OK, so I realise that nobody else is going to be nearly as excited about 
this as I am, but... after about an hour of PostScript coding, I was 
able to construct a nomogram that correctly expresses the relationship 
"X+Y=Z".

That is, pick any pair of variables, pick values for these, draw a 
straight line such that it passes through the values you picked on the 
appropriate axies, and the point where it passes through the third axis 
indicates the correct value for the third variable.

That was *so* worth it, eh? ;-)

Most of the hour was spent tracking down glitches in my PostScript 
coding (e.g., making a loop count from 100 to 1 in steps of +1), and 
tweaking the asthetics of the page (I know, I'm fussy).

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nomogram-linear1.pdf' (4 KB)

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:07:53 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>OK, so I realise that nobody else is going to be nearly as excited about 
>this as I am, but... after about an hour of PostScript coding, I was 
>able to construct a nomogram that correctly expresses the relationship 
>"X+Y=Z".

Nice and clean. Now one for multiplication.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

I don't get it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Nice and clean. Now one for multiplication.

My dear boy, do you have *any idea* how awkward it is to draw a 
logarithmic scale so all the numbers are readable?

At the bottom of the scale, the distance from 1 to 2 is big enough to 
fit a parking lot in. But higher up, the distance between (say) 9 and 10 
is so tiny you can bearly fit the numbers on without them overlapping. 
It's really frustratingly tricky to pick an arrangement of labels and 
tick marks that looks "nice and clean".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I don't get it.

You're not missing much...

This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I 
managed to make a working nomogram.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:34:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>My dear boy, do you have *any idea* how awkward it is to draw a 
>logarithmic scale so all the numbers are readable?

Isn't that what computers are for? Anyway Napier managed to do it by
hand. Have a look at a slide rule. 

http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/C.J.Sangwin/Sliderules/mannheim.pdf

http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/C.J.Sangwin/Sliderules/fullrule.pdf


Also see
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/C.J.Sangwin/Sliderules/nonlogrule.pdf
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Nice and clean. Now one for multiplication.

Here ya go...

Could possibly start marking off 1/20ths near the bottom of each octave 
- but the tick marks would have to be increadibly narrow. Doesn't seem 
worth it. I already had to make the major marks wider to make the 
distinction between the 3 different levels of ticks clearer. I've spent 
ages tinkering with this thing!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nomogram-log1.pdf' (6 KB)

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:07:56 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> Nice and clean. Now one for multiplication.
>
>Here ya go...

Well done and fast too, I'm impressed.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Well done and fast too, I'm impressed.

Heh. The linear one was posted at a little after 5, the logarithmic a 
little before 7. So only, oh, 2 *hours* to get it right. :-S

Anyway, does it look classy enough yet? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I don't get it.

> You're not missing much...

> This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I 
> managed to make a working nomogram.

  What I don't get is why you posted it here, really. Is it something
interesting, amusing, informative or in some way special? What's the
purpose of posting it? Is there anything there anyone can get something
from? I just don't understand.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:44:51 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
wrote:

>
>Anyway, does it look classy enough yet? ;-)

Yes
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> You're not missing much...
> 
>> This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I 
>> managed to make a working nomogram.
> 
>   What I don't get is why you posted it here, really.

Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?

Because they might amuse somebody...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Wondering how long that animation is going to take to complete?

Don't wonder any more! Look at my shiny nomogram! :-D

Mark the number of frames to be rendered on the right-hand scale. Mark 
approximately how many seconds each frame takes to render on the 
left-hand scale. Draw a straight line through both these points. The 
place where this line crosses the middle scale tells you how long your 
render will take. I even did all the hard work of converting between 
seconds, minutes, hours and, yes, days - because we all know renders 
*do* take days!

In case you missed it: I am *seriously* pleased with myself right now.

Most especially, I spent _literally_ hours fidgetting and fussing over 
the tick marks on the scale. The right-hand scale just goes up in units 
of 10 (with only integers marked), but the other two scales are times, 
and times go up in multiples of 60 and 24 - which don't have a 
particularly simple ratio. I spent ages and ages seeing how tight the 
tick marks can be to still fit the labels, changing the tick widths to 
try to make the scales as unambiguous as possible, and generally trying 
to make it look pretty. I think I'm quite happy with the result...

Oh, and by the way... I'm doing a series of renders with 250 frames 
each. So at 5 seconds/frame, it takes about 20 minutes, if the render 
time rises to a mere 15 seconds/frame, it will take an entire hour to 
complete, and by the time you exceed 30 seconds/frame, you're talking 
about multiple hours.

The really nice thing is that I can also read it backwards and see that 
if I leave my PC running for a 10 your day, each frame must take less 
than 2 minutes if the entire render is to be finished by the time I get 
home.

Note that the Electric Sheep system seems to spend about 15 minutes *per 
frame*. That means that a 140-frame "sheep" constitutes about 1.5 *days* 
of computer time. Eeeps!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'nomogram-rendertime2.pdf' (11 KB)

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   I don't get it.
> 
>> You're not missing much...
> 
>> This nomogram serves no real useful purpose beyond demonstrating that I 
>> managed to make a working nomogram.
> 
>   What I don't get is why you posted it here, really. Is it something
> interesting, amusing, informative or in some way special? 
It informs us that he is still programming in postscript. That is in a 
sense amusing in itself I would say. Many people may not have heard of 
nomograms or at least not recently, so it points to an interesting 
concept for some of us. You may doubt the value of nomograms in the age 
of computers and you are probably right in doing so, but most of the 
things here have not much intrinsic value apart from amusement of the 
maker and those that see or read it. I grant that it may have been 
better at postscript.off-topic but p.o-t is good enough.
> What's the purpose of posting it?
And don't forget the value of the showing off of unusual and cruel skills.
> Is there anything there anyone can get something
> from? I just don't understand.
> 
BTW did you realise the recursive value of your post? ;)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?

