Posts: 18,172
Threads: 807
Joined: Sep 2014
http://www.abc.net.au/news/20170825/babyloniantabletunlockssimplertrigonometrymathematics/8841368?WT.mc_id=newsmail&WT.tsrc=Newsmail
Pythagoras' theorem found carved in stone ... 1,000 years before he was born.
This new method of teaching can't be right because there's only ever one way to look at facts and figures right??
"seeing" it differently is just bullshit??
Quote: "If that could actually be someone else's perspective, a different perspective on the same knowledge base… so thinking about rightangle triangles, nonrightangle triangles, angles and sides and things like that," Mr Owen says.
"And someone else sees it differently, that could be that they have this different insight that then others can look at and say, 'oh, that's so much clearer'."
bwaahahaha
Posts: 17,455
Threads: 464
Joined: Sep 2014
Plenty of math formulas, such as calculating the area of a circle or volume of a sphere, can be approached in different ways to get to the same answer.
Posts: 12,376
Threads: 419
Joined: Sep 2014
(08262017, 07:10 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote: This new method of teaching can't be right because there's only ever one way to look at facts and figures right??
"seeing" it differently is just bullshit??
We know you don't do maths, which is why I think you think you're onto something. You may even be related to the journalist, because he didn't understand a thing about what he was writing and hit on an imaginary red herring with a "eureka" that isn't there.
What it describes is a graphic way of representing the therorem, instead of using numbers.
The input and maths are exactly the same, and it's been taught that way since Pythagoras anyway. You can't have one without the other.
It is interesting that the knowledge is 1000 years older than Pythagoras, but that's all.
Love is... that one person whose freshlywarm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Posts: 18,172
Threads: 807
Joined: Sep 2014
I thought I must have it wrong somewhere, there is only way, and that is the by the rule of the number.
Quote:What it describes is a graphic way of representing the therorem, instead of using numbers.
That's the bit which appealed to me, I've spent my entire life replacing numbers with 'graphics' to get by.
It's worked well enough so far. I knew I had a problem when algebra was easier to grasp than straight maths.
Posts: 12,376
Threads: 419
Joined: Sep 2014
(08262017, 02:04 PM)Di Wundrin Wrote: I thought I must have it wrong somewhere, there is only way, and that is the by the rule of the number.
Quote:What it describes is a graphic way of representing the therorem, instead of using numbers.
That's the bit which appealed to me, I've spent my entire life replacing numbers with 'graphics' to get by.
It's worked well enough so far. I knew I had a problem when algebra was easier to grasp than straight maths.
No you're still just missing the point. Numbers don't actually exist  they are a representation of what is actually going on. The maths is just the mathematical description of the graphic illustration, which is what the theory actually is. It's about real areas in the real world. You can't build a pyramid (or even a dog kennel) with numbers, but the numbers can help keep it straight and standing.
Love is... that one person whose freshlywarm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Posts: 18,172
Threads: 807
Joined: Sep 2014
Have you ever seen the dog kennel I made? ...
Posts: 12,376
Threads: 419
Joined: Sep 2014
I can see you being a bit like my mum was with a hammer & nails.
She built a bird aviary once. It did serve its main purpose of keeping the birds in, but I took over after that.
Love is... that one person whose freshlywarm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Posts: 17,455
Threads: 464
Joined: Sep 2014
Speaking of the existence of numbers, in trig and geometry, at last two of the most useful numbers are 'irrational' by definition.
The square root of 2 is handy in defining a square. Multiply a side length by that irrational number, and you know the length of the diagonal.
Pi, of course, is also irrational. It represents the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference.
There's always a bit of a fudgefactor with irrational numbers...yet, when pi is taken to a few billion decimals, you can draw an adequately accurate circle.
Except for the effects of expansion and warping from gravity.
There is no such thing as a straight line...except as a construct of math.
Posts: 18,172
Threads: 807
Joined: Sep 2014
08272017, 03:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 08272017, 03:07 PM by Di Wundrin.)
I'd look for the Google translate page for that Stanky but don't what language it's it in.
The 'dog kennel' was a wooden crate, biggish one that I hammered a sheet of marine ply on the top side to keep the rain out, and and wrapped the exposed sides in tarp to keep the wind out.
I maintain that the crate was out of skew because the ply was square but one corner was overhanging more than the opposite one and it looked like a piece of debris rather than a kennel.
It only had to last a couple of weeks but I wasn't proud of the effort.
The dog liked it though, he wasn't fussy. In fact he seemed pissy about getting a 'proper' one, he liked the crate. ... but it wasn't winter yet and he wouldn't have liked it as much when the nights got cold wet and windy.
Posts: 17,455
Threads: 464
Joined: Sep 2014
Yeah, dogs aren't fussy.
(Unless we decide they are. Then, suddenly, they require satin pillows and expensive cuts of organic beef.)
Not sure why my post was confusing.
It was pretty straight up shit.
Maybe this will soothe your soul:
T.A. mentioned numbers, in regards to being helpful in building a pyramid.
(He wasn't wrong, btw.)
Yet, a pyramid could be built without any numbers or even a measuring tape.
All you need is a single length of rope. You don't even need to know its length, as long as it stays the same.
It's pretty simple to create a square base using that one length. It can be done with very crude devices and knowledge.
From each corner of that square base, you use that same length, and head upward, to a point where they all meet.
Bingo. A pyramid.
Circles are similarly simple, without using numbers. Poke a stick in the ground,on a flat surface. Loop a length of string around it, and scratch a line in the dirt at the far end of that length of string. You don't need to know the length of that string. No numbers required.
For that matter, the science of making that flat space to start with can be managed with water. No modern tools needed. And no numbers.
Of course, making spheres or cones or cylinders,or even combinations of those predictable shapes (such as a cylinder topped with a cone) are also possible with zero knowledge of numbers.
A plumb or level line can be established without use of any numbers or any vaguely modern tools.
Predictable curves; same thing.
I've even built a concrete boveda dome without math. In fact, math fails for that type of structure.
(A boveda dome springs from a nonsquare rectangle. It is a mathematically indeterminate shape. Mexican masons have build them with bricks for ages, using the length of their forearm as a measuring device.)
Depending on the materials, most precision in architecture is completely irrelevant.
With shotcrete, or even stone masonry, wildly curving and stable structures can be built, with walls wildly off plumb or level.
In many cases, forgoing the boxlike precision fetish of modernity, will yield a vastly superior structure.
(I'm not just saying this because of my disdain for 'in the box' thinkers and builders...I'm saying it because it's true.)
You don't need numbers.
Until you deal with plywood sheets and straight, standard sized lumber.
That imposes the numbers.
(I'm ok with numbers, btw, but that sort of in the box thinking in architecture can suck my dick, so to speak.)
Looking at the Harvey storm damage, the structures that crapped out are very predictable. They're amazingly stupid structures.
The people promoting, selling, and building that sort of shit architecture should be sued.
The box fetish is horrible, of course...but even within that soulless reference frame, there are 99 cent solutions available to prevent your roof from coming off in a high wind. It is truly criminal, imho, that shit builders are still allowed to build the sort of crap that predictable comes apart in a high wind...but the fucking bits that fly loose have the potential to decapitate people.
I could tell you exactly which structures will be destroyed in a tornado; hurricane, or flood, before it happens.
And it ain't because of any mystic powers.
To build things that can handle all this shit is a nobrainer. For the most part, that has been going on. High wind is no longer the main issue.
Water is.
Well that's another nobrainier in architecture.
We're very stodgy humans. We insist on our toast buttered on the correct side. We're willing to kill people that suggest it could be buttered on the other side.
(We're fucking assholes, basically.)
We invent problems to solve.
Like wars.
