enough complexity >that you don't want any more. But build three has room for all the >customer wants, and new technology. That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no longer understood what the word really means. Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I believe your wrong. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: > >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. > >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is the application of physics to produce technology. If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you doing engineering. Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other artifacts related to the _technology_. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, : Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: : >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : > : >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. : > : >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I : The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is : the application of physics to produce technology. : If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you : doing engineering. : Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not : technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the : internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't : engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems : related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other : artifacts related to the _technology_. My take is this: Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. Engineering is the design and manufacture of "things" to suit a pre-defined need. "Things" can be physical objects designed to harness natural phenomena or they can be software operating in a man made environment such as a computer. If the evolution of a "thing" coming into existence involved a specification, a design process and an implementation then by my definition one could say it has been 'engineered'. Mathematics exists in the mind alone. It is the process of discovering and describing precisely by symbolic means various kinds of facts and relationships. It is the process of implementing a rich "language" which enables scientists to express their ideas and engineers to model the behviour of their phenomena-harnessing implementations of those ideas. In short: The mathematician builds the hammer, the scientist writes the instruction manual and the engineer just likes to sit there maniacally hitting things with it. :^) I would say, however, a computer scientist / engineer doesn't fit quite so easily into any of the above pidgeon holes. Civil engineers, electrical / electronic engineers, etc all have to work with the physical environment as it exists. A guy who builds a bridge cannot decide that he wants gravity to work sideways and save money on those nuts for the horizontal bolts. If a computer scientist / engineer decides that, to suit his or her specification best, a different architecture or operating system philosophy is required then that option is always open. I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^) -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. You would get some pretty heated disagreement over this from many mathematicians and philosophers (you would also get a number lining up on your side...) Of course, this just punts the problem to the issue of "what is mind" - which is even more inflammatory. > It is the process of discovering and describing precisely by > symbolic means various kinds of facts and relationships. <playing one of those who would disagree with the above bit>: OK, so what do these "facts" and "relationships" concern? What are they about? Of what are they facts and relationships?? Sounds like something "out there"... > I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^) :-)!! /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com>]
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` H. Blakely Williford 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dann Corbit wrote: > (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > > > > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. can you look at a sun rise and say this? the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? -- H. Blakely Williford | Men never do evil so completely and Systems Administrator/Programmer | cheerfully as when they do it from The Fuller Brush Company | religious conviction. -- Pascal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: >Dann Corbit wrote: >> (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: >> > >> > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. > >can you look at a sun rise and say this? > >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in many others as well) math is a product of our brains. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: > >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? > > You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains > process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. Using your argument, only the word "color" is dependent upon out brains to interpret it (as you point out below). > Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math > is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that > math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. > "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that > exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret > is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say > English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, > just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". > It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be > discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in > many others as well) math is a product of our brains. > > -- > Craig > clfranck@worldnet.att.net > Manchester, NH > I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is > a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3394E51B.7A5A@flash.net>, Spaceman Spiff <csweber@flash.net> wrote: >Craig Franck wrote: >> "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: >> >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? >> >> You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains >> process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. > >Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. >Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. That is false, Spiff. Colors can be perceived as a result of a pure frequency or as a result of the mixture of two or more frequencies. The eye only responds to two or three different regions of the spectrum. This is why only three different kinds of phosphor elements in a CRT display are able to reproduce such a wide variety of hues. >The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, >exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. From this it does not follow that every brain perceives color in the same way, or that color exists independently of the observer. I don't see the necessary connection between frequency and the sensation of color. