Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163292 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 268 — 43 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-06 02:04 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-05-06 11:00 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-06 16:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-07 07:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 19:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:16 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-08 04:22 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 21:46 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-08 06:58 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-08 07:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 02:30 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-05-06 17:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-06 19:41 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 02:43 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-09 06:58 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-09 17:05 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 21:13 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-12 12:50 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? simon@twoplaces.co.uk (Simon Turner) - 2016-05-13 12:10 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-12 13:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-15 21:53 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-16 12:12 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:22 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:23 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-18 20:15 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-19 08:06 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? sidd@situ.com (sidd) - 2016-05-19 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-21 04:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:14 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:45 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-25 09:22 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-25 17:31 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-26 21:41 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:19 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-16 06:17 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 20:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-05-16 20:08 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-09 16:29 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 02:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 06:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 07:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 09:06 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:47 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 09:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 10:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 11:11 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 20:02 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 12:05 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 14:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-12 03:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 06:13 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-12 14:46 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 14:31 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 14:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 17:50 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-11 16:01 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 21:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 02:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-12 10:07 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 11:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-12 17:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-12 21:55 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-12 13:12 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andy Burns <feb2017-usenet@adslpipe.co.uk> - 2016-05-12 00:20 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 21:40 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-14 23:47 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:40 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-11 15:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-11 21:50 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 15:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 23:36 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-12 10:32 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 11:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-13 15:11 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 17:42 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-15 17:34 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 20:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-15 22:21 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 06:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-16 13:12 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-16 23:25 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:23 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 09:16 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:40 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 16:59 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 13:42 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 11:56 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 12:10 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-17 19:58 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-18 02:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 23:51 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-18 14:28 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-18 23:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2016-05-19 11:07 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-19 10:00 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-19 12:53 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 10:56 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 12:59 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-05-24 00:01 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-23 18:48 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:18 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-05-19 07:03 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-19 13:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-21 21:26 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-18 10:39 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 19:21 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:35 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-18 12:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 15:43 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 14:32 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-17 14:53 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-18 07:32 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-19 02:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 