Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #489087 > unrolled thread

Going Back To The Well Again

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  Going Back To The Well Again David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 12:33 -0600
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-26 12:08 -0700
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2018-03-26 12:59 -0700
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:47 -0700
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-03-26 20:47 +0000
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again Butch Malahide <fred.galvin@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 13:15 -0700
          Re: Going Back To The Well Again wroehl@gmail.com - 2018-03-27 17:08 -0700
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-02 03:40 -0500
          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-04-02 20:12 -0600
            Re: Going Back To The Well Again "Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-03 04:49 +0000
            Re: Going Back To The Well Again peterwezeman@hotmail.com - 2018-04-02 23:29 -0700
              Re: Going Back To The Well Again Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-04-03 07:50 -0600
                Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-03 17:02 +0000
                  Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-03 17:34 +0000
                    Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-04 13:30 +0000
                      Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-05 17:22 +0000
                        Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-05 18:27 +0000
                          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-05 19:04 +0000
                            Re: Going Back To The Well Again Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-04-05 13:36 -0700
                              Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-06 11:33 +0000
                            Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-05 21:57 +0000
                            Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-24 17:01 +0000
                        Re: Going Back To The Well Again djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-05 19:09 +0000
                          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-06 11:34 +0000
                  Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-04 04:22 -0500
                    Re: Going Back To The Well Again J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 07:09 -0400
                      Re: Going Back To The Well Again Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-04-04 06:50 -0700
                        Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-07 01:07 -0500
                          Re: Going Back To The Well Again J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 07:27 -0400
                            Re: Going Back To The Well Again Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-04-07 07:19 -0700
                            Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-07 20:33 -0500
                              Re: Going Back To The Well Again J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 21:54 -0400
                        Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-07 21:33 +0000
                          Re: Going Back To The Well Again djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-04-07 22:08 +0000
                          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-04-07 16:46 -0700
                      Re: Going Back To The Well Again "artyw2@yahoo.com" <artyw2@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-04 07:55 -0700
                    Re: Going Back To The Well Again Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-04-04 13:44 +0000
                    Re: Going Back To The Well Again D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-04-04 13:45 +0000
                  Re: Going Back To The Well Again J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 07:05 -0400
            YASID - finding your home dimension by its bridge design. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-04-03 07:51 -0600
            Re: Going Back To The Well Again "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 20:09 -0400
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2018-03-27 09:29 +1300
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2018-03-26 20:46 +0000
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 22:11 -0700
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 23:20 -0600
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 22:05 -0700
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-26 23:25 -0600
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 18:31 +0300
          Re: Going Back To The Well Again David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 12:37 -0600
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-02 03:44 -0500
          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2018-04-02 12:38 -0700
          Re: Going Back To The Well Again Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:52 -0700
    Going Back To The Well Again Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-03-27 08:43 -0700
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-27 12:38 -0600
        Re: Going Back To The Well Again djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-03-27 19:45 +0000
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:52 -0700
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2018-04-02 03:38 -0500
      Re: Going Back To The Well Again Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2018-04-02 18:39 -0600
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again "artyw2@yahoo.com" <artyw2@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-02 19:50 -0700
    Re: Going Back To The Well Again "artyw2@yahoo.com" <artyw2@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-02 19:52 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#489721

Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-05, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-04, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
>>>>>> namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
>>>>>> and Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
>>>>> remember to fix that later.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
>>>> Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
>>>>
>>>>     All change of place in one body must be relative to other
>>>>     bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
>>>>     its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
>>>>     recognised among the number.
>>>
>>> So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
>>> Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
>>> support your point.
>>
>>     My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
>> unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
>> which were probably not written by Berkeley.
>>     Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
>> "supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
>> translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
>> beliefs?
>>     If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
>> Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
>> formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
>> Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
>> English translation of the Berkeley available?
>
> It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
> and much earlier.

Whatever. My interest is Berkeley, not Galileo. This English translation
looks promising, to me.

The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne
Edited by A A Luce and T E Jessop

                         Volume Four
                 De Motu with an English Translation
                         The Analyst
             A Defence of Free-thinking in Mathematics
        Reasons for not replying to Mr. Walton's Full Answer
             Arithmetica and Miscellanea Mathematica
                       Of Infinites
     Letters on Vesuvius, on Petrifactions, and on Earthquakes
              Description of the Cave of Dunmore

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Analyst/Analyst.html

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490960

Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
> On 2018-04-05, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-04, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>     The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
>>>>>> namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
>>>>>> and Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
>>>>> remember to fix that later.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
>>>> Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
>>>>
>>>>     All change of place in one body must be relative to other
>>>>     bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
>>>>     its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
>>>>     recognised among the number.
>>>
>>> So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
>>> Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
>>> support your point.
>>
>>     My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
>> unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
>> which were probably not written by Berkeley.
>>     Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
>> "supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
>> translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
>> beliefs?
>>     If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
>> Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
>> formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
>> Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
>> English translation of the Berkeley available?
>
> It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
> and much earlier.