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Ceri Stagg @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) |> > Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math |> > is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that |> > math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. |> > "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that |> > exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret |> > is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say |> > English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, |> > just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". |> > It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be |> > discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in |> > many others as well) math is a product of our brains. I think a distinction should be made between NUMBERS and NUMERALS. Our mathematical system's rules are not arbitrary, they have been chosen because of their mapping to the laws of numbers we see in nature, e.g. if we have 4 things (I mean the number 4, not the numeral) and remove 2, we clearly have only 2 remaining. Admittedly, maths is not a science per se because most of it deals with platonic ideas that cannot be directly seen or touched, making it trickier to get a handle on in these areas than e.g. physics, but I think it's wrong to suggest that something like the Mandelbrot set doesn't exist outside people's minds.....surely the Mandelbrot set is a discovery, not an invention? I don't think mathematical systems can have the arbitrariness of languages. The numerals and symbols can be arbitrary, but their transformation rules MUST consistently map onto and track the relationships of numbers. But getting your head around the verifications involved in this is indeed tricky stuff...... ____ ____/....\____ C.P.Stagg |____ Ceri ____| ------------------ / \____/ \ ceris@dai.ed.ac.uk """""""""""""""" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Philip Brashear @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) OK, I finally got sucked into this maelstrom. Why are people talking about numbers so much? There seems to be a strong impression that mathematics = the study of numbers. No, that's arithmetic. Mathematics is the study of logical implication: one puts up a set of postulates and studies the theorems (implications) that result. Some of these postulates concern these "number" things (like Peano's postulates). Others concern these "geometric" things (like several people's attempts to perfect Euclid's postulates). Others concern things with no obvious relation to observable reality. (The latter are often the most interesting and turn out to have great impact on the "real" world. Talk about serendipity!) When I was working on that elusive Ph.D. in math, my field was topological algebra (as distinguished from algebraic topology). I REALLY didn't deal with numeric concepts. Phil Brashear ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Brashear Philip Brashear wrote: > > When I was working on that elusive Ph.D. in math, my field was > topological algebra (as distinguished from algebraic topology). So do you crack a smile when the Unix folks talk about filters? > Phil Brashear -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) spaceman says <<Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. Using your argument, only the word "color" is dependent upon out brains to interpret it (as you point out below).>> That's wrong. Wavelength is wavelength, color is color. There is a relation but it is not nearly as close as you seem to think. Color is definitely about perception. You can perceive color even though no light of the relevant wavelength is present. the Land two color experiments (and many other similar experiments) show this conclusively. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: : >Dann Corbit wrote: : >> (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: : >> > : >> > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. : > : >can you look at a sun rise and say this? : > : >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? : You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains : process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. <SNIP> : It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be : discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in : many others as well) math is a product of our brains. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dann Corbit (dcorbit@solutionsiq.com) wrote: : Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote in article : <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria>... : > In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk : (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: : > : > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. : > : > You would get some pretty heated disagreement over this from many : > mathematicians and philosophers (you would also get a number lining up : > on your side...) Of course, this just punts the problem to the issue : > of "what is mind" - which is even more inflammatory. Oh dear. In an attempt to give my view of an apparant stretching of a word's definition I seem to have done the same thing. :^) : Here is some real flame bait [addressed primarily to Mr. 'Vibrating' ;-)]: Actually Vibrating is my first name. You may call me Vibrating but for correctness above it would be Mr.Goats. :^) : If math exists in the mind alone, does a stupid person and a smart one have : a different set of mathematics rules that apply to them? What about a : planet with no people on it, and we are not aware of it? Must it plummet : into its star, since there is no math available to make it obey the inverse : square law? Well, I recently posted this in another newsgroup (rec.sport.rugby.league, strange as it may seem) which may answer the question: >> <Pedantic mode on> >> >> Immeasurable phenomena do not disappear with a puff of logic, they remain >> unquantifiable (if there is such a word) until such time as a means of >> measuring that phenomena is discovered. >> >> <Pedantic mode off> In otherwords, just because we do not know of something or are unable to comprehend it does not mean such a thing does not exist. <Dogs doing calculus in their heads to catch balls snipped for brevity ;^) > Now then, the defintion I attribute to mathematics I laid out like this: >> Mathematics exists in the mind alone. It is the process of discovering >> and describing precisely by symbolic means various kinds of facts and >> relationships. It is the process of implementing a rich "language" which >> enables scientists to express their ideas and engineers to model the >> behviour of their phenomena-harnessing implementations of those ideas. What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. I don't see it as being different from any other language in that it enables us to get a particular idea or point of view across. It often does so with more success than I do with English, but there I digress. :^) Distant unknown planets do not crash into their sun because no one there has *discovered* the inverse square law. That relationship continues to exist in a form unexpressable to the local inhabitants. That is what I meant by saying "Mathematics exists in the mind alone". The relationships and properties are already there but the language used to describe them is a human creation. : The universe does not revolve around the human race. The human race is a : miniscule part of the universe. We do not manufacture the mathematical and : physical laws. Why must people constantly place themselves as the bright, : shining core of existence? I do not, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm quite sure that my comprehension of the universe we live in is inexplicably small in relation to the size of that universe. As such I'm quite happy to be talked out of