19:44 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 22:40 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-17 14:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-17 17:01 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-17 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-17 14:31 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-18 12:28 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 12:33 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-16 20:37 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-17 11:12 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-17 05:49 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-17 08:21 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:23 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-16 22:03 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-12 05:09 +1000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 09:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 09:48 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 13:51 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-23 13:49 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:34 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-11 14:06 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-11 16:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-12 03:11 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2016-05-14 16:59 +0800
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-14 10:48 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-14 15:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-14 09:37 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-14 12:09 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-15 14:09 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-05-11 12:59 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 22:17 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-22 05:53 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:26 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:13 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-21 00:56 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-22 06:43 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 11:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 07:14 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-22 07:29 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 08:35 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:41 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:11 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:43 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-05-23 16:50 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 01:50 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:40 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:33 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 21:33 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 08:54 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 16:38 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-24 20:04 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 22:24 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-25 12:45 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:15 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 18:18 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-24 13:26 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:59 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-24 17:03 -0300
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-05-26 17:55 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 11:53 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:47 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-11 14:41 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com> - 2016-05-11 01:44 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-05-06 13:55 -0500
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-06 19:29 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 05:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 11:35 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 17:38 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-07 22:30 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 13:25 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-05-07 17:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 20:39 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-07 21:57 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-07 22:49 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-08 07:08 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-08 20:58 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-07 13:14 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-05-06 12:09 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-07 10:39 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-05-07 20:16 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-08 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-08 16:20 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-09 13:08 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-05-09 15:34 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-10 12:34 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? cb@elaine.df.lth.se (Christian Brunschen) - 2016-05-10 13:42 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:19 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 16:57 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 16:20 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 17:38 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-10 15:49 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-10 11:07 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 13:16 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-11 09:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-11 16:22 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:47 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-11 10:52 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-05-11 15:49 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-10 17:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-11 12:18 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-11 13:44 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-11 17:46 +0200
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Thomas Lake <tomlake07@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 10:47 -0700
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-05-10 18:36 +0000
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-16 19:45 -0400
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-17 06:35 +0100
Re: What Would Be Your Ultimate Computer? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-17 20:05 -0400
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053331196BE802@aca40fab.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163784 |
Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 19/05/2016 01:15, sidd wrote: >> In article <slrnnjpg8n.19c.mausg@Smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>> Axioms?.. >>> The Greeks were not into 3d. >> >> >> i distinctly remember the last couple books of Euclid had 3D ... >> > > Pity all the 'official' tools were 2D. Ooohhhh, a 3D compass. I never thought about that. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sidd@situ.com (sidd) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhl1d5$6h5$1@Lazarus.situ.com> |
| In reply to | #163787 |
In article <PM00053331196BE802@aca40fab.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 19/05/2016 01:15, sidd wrote: >>> In article <slrnnjpg8n.19c.mausg@Smaus.org>, <mausg@mail.com> wrote: >>>> Axioms?.. >>>> The Greeks were not into 3d. >>> >>> >>> i distinctly remember the last couple books of Euclid had 3D ... >>> >> >> Pity all the 'official' tools were 2D. > >Ooohhhh, a 3D compass. I never thought about that. > books 11-13, not just the last two. i think those were glossed over at scholl in preference for co-oridinate geometry, but i read em on my own. quite a different language, compared to using co-ordinates. sidd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005333112C682BE@aca40fab.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163772 |
mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-05-18, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Dave Garland wrote: >>> On 5/17/2016 7:32 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> Quadibloc wrote: >>>> when the teacher said I'd cheated. The only way it can be done is to >>>> pick an aribitrary point outside the given dimensions. I was told I >>>> couldn't do that. >>>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, some teachers find kids who think outside the box to be >>> too much of a PITA. >> >> And the ones smarter than them. What bugged me is that he wouldn't tell >> me why I couldn't place a point outside the given dimensions. that should >> have been easy to do since geometry starts with a few basic (can't think >> of the term now) assumptions. There wasn't any that I knew of which >> outlawed extending 2D to 3D. >> >> >> /BAH > Axioms?.. > The Greeks were not into 3d. > Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-21 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d46c696d-ab98-4466-b4cf-432066ed0d7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163788 |
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:25:56 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. But it may have been the word _postulates_ you were looking for instead, since the postulates are the basic rules of geometry one starts from, and the axioms are the rules of logic that connect them to the new things you derive. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005336E09F8885B@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163805 |
Quadibloc wrote: > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:25:56 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. > > But it may have been the word _postulates_ you were looking for instead, since > the postulates are the basic rules of geometry one starts from, and the axioms > are the rules of logic that connect them to the new things you derive. When I was in my 50s, I discovered that the plane geometry book I used in high school didn't start with the original posutlates. So "axioms" was the correct word to use. However, I wasn't able to retrieve the word postulates either :-( so I needed all of the help offered :-). /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 20:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni09mh$oku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163822 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005336E09F8885B@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com... > Quadibloc wrote: >> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:25:56 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. >> >> But it may have been the word _postulates_ you were looking for instead, > since >> the postulates are the basic rules of geometry one starts from, and the > axioms >> are the rules of logic that connect them to the new things you derive. > > When I was in my 50s, I discovered that the plane geometry book I used > in high school didn't start with the original posutlates. So "axioms" > was the correct word to use. However, I wasn't able to retrieve the > word postulates either :-( so I needed all of the help offered :-). > I refer to the obvious rules as "Duh! rules". "Through two points, only one straight line can be drawn." DUH!!! -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 04:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA611E82448A90falkarcabca@213.239.209.88> |
| In reply to | #163881 |
"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote in news:ni09mh$oku$1@dont-email.me: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM0005336E09F8885B@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com... >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:25:56 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. >>> >>> But it may have been the word _postulates_ you were looking for >>> instead, since the postulates are the basic rules of geometry one >>> starts from, and the axioms are the rules of logic that connect them >>> to the new things you derive. >> >> When I was in my 50s, I discovered that the plane geometry book I used >> in high school didn't start with the original posutlates. So "axioms" >> was the correct word to use. However, I wasn't able to retrieve the >> word postulates either :-( so I needed all of the help offered :-). >> > > I refer to the obvious rules as "Duh! rules". "Through two points, > only one straight line can be drawn." DUH!!! Well, the point of stating axioms to make them explicit starting points for subsequent proofs. And in non-planar geometry, such as spherical, that axiom does not apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005339516331384@aca423de.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163881 |
Charles Richmond wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM0005336E09F8885B@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com... >> Quadibloc wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 6:25:56 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Yea, I can't believe I couldn't retrieve the word axioms. Thanks. >>> >>> But it may have been the word _postulates_ you were looking for instead, >> since >>> the postulates are the basic rules of geometry one starts from, and the >> axioms >>> are the rules of logic that connect them to the new things you derive. >> >> When I was in my 50s, I discovered that the plane geometry book I used >> in high school didn't start with the original posutlates. So "axioms" >> was the correct word to use. However, I wasn't able to retrieve the >> word postulates either :-( so I needed all of the help offered :-). >> > > I refer to the obvious rules as "Duh! rules". "Through two points, only > one straight line can be drawn." DUH!!! > In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that parallel lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing about the algebra. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 14:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <HbCdnTqgcMnoydnKnZ2dnUU78bOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #163891 |
