On 8/21/2011 3:16 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> What part of
>>>
>>> | U x V | = |U| * |V| * cos a
>>>
>>> do you *not* understand? :-P
>
>> Would be a lot simpler if the damn stuff you have to use it in
>> "understood" all that shit, natively. The problem I always run into is
>> that you can find a perfectly comprehensible form of something some
>> place, but it is only applicable is you a) do it by hand, or b) know how
>> to derive some completely bloody different set of equations, that the
>> damn computer will understand. Its like knowing, sort of, how to speak
>> some obscure Chinese dialect, but then finding out that you need to
>> *write* the information down in German, which for which the only work
>> you know is the one applying to yourself, Dummkopf.
>>
>> Well, not exactly the same case, but if you don't have all the other
>> stuff in between the two concepts, understanding what the math is doing
>> in the "human" version won't get you any closer to understanding how the
>> hell the computer needs to deal with it.
>
> I'm having difficulty following what you're trying to say here.
>
Just that, in such a case, the problem isn't just translating between 
languages, its knowing "which" of perhaps dozens of words might 
correctly convey the original details. You could, without a lot of 
problems, pick German words that muddle the meaning so badly its hard to 
work out what the original even meant. This is actually even more the 
case if you went from German to Chinese, since there is like a small 
handful, and one major, written form of it, but like I don't know how 
many dialects. Its the only language in the world where you write dog 
nearly the same way in every single case, but there are 20 ways to "say" 
it, some of them nothing at all alike.

If you don't know what the "intended" meaning is, i.e., the stuff in 
between, the result is going to end up being complete nonsense.

>> The original post in this, describing deriving the two equations needed
>> for Mandelbrot, from the original non-computer usable one, is a perfect
>> example. My reaction is, "Show the math, step by step, because WTF?" lol
>
> Yeah. All the textbooks advanced enough to talk about complex dynamical
> systems assume that you *already* know everything there is to know about
> complex numbers (a much less advanced topic, comparatively speaking).
>
> The first equation *is* useable in some software packages. But usually
> you need to expand out the real and imaginary parts seperately - a step
> which isn't mentioned anywhere and isn't described in any detail because
> it's presumed to be "obvious".
>
>
>
> I assume that was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway...
>...

Uh.. Will go over that some time and try to work out what you did. lol 
Though, I could probably, based on the stuff he already gave, at least 
make an attempt at it without you having helped. I did get far enough in 
math to do some of that. I just am not sure I remember all the factoring 
and other stuff clearly enough to get it right.

But, yeah, exactly. If you don't know all the stuff "between", you won't 
get any place, other than confused.

Post a reply to this message