a point of view if I can be convinced I'm on the wrong track. Cheers, Chris. -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: �Stephen! @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2183 bytes --] Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats wrote: > > Dann Corbit (dcorbit@solutionsiq.com) wrote: > : Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote in article > : <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria>... > : > In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk > : (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > In otherwords, just because we do not know of something or are unable to > comprehend it does not mean such a thing does not exist. Little kids don't know what gravity is, but when they fall down... > What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst > others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist > anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and > diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A > mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It > may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at > it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. I like to think of mathematics as a means of expressing the relationships between numbers. The angles of a square, the lengths of the sides of a pentagon, even the relationships between musical notes can be expressed as a pattern of numbers. C4 is 12 notes from C5 is a perfectly valid mathmatical statement. Programming is merely a way of expressing the relationships between a computer and the outside world. <snip> > > That is what I meant by saying "Mathematics exists in the mind alone". > The relationships and properties are already there but the language > used to describe them is a human creation. One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" for all it matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for the numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. <snip> Math is similar to English in this respect. The object exists whether you call it "water", "aqua", etc. To quote Shakespeare "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet..." -- �Stephen! Maintainer of the Punk and Metal Midi Archives http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4063/index.html "Just the thoughts of a disillusioned teen..." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! @ 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --] In article <3395FF96.107E@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us>, �Stephen! <99borns@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us> wrote: > I like to think of mathematics as a means of expressing the >relationships between numbers. The angles of a square, the lengths of Not broad enough. There exist plenty of abstract mathematical entities with interesting formal properties that are nevertheless not numbers. > One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" for all it >matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for the >numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. You are making a mere philosophical hypothesis here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Volker Hetzer @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > = > In article <3395FF96.107E@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us>, > =A1Stephen! <99borns@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us> wrote: > > One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" fo= r all it > >matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for th= e > >numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. Try to see it that way: Without minds to think, there would be no numbers. Of course there would still be one earth, but the abstcraction from the planet to the number 1 would not be made. But that abstraction is what mathematics is about. Therefore: No mind, no mathematics. Volker ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin>]
[parent not found: <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net>]
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Philip Hindman @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Phil Berman wrote: > > My response to this question has always been this: > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to > hear it? > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > falling tree? > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. Yes, but how do you _know_ someone the presence or absence of a human being does not affect it? See Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Philip Hindman | "We _mock_ what we do not understand." | | Cylon@ou.edu | Dan Akroyd | | The not-so-newbie | "Spies Like Us" | | student programmer | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > to hear it? > Answer: It makes a sound. Define Sound. > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect > the falling tree? > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. Do you have empirical evidence for this? Is this getting ridiculous or what? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > > to hear it? > > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Define Sound. A wave of compression a rarefration of gas molecules caused by any mechanical action. > > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect > > the falling tree? > > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > Do you have empirical evidence for this? He can't, there was no one to observe it. > Is this getting ridiculous or what? Yes, it is. When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, then let us know... -Scotty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Spam Hater wrote: > > > Is this getting ridiculous or what? > > Yes, it is. > When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, > then let us know... It was abducted by aliens and adopted by Elvis Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > > Is this getting ridiculous or what? > > Yes, it is. > When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, > then let us know... Schrodinger fastened a piece of toast to the cat's back and dropped it. Since a cat must always land on its feet, and a piece of toast must always land buttered side down, the only way to resolve the impasse was for the cat (without the fiddle) to follow the cow to the moon. With hopes of antigravity, Schrodinger tried to duplicate the experiment, with another cat, but so far has been unable to get a cat to hold still long enough. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > > to hear it? > > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Define Sound. Good point. Here are a couple (not too good, complete or elaborate) definitions: 1) Molecular vibrations of a particular type. (Typically in air.) Implication: Tree does make a sound. 2) A human experience which all humans (who are not deaf) know about. Implication: Tree does not make a sound. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: >My response to this question has always been this: >Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to >hear it? >Answer: It makes a sound. > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the >falling tree? >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. What if it hits the observer? >Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH "Thinking is highly overrated." -- Zippy the Pin Head ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > >falling tree? > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > What if it hits the observer? ROFL!! > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? *GISH* > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? 