On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: > In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that parallel > lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing about the > algebra. > > /BAH > Sounds like standard Euclidean geometry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533AA6402FF17@aca40c43.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163901 |
Andrew Swallow wrote: > On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: >> In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that parallel >> lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing about the >> algebra. >> >> /BAH >> > Sounds like standard Euclidean geometry. I thought Euclidean geometry had parallel lines never intersecting. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 09:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9dc9f2f-e77a-4be3-b0fd-16b4fe6fb3c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163965 |
On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 at 7:11:46 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Andrew Swallow wrote: > > On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that parallel > >> lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing about the > >> algebra. > >> > >> /BAH > >> > > Sounds like standard Euclidean geometry. > > I thought Euclidean geometry had parallel lines never intersecting. That is true, but Riemannian geometry has them intersecting at a finite distance. Intersecting at infinity - that might be projective geometry, usually equivalent to Euclidean. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 17:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gdOdnTfYR_JCT9jKnZ2dnUU78eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #163965 |
On 25/05/2016 14:11, jmfbahciv wrote: > Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that parallel >>> lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing about the >>> algebra. >>> >>> /BAH >>> >> Sounds like standard Euclidean geometry. > > I thought Euclidean geometry had parallel lines never intersecting. > > /BAH > Never intersecting and parallel lines intersecting at infinity are the same thing mathematically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA614A04D1F82Dfalkarcabca@213.239.209.88> |
| In reply to | #163976 |
Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:gdOdnTfYR_JCT9jKnZ2dnUU78eWdnZ2d@giganews.com: > On 25/05/2016 14:11, jmfbahciv wrote: >> Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 24/05/2016 13:11, jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> In college, we developed an algebra based on the postulate that >>>> parallel lines intersect at infinity. But I don't remember a thing >>>> about the algebra. >>>> >>>> /BAH >>>> >>> Sounds like standard Euclidean geometry. >> >> I thought Euclidean geometry had parallel lines never intersecting. >> >> /BAH >> > > Never intersecting and parallel lines intersecting at infinity are the > same thing mathematically. > Infinity is the place where things happen that don't. (Who said that? I don't remember.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 23:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160518231955.270df2b6e7461ceab0f214f6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163768 |
On 18 May 2016 12:28:40 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > And the ones smarter than them. What bugged me is that he wouldn't tell > me why I couldn't place a point outside the given dimensions. that should > have been easy to do since geometry starts with a few basic (can't think > of the term now) assumptions. There wasn't any that I knew of which > outlawed extending 2D to 3D. That would be the one where the subject was called "Plane Geometry" or similar. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-19 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053331105AC600@aca40fab.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163777 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On 18 May 2016 12:28:40 GMT > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> And the ones smarter than them. What bugged me is that he wouldn't tell >> me why I couldn't place a point outside the given dimensions. that should >> have been easy to do since geometry starts with a few basic (can't think >> of the term now) assumptions. There wasn't any that I knew of which >> outlawed extending 2D to 3D. > > That would be the one where the subject was called "Plane Geometry" > or similar. > yea. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6be5faea-9088-407d-bbc1-0b0b1a4c8bdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #163712 |
On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > That must have been a disappointment. Did you understand the proof > when it did come out? Few people would, as the proof of the Taniyama-Shinomura conjecture, or the proof of the fact that its truth is equivalent to the truth of Fermat's Last Theorem, involve rather advanced and esoteric mathematics. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 20:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni09q8$oto$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163714 |
"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:6be5faea-9088-407d-bbc1-0b0b1a4c8bdd@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> That must have been a disappointment. Did you understand the proof >> when it did come out? > > Few people would, as the proof of the Taniyama-Shinomura conjecture, or > the proof > of the fact that its truth is equivalent to the truth of Fermat's Last > Theorem, > involve rather advanced and esoteric mathematics. > "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit!" It took the checker months to find a flaw in the original proof, and Andrew Wile had to go back and patch up his proof. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ibmekon <Ibmekon> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 20:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ao4kjb9stgf9rna0csqpd2l9au3rk0iur8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #163712 |
On 16 May 2016 12:12:26 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Ibmekon wrote: >> On 15 May 2016 14:09:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>Quadibloc wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: <snip> >>>RAts. I did write it wrong but I don't know how to express it in >>>mathematical terms. >>> >>>42 = 6 * 7 = 2 * 3 * 7. So it takes 2 steps to determine the ultimate >>>answer. How would I write that? </snip> Just reread this. Curious to konw what you meant by "So it takes 2 steps". What is your "step" ? <snip> ><grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. </snip> Cant help you there, geometry has always left me cold. I coud always "do it" - but it was never fun ! It seems "trisection of an angle, squaring the circle, and duplicating the cube." were all proved impossible. This "simple" reason is given - "The impossibility proofs depend on the fact that the only quantities you can obtain by doing straightedge-and-compass constructions are those you can get from the given quantities by using addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and by taking square roots. These numbers are called Euclidean numbers, and you can think of them as the numbers that can be obtained by repeatedly solving the quadratic equation. These three problems require either taking a cube root or constructing pi" http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.impossible.construct.html >> >> The wiki page below gives a good summary of the state of play in the >> search for primes, a trip down the memory lane of my youth. >> My passion was Fermats Last theorem. At one time I even blagged my way >> into the British Museum in London to physically get my hands on an >> original copy of "Oeuvres de Fermat". Only to find that my schoolboy >> 20th century french did not allow me to make sense of Fermats 17th >> century french. > >That must have been a disappointment. Did you understand the proof >when it did come out? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics > Well that year I did drop out - then spent 30 years trying to drink myself to death. So, maybe a bit displeased ! I do remember one year on Cheltenham racecourse for the annual festival (Olympics for hurdling & chasing racehorses). Seated on a low wall with a plastic pint of lager in hand, got talking to a young guy. He was a mathematics student at Cambridge university. When he told me someone had solved Fermats theorem - I asked for details. In return I taught him a bit about the maths of racing. I doubt if either of us learned much ! Carl Goldsworthy -- "All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy." Spike Milligan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-17 12:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053308DA9D165A@aca40db8.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163717 |
Ibmekon wrote: > On 16 May 2016 12:12:26 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >>Ibmekon wrote: >>> On 15 May 2016 14:09:24 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Quadibloc wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 7:02:19 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > <snip> >>>>RAts. I did write it wrong but I don't know how to express it in >>>>mathematical terms. >>>> >>>>42 = 6 * 7 = 2 * 3 * 7. So it takes 2 steps to determine the ultimate >>>>answer. How would I write that? > </snip> > Just reread this. > Curious to konw what you meant by "So it takes 2 steps". > What is your "step" ? The equal signs. It took two renditions to break the number down to all primes. > > <snip> >><grin> I did figure out how to trisect an angle in a plane but my >>high school geometry teacher stated that I cheated by using an >>imaginary point in the 3rd dimension. I never understood why >>I couldn't create that point since there isn't anything which limits >>the nuimber of dimensions other than usage. > </snip> > Cant help you there, geometry has always left me cold. > I coud always "do it" - but it was never fun ! > It seems "trisection of an angle, squaring the circle, and duplicating > the cube." were all proved impossible. > This "simple" reason is given - > > "The impossibility proofs depend on the fact that the only quantities > you can obtain by doing straightedge-and-compass constructions are > those you can get from the given quantities by using addition, > subtraction, multiplication, division, and by taking square roots. > These numbers are called Euclidean numbers, and you can think of them > as the numbers that can be obtained by repeatedly solving the > quadratic equation. > > These three problems require either taking a cube root or constructing > pi" > http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.impossible.construct.html Thanks. I'll look it up. > >>> >>> The wiki page below gives a good summary of the state of play in the >>> search for primes, a trip down the memory lane of my youth. >>> My passion was Fermats Last theorem. At one time I even blagged my way >>> into the British Museum in London to physically get my hands on an >>> original copy of "Oeuvres de Fermat". Only to find that my schoolboy >>> 20th century french did not allow me to make sense of Fermats 17th >>> century french. >> >>That must have been a disappointment. Did you understand the proof >>when it did come out? >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics >> > Well that year I did drop out - then spent 30 years trying to drink > myself to death. > So, maybe a bit displeased ! > I do remember one year on Cheltenham racecourse for the annual > festival (Olympics for hurdling & chasing racehorses). > Seated on a low wall with a plastic pint of lager in hand, got talking > to a young guy. He was a mathematics student at Cambridge university. > When he told me someone had solved Fermats theorem - I asked for > details. In return I taught him a bit about the maths of racing. > I doubt if either of us learned much ! <grin> We did a lot of designing in a similar way. The good designs were the ones which percolated out the next day. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-09 16:29 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87y47jav2h.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163467 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes: > But "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" was just a novel (and a > radio play, and a miniseries, and a movie), it didn't really > happen. Thus, the fact that the Earth was a greater computer than > Deep Thought, which was itself a greater computer than various other > contenders for the title, such as the Milliard Gargantubrain, in the > fictional universe of that novel means nothing in so far as the real > existence of an ultimate computer is concerned. The ultimate computer is the global biome. Its "program" comprises the fundamental laws of physics and its high-level language is biochemistry. Its platform is matter and its driving force the non-uniform distribution of energy in or solar system (or the galaxy or universe, given our ignorance of other possile biomes.) The mechanisms -- algorithms if you will -- of biology are integrated from macroorganisms all the way down to the details of biochemistry and microenvironments. Technological proposals from Pave the Earth to Burn All The Oil to Engineer the Perfect Foodcrop refelct abysmal ignorance of this integration. We have no idea what it -- the global biosystem -- might be computing and we don't know whether or not it has arrived presently at local optimum from which the only escape to further evolution/computation is a longjump. In these terms, a longjump would probably be synonymous with global cataclysm. The HHGttG notion of the earth as a giant computer isn't really so far-fetched as it might seem and "42" sounds very much like a problematic local optimum on the many-dimensional landscape of the system. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web