Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Ames Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Back To CS Basics. Fuck AI Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 10:37:23 -0700 Organization: A place where nothing fits quite right Lines: 107 Message-ID: <20261022103723.0000056b@gmail.com> References: <18dee4b6cab427fa$865$2574533$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <87ik32455m.fsf@solcaium.us> <11asf08$31lan$1@dont-email.me> <11asopt$33n8m$8@dont-email.me> <11asq8f$31lan$6@dont-email.me> <11astpf$33n8m$23@dont-email.me> <11at0ld$31lan$13@dont-email.me> <11at39s$33n8m$36@dont-email.me> <11at4hq$31lan$18@dont-email.me> <11atave$3bqcl$1@dont-email.me> <11atdrd$31lan$25@dont-email.me> <11atgrt$3bqcl$14@dont-email.me> <11atsb5$3edcf$1@dont-email.me> <11au3uo$3k12p$14@dont-email.me> <0t1dqmx8a1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <11b286r$11pis$5@dont-email.me> <20261019150910.00001b26@gmail.com> <11b780p$2q6cj$2@dont-email.me> <20261020105404.000027e5@gmail.com> <11b9vcf$3p0ft$3@dont-email.me> <20261021114918.000056b6@gmail.com> <11bccpq$k5sf$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 17:38:20 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1138686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19OtQW/bUJlieRWqiJ5SjT0bMNfIksS5EM="; posting-host="db7cdef4c214d6c6801f3cf19a8a6dbf" Cancel-Lock: sha1:nZysrV7E7dp0Xlfg8Gn5N9+sNVc= sha256:Ro0TbSJ1ALuX2iwRMtW7bHewGZcx3bkJXOf+iRcu9+s= sha1:yTtbxt1r8gSsk+PuwOhAwo68bHc= sha256:CM7/Xer7MM5VqFY4oMkHPaFJ1+ZPthtBd55TFHwTnmE= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:94565 On Thu, 22 Oct 2026 08:08:42 +0100 The Natural Philosopher wrote: > > Force of impact is equal to mass * velocity^2. Gravitational > > attraction falls off with the square of distance; magnetic force > > falls off with its cube. Math is happening across the universe and > > all around you, whether you recognize it or not. > > Distance, mass, velocity, gravity, etc are all inventions of the > human mind As is the relationship between them Y'know, I wasn't expecting us to land in full-blown solipsism here, but as you've progressively gone from arguing against your peculiar inter- pretations of what other people are saying to arguing that none of the grounds for other people's positions are real and there's no reason for anything (or, at least, anything you don't personally hold with someone else's explanation of,) I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise. There are some very straightforward experiments you could perform to put your assertions about the unreality of physics to the test, but I can't say I'd recomend them. > > Again you do not seem to grasp that "did not receive a formal > > education in a Western musical college" does *not* mean "never > > learned anything from anyone and created the whole thing ex nihilo." > > But that was in fact the whole point. Thgat 'formal' exducatuons was > absolutely *necessary* in order to make music That's more what you *imagine* to be someone else's stance in the hypo- thetical Tapiro posited back when this discussion turned from a general screed about theory vs. practice to music theory specifically, at which point a number of people of various musical backgrounds here jumped in to observe that you plainly had no idea what you were talking about. What they've *actually* said has, at most, been that music education is a *practical necessity* for a career as a performing musician, which is a very different thing. > > "No one can really explain" is a funny way of saying "I, > > personally, do not know." > > No, it isn't. > > No one knows why anything is, in the limit, the way it is. That's an extraordinarily convenient line of argument when you don't have actual counterpoints to other people's positions. > > In reality - as has already been discussed - the basic relationship > > of harmony to simple frequency ratios has been understood for > > millennia; this gave rise to tuning systems derived from integer > > multiples (what is commonly called Pythagorean tuning, although it > > actually predates Pythagoras and was probably independently > > invented in multiple places, as in e.g. the Chinese instrument we > > were discussing elsethread.) > > None of which ever helped people *compose* better music. > If that were all it took, we wouldnt have individual composers of note Nobody has *said* that's "all it took." We were talking about the notes on a scale and the reasons behind the values they've been assigned. > > This is an attractively simple way to do things, because the basics > > are both easy to calculate and easy to tune by ear - 2:1 is an > > octave, 3:2 is a fifth, and you can stack fifths and drop back down > > an octave to successively derive each note on the scale... > > Grsndmother, eggs, suck ...would you like to phrase that in the form of a sentence? > > ...almost. Unfortunately, basic math says no power of 1.5 is ever > > going to be a power of 2, and by the time you get from C up to B, > > you're at an octave-adjusted multiple of 0.94921875 - over 5% left > > to go before you reach the octave! This is known as the "wolf > > interval," and various traditions have different ways of dealing > > with it: Chinese traditional, I gather, shuffles it around in > > different modes, while AFAICT Indian 24- tone music is actually a > > whole family of scales in which sets of notes are pitched > > differently to avoid it. Equal temperament in Western music divides > > it up by spacing each note slightly wider than the ideal, so that > > the difference isn't terribly noticeable and the steps all add up. > > > > So there you have it: a straightforward reason for the conspicuously > > non-random intervals between notes. > > A mathematical relationship is not a reason Sure, buddy. Sure. > > And yet another *immensely* funny take. Would this be a good time to > > point out that, f'rexample, Ritchie Blackmore's solo in "Highway > > Star" was inspired by ol' J.S. himself? > > *shrug* did he READ music? He took classical guitar lessons in middle school, so that'd be a "yes." > Or, if they are raving lefties, thinking that it is dependent, but > there is no power or order greater than human thought, which can > change men into women, or create energy out of thin air etc So you don't believe in a definite/concrete material universe, but you're a bio-essentialist when it comes to gender identity? Only on Usenet, folks!