    BEVERLY (OS)
    ... "Life is very long..." ... TS Eliot. Not the first person
    to say it, certainly not the first person to think it. ...
    But he's given credit for it because he bothered to write it
    down. ... So if you say it, you have to say his name after it.
    "Life is very long:" TS Eliot. [1]

Elsewhere in this thread you mention "Dialogue on Two World Systems"
(Galileo). Are you sure that you don't mean "Dialogue Concerning the
two Chief World Systems?" An English translation of /that/ essay is
available [2]. It says this about relativity:

    For consider: Motion, in so far as It is and acts as motion, to
    that extent exists relatively to things that lack it; and among
    things which all share equally in any motion, it does not act,
    and is as if it did not exist.

    So, Galileo's remains mired in the frame of mind that there's an
absolute space, a stationary, fixed, absolute reference system.
Meanwhile "De Motu" unequivocally states the essence of Einsteinian
relativity:

    we ought not to define the true place of the body as the part
    of absolute space which the body occupies, and true or absolute
    motion as the change of true or absolute place; for all place
    is relative just as all motion is relative.

    That's just for openers. The Berkeley goes on for a few more pages.
Anyone interested in the truth can do their own research. Although life
may be long according to TS Eliot, it's too short for me to get
"ratholed" (in the parlance of GAWollman) transcribing any more
"De Motu" into this thread.

Note.

1. https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-oj5ZlZEvqLa4-QGT/August-Osage-County_djvu.txt
2. https://archive.org/details/GalileiGalileoDialogueConcerningTheTwoChiefWorldSystemsEN155P.

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489716

In article <slrnpccmq9.134.carlf@panix2.panix.com>,
Carl Fink  <carl@finknetwork.com> wrote:
>On 2018-04-04, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>> Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
>>>> namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
>>>> and Einstein.
>>>
>>> In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
>>> remember to fix that later.
>>
>> Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
>> Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
>>
>>     All change of place in one body must be relative to other
>>     bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
>>     its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
>>     recognised among the number.
>
>So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
>Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
>support your point.

Heck, Dante in 1300 or thereabouts said "All draw and are drawn,"
although he was talking about love, not gravity.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489741

On 2018-04-05, Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:

> Heck, Dante in 1300 or thereabouts said "All draw and are drawn,"
> although he was talking about love, not gravity.

You could argue that Kepler talked about relativistic *gravity* in his
pioneering SF novel, *Sleep*. (Yes, his pioneering SF novel.)
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489649

On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>     In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
> metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
> Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
> time:
>
>     How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
>     built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
>     you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
>     axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
>     some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
differential equations and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
example. Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.

I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.

Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
 can be simply listed and categorized
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible	:( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489652

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 04:22:18 -0500, David DeLaney
<daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>     In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
>> metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
>> Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
>> time:
>>
>>     How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
>>     built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
>>     you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
>>     axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
>>     some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.
>
>... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
>axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
>physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
>Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
>a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
>differential equations

"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang.  Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

>and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
>example

That's the one that was radical.

>Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
>physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
>numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
>
>I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
>Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
>describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
>forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
>
>Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
> can be simply listed and categorized

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489659

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 04:22:18 -0500, David DeLaney
> <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
> >>     In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
> >> metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
> >> Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
> >> time:
> >>
> >>     How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
> >>     built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
> >>     you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
> >>     axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
> >>     some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.
> >
> >... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
> >axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
> >physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
> >Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
> >a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
> >differential equations
> 
> "All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
> junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
> equations up the ying-yang.  Differential equations are the bread and
> butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.
> 
> >and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
> >example
> 
> That's the one that was radical.
> 
> >Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
> >physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
> >numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
> >
> >I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
> >Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
> >describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
> >forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
> >
> >Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
> > can be simply listed and categorized

I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics.  I did take some stats in 
college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student.  Stats
is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
studied.  It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
it would be useful for a PoliSci major.  In retrospect, I might have
made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
into bookselling.  I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489798

On 2018-04-04, Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> "All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
>> junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
>> equations up the ying-yang.  Differential equations are the bread and
>> butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

> I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
> are used in probability and statistics.

... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)

Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

Dave
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible	:( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489806

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney
<daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2018-04-04, Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> "All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
>>> junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
>>> equations up the ying-yang.  Differential equations are the bread and
>>> butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.
>
>> I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
>> are used in probability and statistics.
>
>... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
>"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
>equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
>than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
>
>Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
>mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
>dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
>higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level. 

You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
actually taken the courses in question.

Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program.  And
we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.

Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used
<https://archive.org/details/Theoretical-Mechanics--Bradbury-1968--Problem-Solutions>
(the text is not online anywhere).

Also note the page for the mechanics course required of all MIT
undergraduates
<https://learning-modules.mit.edu/class/index.html?uuid=/course/8/ia18/8.223#info>
and the text for the course (enough to get a flavor of it is available
in the "look inside"
link)<https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489812

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 7:28:00 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney
> <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 2018-04-04, Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> "All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
> >>> junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
> >>> equations up the ying-yang.  Differential equations are the bread and
> >>> butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.
> >
> >> I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
> >> are used in probability and statistics.
> >
> >... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
> >"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
> >equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
> >than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
> >
> >Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
> >mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
> >dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
> >higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level. 
> 

and, apparently, in public opinion research:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248931038_A_differential_equation_model_for_predicting_public_opinions_and_behaviors_from_persuasive_information_Application_to_the_index_of_Consumer_Sentiment

> You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
> actually taken the courses in question.

And I specifically mentioned I _HADN'T_ taken calculus, so
if I had an incorrect impression of any of it, I wouldn't
be offended by a knowledgeable correction.

If I had aimed at an econ degree, taking calculus would have been
useful, though, when I matriculated as an undergrad in the mid-70s, 
I don't think that was yet required. Calc I, at least, is commonly 
required now, and if one is going on to grad school, taking more
would be expected: multivariate analysis?

Economic thinkers from the "political economy" tradition sometimes
make cracks about "physics envy."

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489849

On 2018-04-07, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney
>>... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
>>"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
>>equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
>>than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
>>
>>Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
>>mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
>>dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
>>higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level. 
>
> You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
> actually taken the courses in question.

a) I'm sorry that you feel Kevrob is incapable of sticking up for himself, and
ii) You would do better if you didn't try to condescend (three syllables, I
 typed it slow for you) to people who have -degrees- in math and physics.
3) Define, if you would, how much better I might do, and on what scale?

> Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
> we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
> only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
> you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
> lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program.  And
> we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
> electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
> Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.

Hm. Though at that level, you wouldn't have had the theory behind them, just
"here's some tricks to try solving them with" and/or "here's some provided
solutions, you can test them to make sure they solve the equation". But okay,
they'd start showing up junior year or so. Maxwell's equations in particular
are diff-e-qs, aand they're all over thermodynamics ... and if your curriculum
was one that got to vector calculus, they're there too, but many college
students stop after 'integrals'.

> Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used

Dude. This is Usenet. You know better than to phrase things like that!!1!

Dave, to the right kind of thinking, they're actually extremely interesting
-- 
\/David	DeLaney	posting	thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible	:( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489853

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:33:57 -0500, David DeLaney
<daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 2018-04-07, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney
>>>... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
>>>"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
>>>equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
>>>than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
>>>
>>>Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
>>>mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
>>>dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
>>>higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level. 
>>
>> You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
>> actually taken the courses in question.
>
>a) I'm sorry that you feel Kevrob is incapable of sticking up for himself, and
>ii) You would do better if you didn't try to condescend (three syllables, I
> typed it slow for you) to people who have -degrees- in math and physics.
>3) Define, if you would, how much better I might do, and on what scale?

When you sober up reread that and tell me what, if any point you were
trying to make.

As to how you might do better, not making statements that parade your
ignorance would be a start.

>> Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
>> we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
>> only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
>> you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
>> lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program.  And
>> we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
>> electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
>> Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.
>
>Hm. Though at that level, you wouldn't have had the theory behind them, just
>"here's some tricks to try solving them with" and/or "here's some provided
>solutions, you can test them to make sure they solve the equation". But okay,
>they'd start showing up junior year or so. Maxwell's equations in particular
>are diff-e-qs, aand they're all over thermodynamics ... and if your curriculum
>was one that got to vector calculus, they're there too, but many college
>students stop after 'integrals'.

They're all over everything in physics and quite a lot of engineering.

>> Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used
>
>Dude. This is Usenet. You know better than to phrase things like that!!1!

Dude, this is Usenet, you know better than to try to cover the egg on
your face with bluster.

And I note that you completely ignored the MIT link, which told what
text _they_ use, and the link to said text.

>Dave, to the right kind of thinking, they're actually extremely interesting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489828

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
> are used in probability and statistics.  I did take some stats in
> college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student.  Stats
> is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
> studied.  It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
> school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
> it would be useful for a PoliSci major.  In retrospect, I might have
> made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
> into bookselling.  I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.

_Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.
    That was my ploy back in college. "Autodidact" (so to speak) the
nearest text then test out of The Calculus and move on to more
interesting things.
    More interesting things, such as "De Motu" (Berkeley) [1]. The only
rub is that Berkeley wrote it in Latin. There's a high priced Jesseph
translation (the "element 79" standard of translations) and a far
cheaper Ayers translation available. The Ayers is now on its way to me,
naturally.
    At first blush it seemed like Dartmouth's math department hosted a
"De Motu" translation [2], but that proves to be a false lead. Even
though it's a false lead, it /does/ offer up a measure of entertainment,
at least to me. YMMV.

    6 And yet in the calculus differentialis, which method serves
    to all the same intents and ends with that of fluxions, our
    modern analysts are not content to consider only the differences
    of finite quantities: they also consider the differences of those
    differences, and the differences of the differences of the first
    differences. And so on ad infinitum. That is, they consider
    quantities infinitely less than the least discernible quantity;
    and others infinitely less than those infinitely small ones; and
    still others infinitely less than the preceding infinitesimals,
    and so on without end or limit. Insomuch that we are to admit an
    infinite succession of infinitesimals, each infinitely less than
    the foregoing, and infinitely greater than the following. As
    there are first, second, third, fourth, fifth, &c. fluxions, so
    there are differences, first, second, third, fourth, &c., in an
    infinite progression towards nothing, which you still approach
    and never arrive at. And (which is most strange) although you
    should take a million of millions of these infinitesimals, each
    whereof is supposed infinitely greater than some other real
    magnitude, and add them to the least given quantity, it shall
    never be the bigger. For this is one of the modest postulata of
    our modern mathematicians, and is a corner-stone or ground-work
    of their speculations.

    7 All these points, I say, are supposed and believed by certain
    rigorous exactors of evidence in religion, men who pretend to
    believe no further than they can see. That men who have been
    conversant only about clear points should with difficulty admit
    obscure ones might not seem altogether unaccountable. But he who
    can digest a second or third fluxion, a second or third
    difference, need not, methinks, be squeamish about any point in
    divinity. ...

    ROTFLMAO.

Note.

1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39746/39746-h/39746-h.html#toc53
2. https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Analyst/Analyst.html

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489834

In article <20180407a@crcomp.net>, D B Davis  <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>
>_Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
>you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
>Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
>a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.

I once had a copy of something called, approximately, Dr. E.
McSquared Cartoon Guide to the Calculus.  It was awfully cute.
It began with set theory, which I took to like duck to water.
But then the *second* chapter was on number lines, which I never
could master.  That's as far as I got.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489843

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, D B Davis wrote:
> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
> > are used in probability and statistics.  I did take some stats in
> > college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student.  Stats
> > is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
> > studied.  It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
> > school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
> > it would be useful for a PoliSci major.  In retrospect, I might have
> > made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
> > into bookselling.  I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.
> 
> _Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
> you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
> Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
> a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.
>     That was my ploy back in college. "Autodidact" (so to speak) the
> nearest text then test out of The Calculus and move on to more
> interesting things.

I scored 650 out of 800 on my SAT math section, 45 years ago, and 
got As in my 4 years of high school math.  I just didn't want to work 
as hard in my senior year as some of my classmates.  I took advanced 
Bio instead of Physics in Junior Year, and "Physics for Poets" in college 
to make up the lack of the H.S. course

I was in a group of ~ 30 students who were 1-year ahead in science,
having "tested out" of the Freshman year science survey course.
I could have done Bio/Chem/Physics and the either Advanced Bio or
an AP Chem or Physics independent study.  That's what our valedictorian
did, along w/AP Calc.  I couldn't get any teacher to sign on to what
I wanted to do: AP History or Politics.  I understand that is common
today, but we weren't set up for just any AP courses.  As we were
the last graduating class, anything new would have been a one-off.

Our #1 GPA guy went to Johns Hopkins, planning on becoming a doctor.
I thought I wanted to be a lawyer, and to get into politics later.
I could do Math and Science.  I scored 780 out of 800 on the College
Board Chemistry achievement test.  History, politics and philosophy
were just more compelling for me. 

I basically spent my senior year of high school on autopilot,
taking social science electives and concentrating on extracurricular
activities: had parts in the school musical, and a non-musical
comedy, went to speech and debate tourneys, was an officer of our
Key Club (Kiwanis affiliate group) and even went to the prom.
One math course was enough: advanced algebra. Two would have
made me break a sweat.  

Kevin R
    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489663

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:09:33 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:

> "All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!"  I'm sorry, but
> junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
> equations up the ying-yang. 

Does that require medical attention? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489656

On 2018-04-04, David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:

> ... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
> axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
> physical use, or practical use/value ...

> ... I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.

Good, because string theory has yet to have physical or practical uses or
value. it is mathematically beautiful and does not seem to have any
actual utility (unless you want academic tenure).
-- 
Carl Fink                           nitpicking@nitpicking.com 

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com.  Reviews!  Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489657

David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2018-04-03, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>     In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
>> metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
>> Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
>> time:
>>
>>     How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
>>     built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
>>     you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
>>     axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
>>     some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.
>
> ... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
> axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
> physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
> Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
> a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
> differential equations and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
> example. Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
> physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
> numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
>
> I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
> Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
> describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
> forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
>
> Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
> can be simply listed and categorized

Euler's three dimensional wave equation may not count as an event where
the axioms came before the application. But imaginary numbers certainly
do, even if it took millennia for the application to appear. ;0)

Thank you,

--
Don

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489651

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:02:47 -0000 (UTC), D B Davis <g@crcomp.net>
wrote:

>
>Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>> peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-5, Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 2018-03-26, D B Davis <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>>> >> Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
>>>> >> anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?
>>>> >
>>>> >...  Could also include other
>>>> >portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.
>>>>
>>>> By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
>>>> blank...
>>>>
>>>> No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
>>>> trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?
>>>>
>>>This might be the Heinlein short story _Elsewhere_, which has been published
>>>in the collection _Assignment in Eternity_.
>>
>> That sounds like it.  Wikipedia has it as Elsewhen.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsewhen
>
>My earlier announced intention to try to plod through _Timescape_
>(Benford) once more is a non-starter. The slog of my earlier half-way
>read is still too fresh in mind. It might help if the Benford had a cat,
>like _The Doorway Into Summer_ (RAH) or _Thrice Upon a Time_ (Hogan) or
>a supercat like Fritz Leiber's Gummitch, with an IQ of 160.
>    "Elsewhere" (Saunders) appears in the Sep 1941 edition of
>_Astounding_ along with the conclusive third installment of
>"Methuselah's Children" (RAH). Campbell probably uses RAH's pen name
>Caleb Saunders to avoid having two stories by the same author appear in
>a single issue.
>    "Elsewhere"'s a great little story about time travel. It explores
>Ouspensky's six dimensions. Nahin refers to it as "Elsewhen" under the
>Multidimensional time section of _Time Machines_.
>    Nahin's exploration of the story is noteworthy, because Nahin
>typically focuses only on time machines. "Elsewhere" uses the hypnotism
>and suggestion to achieve time travel. Psychological time travel is also
>used in stories such as "The Gostak and the Doshes" (Breuer),
>_Time and Again_ (Finney), _Bid Time Return_ (Matheson), and its
>Hollywood treatment _Somewhere In Time_.
>    The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
>namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
>and Einstein.
>    In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
>metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
>Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
>time:
>
>    How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
>    built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
>    you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
>    axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
>    some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

A mathematician would disagree with that statement.  Mathematics is
valid if it is done by the rules of mathematics.  It may not be
_useful_ but it is _valid_.

It seems to annoy mathematicians that every time they come up with a
beautiful totally useless system, those pesky physicists go and find a
use for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489625 — YASID - finding your home dimension by its bridge design.

Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:


>By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
>blank...


>And there's another one vaguely in my mind filed as either a Niven or
>a Heinlein, where he's sitting on a riverbank "pressing the button"
>and watching the bridge engineering to see if the tech level looks
>familiar from each universe.

-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web