[FRIAM] square land math question

[Steve Smith]

<tangent>

I have 8 chickens in my courtyard which is roughly 10.5x10.5 meters
(varas since this landscape was first surveyed by the Spanish).   Once I
showed them (when we first released them) that the grass in a .5x.5
meter (vara) square was tasty they proceeded to mow the entire 10.5x10.5
yard down nicely.   I don't know if this qualifies since the remaining
~400 squares of grass were not identical (mathematically) to the one I
introduced them to, but from my idiosyncratic point of view, I had
"mowed" the whole lawn by showing the chickens the one square?

Of course, the chickens didn't need showing and would have figured it
out for themselves (as they figured out how tasty virtually everything
in my gardens were too), and they left the longer, tougher grass-stems,
moving their focus to any and all tender shoots the grass root-clumps
decide to splurt out every day.

Have we agreed on what a "square" is and by whose "authority" we declare
that we are talking about the same description?  I don't think that nit
has been picked over yet.    And are we doing it in Cartesian or
spherical or ellipsoidal coordinates?   I'm not sure if there is a
conventional "ovoid <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moss%27s_Egg>"
coordinate system but my guess is that the chicken's would prefer
those.   And I don't think these chickens care for analytic or
computational paradigms, they just want to eat, play grab-ass with the
squirrels and jays invading their territory and lay single cells the
size of a chicken-egg for me to steal and treat as my personal property
to consume, sell, trade or gift.   I should have gone for the golden (or
palladium) chickens instead methinks...

If we can't even square a square, how can we expect to square a circle,
or more interestingly tessellate a sphere uniformly?   Let's change the
value of Pi to 3.0 and deal with the resulting distortion of space later.

</tangent>

Carry On,   

  - Sieze


On 7/23/20 3:41 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> We used to have this argument all the time about the apt use of relational vs. OO databases. As in Ed's conception, the same square can be associated with multiple locations. Then to update all the renderings of that 1 square, say, change its color from red to blue, all you need do is change the object and all its renderings change as a result. That's pretty handy.
>
> But what if you really did want multiple squares so that changing the color of this square over here didn't change the color of that square over there? You might want "square" to be a class but have color be an instance property so you could change each square to a different color. Or you might even have a concept of *scope* so that all  the squares in a neighborhood changed, but no those far away ... or only the squares that are also rotated 90° (invisibly) would change color, but those that haven't been rotated stay whatever color they are.
>
> To my mind, computationalists tend to think like the latter (collections of instances) whereas analysts tend to think like the former ("normalized" or "unified"). I'm agnostic and like both teams. But when I see one team winning, I tend to traitoriously jump from one side to the other.
>
> On 7/23/20 2:26 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> What?
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 2:56 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Ha! No way. If that were true, then to mow my lawn, I'd only have to mow the little part in the corner and voilá all the other patches would also be mowed.
>>
>>     On 7/23/20 1:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>>     > "is the same sized square, e.g. at {0.5,0.5}, the same square as the one at {10.5-10,10.5-10}" 
>>     >
>>     > If you agree that 10.5 - 10 = 0.5 then same square, different name.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200723/067929c3/attachment-0001.html>