6.92 miles per sec. Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread From: Steve Howard @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: [snip] > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? African or European? -- Steve Howard | Lockheed Martin Ocean, Radar & Sensor Systems Software Engineer | P.O. Box 4840 EP-7 MD 63 (315) 456-7579 | Syracuse, New York 13221 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Anonymous @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria><EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org> <5m57nu$7si@bcrkh13.bnr.ca><5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu> <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca><5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria> <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> <5n45ou$cio@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> <5o9v30$kg0@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net> <33A88408.1ECC@flash.net> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:27:16 -0400, Steve Howard <howard@syr.lmco.com> wrote: > Spaceman Spiff wrote: > [snip] > > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? > > African or European? It doesn't matter. The answer is 42. Now I just have to get the units right. Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com ) "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail Posted with Spam Hater - see http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard @ 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > Craig Franck wrote: > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > > 6.92 miles per sec. But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Craig Franck wrote: > > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > > > > 6.92 miles per sec. > > But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. That, sir, it "Udder Lunacy"!! HA!!! -Scotty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: root @ 1997-06-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:02:22 GMT, Spam Hater <no.such.user@no.such.com> wrote: >Spaceman Spiff wrote: >> Craig Franck wrote: >> > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung >> > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? >> >> 6.92 miles per sec. > >But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. Well, what is the required velocity (magnitude and direction), if said launch should take place in central Iowa? > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA >Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be > wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com > >Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space >on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or >the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising >on them is trespassing! >---------------------------------------------------------------------- My address is corrupted to reduce spam. If you can't figure out my true address from the corrupted one I don't want to receive email from you anyway. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Alicia Carla Longstreet @ 1997-06-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Craig Franck wrote: > > > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > > >falling tree? > > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > > > What if it hits the observer? That doesn't have much of an impact on the tree, only the stupid observer. Of course, according to the Hiesenberg Uncertantity Principal, the observer either alters the location of the tree or alters the motion of the tree, depending on whether the observer is measuring the speed of the tree or determining its location. > ROFL!! > > > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? No. Sound is a cranial occurance. The motion of the tree produces compressions and refactions in the atmosphere, it requires and ear and a certain minium congnitive ability to convert the compressions and rarefactions into sound. A deaf mute does not have the requisite ear. Of course, almost any animal could be present to make the needed conversion. > *GISH* Tha is my Aunts favorite bid at bridge. > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > 6.92 miles per sec. > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? The cow would not be able to acheive orbit, but you would have an interesting phenomona, a meteorite rising from the Earth's surface. Not to mention, a very well done roast, somewhere. -- ******************************************** * Alicia Carla Longstreet carla@ici.net ******************************************** Knowledge Sir, should be free. Harry Mudd from "I, Mudd" **************************************** Knowledge is free..., but you do have to pay me for my time and effort in presenting the knowledge in a manner that makes it easier for you to learn. You are free to reinvent the wheel anytime you please. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > > "Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: > > >My response to this question has always been this: > >Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to > >hear it? > >Answer: It makes a sound. > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > >falling tree? > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > What if it hits the observer? It makes a different sound (more squashy). > >Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. > > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? Yes, but it doesn't help him. > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? 0 (Zero) ! A cow on a catapult does not move much. This changes when the catapult is enganged. And yes, it makes a sound, even if the cow is deaf. Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread From: David Thornley @ 1997-06-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5o9v30$kg0@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >"Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: > >And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung >from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > As somebody pointed out, let's use the velocity of the cow after it's flung from a catapult, rather than the initial velocity (0, and remains so until we fire the catapult). It can't go into Earth orbit without a course correction, since if it were in an orbit it would return to the last point delta-V was nonzero, which corresponds to the catapult. It will likely have left due to Earth's rotation, but that's still deep in atmosphere. So, we come up with the following questions: What's the terminal velocity of an unladen cow? Will the cow burn up in re-entry? Or will there be parts only medium well? Is this an African or a European cow? If it burns up on re-entry, wouldn't it also burn up on leaving the catapult? What does any of this have to do with comp.lang.c? David Thornley (So how about *solar* orbit?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-07-21 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1997-06-05 0:00 Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Jon S Anthony 1997-06-06 0:00 ` H. Blakely Williford -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1997-05-15 0:00 Any research putting c above ada? Jon S Anthony 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox