 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Should there be a povray.ot.discussion sort of thingy?
If a topic goes OT then it gets booted over there and continued
or droped. And no, it is not OT in this ng becouse the root is
still povray.
Mr. Art
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Yes I admit, way off the topic. Exactly why is it, though, that these things
> get so much attention and not the POVray itself? My lego phalanx and trapped
> images have a measly 2 or 3 responses. Maybe all you people could take a
> look at those, too, in p.b.i. And not a single response to my
> LEGO-generating macro since I moved it to p.t.s-f. Maybe because people are
> so anxious to argue a point, I suppose what we all need is to find a good
> chat room and all go there at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> I do. Hmmm... how would I model skin afflicted with
> leprosy... Iso surface patch to the rescue...
>
POV medical image gallery? Hmm...
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't be such a party-pooper Ken ;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Ken wrote in message <37CF952D.7C9B3AB4@pacbell.net>...
>
>Let 1=1 and end the argument :)
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
>http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Chris Huff wrote in message <37CFE4D6.B83A631E@compuserve.com>...
>And that is why it is a fallacy. :-)
>
>Christopher J. Huff
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UM, HELLO???
To all those people that responded saying it was impossible, didn't I
already say that it was?
>> (I know it's a falcity but it's fun to look at ;)
*with corrected spelling of course ;)*
Is everyone taking me just a BIT too seriously today/tonight? At least Mr
Huff has the idea :)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Ahh, but there's the rub.
> These theories basically state this: our definition of reality is empirical.
> What a person calls reality is what he perceives with his senses. Therefore, if
> you provide this person with complete artificial sensory input, this could
> become his reality. In essence, you could put a brain in a jar, attach wires to
> feed it sensory impulses, and thus create an alternate world for this solitary
> brain.
Perfectly true, the only thing that can be concretely proven is the
old "cogito ergo sum" business. That is, if by "concretely proven"
we mean that no assumptions of any kind are ever made along the way,
including the assumption that our sensory data isn't hallucinatory,
or that our memories of the past aren't, to cite Douglas Adam's
Ruler of the Universe "merely a fiction designed to account for
the descrepency between my current physical sensations, and my state
of mind..."
However, Adams' fabulously wise Ruler also illustrates the only
good answer to such arguments; While accepting nothing as a concrete
fact, he acknowledges that "The Lord knows I am not a cruel man."
(He of course, means his cat, whom he calls "The Lord" and is kind to).
>>>>
"Aha!" shouted Zarniwoop, pressing home his point, "But how do you
know HE exists, or that he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you
think of as your kindness?"
"I don't," said the old man, "It simply pleases me to behave in a
certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you behave any
differently?"
<<<<
I laugh at the (currently fashionable once more) mindless slogan
"Never assume!" so idiotically spouted by business and government
---ahem--- "leaders" today, since, it is clear that assumption is
the fundamental basis of all sane, productive human thought. The
problem is not whether or not you assume, but whether or not the
assumptions you choose to cling to are reasonably safe ones. The
only way to find that out is continually test them until something
breaks. When it does, bite the bullet and QYA. Until then, I say:
chill out! (and get a better slogan...)
Charles
--
"Waiter! My food for thought has a fly in it!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
By definition i = sqrt(-1)
Oh, and it's also interesting to note that all numbers are complex, it's
just that the imaginary i value has a co-efficient of 0.
By introducing this number any equation where there are negative sqrts can
be solved. (after all, if we didn't do that, the poor Julia and Mandelbrot
sets wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't want that now would we?)
;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Larry Fontaine wrote in message <37D054E0.A679C841@isd.net>...
>> May I point out that sqrt(-1) isn't defined? sqrt is only a
function
>> from the set of positive reals into itself... (I know, if you take the
>> complexes, you can find a number (well two actually, that's the problem)
>> whose square is -1, but since you couldn't know wich to choose you can't
>> define *the* square root)
>
>You're right, it can be (0,1) or (0,-1). And those multiplied would be 1,
not
>-1. But that happens with positive numbers too. The square root of 1 is 1
or -1.
>And -1 times 1 is -1, not 1. Which would seem to imply that whichever
number you
>choose as the square root, you must use the same one when you square it
back,
>which makes sense because A^2 means A*A, not A*-A. So I don't think that's
an
>issue.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> ...
> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good. Kind of like the way maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
>
That's why I find Kant's basis of morality so fascinating, he starts with
the assumption that there is a universal moral law, and uses that (along
with the assumption that good intentions are the only thing that could be
called good under all circumstances, which he does have an argument for to
back it up) to argue what such a law would have to be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote in message <37D0396F.4A8C7993@isd.net>...
>Mark Wagner wrote:
>PS now the scientists think the universe is finite.
Actually, it could very easily be infinite and bounded, instead of finite
and bounded.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote in message <37cfb224@news.povray.org>...
>Lance Birch <lan### [at] usa net> wrote:
>: x - y = 0
>
>: 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
>
>: Dividing both sides by (x - y):
>
> You can't do it, since by definition x-y = 0. That would result in a
>division (x-y)/(x-y) which is 0/0 which is not defined.
Actually, under some circumstances it is defined. For example, lim x->0
(x/x)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