  Maybe because this is a POV-Ray news server, and people who visit this
server usually are interested in POV-Ray renderings?

> Because they might amuse somebody...

  I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
some simple numbers and lines.

  Imagine I made a post like this here:

---------------------
  Hey, I just wrote a C program which prints numbers from 1 to 100, with
10 numbers at each line:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void)
{
    int i;
    for(i = 1; i <= 100; ++i)
    {
        printf("%i ", i);
        if(i % 10 == 0) printf("\n");
    }
    return 0;
}
---------------------

  Ok, so? Why would that be of any interest to anybody? Why would I want
to make such a post? I just don't get it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Jun 2008 03:20:22 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?
>
>  Maybe because this is a POV-Ray news server, and people who visit this
>server usually are interested in POV-Ray renderings?
>
>> Because they might amuse somebody...
>
>  I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
>some simple numbers and lines.

Lay off him Warp, and I for one find these things interesting, not
amusing. I've got a small collection of slide rules that I think are
intrinsically beautiful. So just looking at the marks on the paper is
intellectually satisfying, to me. I had forgotten about nomograms
until Andrew posted. I'm glad that he reminded me.
You really don't understand what "information" is at a conceptual
level, do you?
Also this is off topic and it would be a pretty boring party if
everyone talked about the same thing. If Andrew's posts annoy you just
blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings. Your tirades
against him are beginning (?) to sound like bullying. 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Also this is off topic and it would be a pretty boring party if
> everyone talked about the same thing. If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings. Your tirades
> against him are beginning (?) to sound like bullying. 
> 
Seconded.
OMG I've just posted a "Me too" ;-)

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.

  Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.

  (And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
>> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
>
>  Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
>extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
>or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
>
What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
he won't be able to post.
Unless you are talking about your own feelings.

>  (And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
>interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)

That is less true here than on other sites IMO. The vast majority of
posters here are good natured and fair, again IMO.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> >> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
> >
> >  Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
> >extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
> >or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
> >
> What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
> blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
> he won't be able to post.

  I wasn't implying anything else. Read again.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Jun 2008 09:01:10 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> >> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
>> >> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
>> >
>> >  Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
>> >extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
>> >or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
>> >
>> What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
>> blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
>> he won't be able to post.
>
>  I wasn't implying anything else. Read again.

You weren't implying anything else than what? 
What is extreme about setting up your newsreader so that you don't see
a person's posts, if that is what you meant? Although I'll tell you
what I think is extreme and that is, beating someone around the head,
metaphorically speaking, until he stops posting content you personally
don't like. If you don't like it then don't read it.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2008 09:01:10 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> On 29 Jun 2008 06:51:49 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >
> >> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> >> If Andrew's posts annoy you just
> >> >> blacklist him then you won't be irritated by his musings.
> >> >
> >> >  Why are there only extremes? Everywhere there are and can only be
> >> >extremes. Someone must either like 100% of everything someone else does,
> >> >or he has to hate 100% of it. There are no other possibilities.
> >> >
> >> What are you talking about, what extremes? Putting someone on a
> >> blacklist in a newsgroup only means, you won't see his posts not that
> >> he won't be able to post.
> >
> >  I wasn't implying anything else. Read again.

> You weren't implying anything else than what? 

  I wasn't implying that blacklisting someone would affect anyone else
than what I see.

  What I was implying is that blacklisting someone means that I detest
everything he writes and don't want to see anything of it. Obviously
this is not the case. Far from it. Blacklisting someone is a rather
radical measure.

> What is extreme about setting up your newsreader so that you don't see
> a person's posts, if that is what you meant?

  It might not be extreme to you, but I find it a rather extreme.
His posts are, in general, enjoyable and I have no reason to censor
them from myself. Such censorship would make absolutely no sense.
It would, indeed, be rather extreme and irrational.

> Although I'll tell you
> what I think is extreme and that is, beating someone around the head,
> metaphorically speaking, until he stops posting content you personally
> don't like. If you don't like it then don't read it.

  Again, you are implying some kind of extreme. Exactly where did I say,
imply or hint in any way that I didn't *like* the post which started this
thread? The only thing did was to say I didn't understand it, nor the
motivations behind making the post. Sure, many could (and will) interpret
that as an impolite harsh criticism (and "bullying"), but people will
always interpret everything in the worst possible way.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29 Jun 2008 10:51:01 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  I wasn't implying that blacklisting someone would affect anyone else
>than what I see.
>
>  What I was implying is that blacklisting someone means that I detest
>everything he writes and don't want to see anything of it. Obviously
>this is not the case. Far from it. Blacklisting someone is a rather
>radical measure.
>
Well I've never done it myself tho' I've been close to it on occasion.
>> What is extreme about setting up your newsreader so that you don't
see
>> a person's posts, if that is what you meant?
>
>  It might not be extreme to you, but I find it a rather extreme.
>His posts are, in general, enjoyable and I have no reason to censor
>them from myself. Such censorship would make absolutely no sense.
>It would, indeed, be rather extreme and irrational.
>
It is not the impression I got but since you say so I believe you.

>> Although I'll tell you
>> what I think is extreme and that is, beating someone around the head,
>> metaphorically speaking, until he stops posting content you personally
>> don't like. If you don't like it then don't read it.
>
>  Again, you are implying some kind of extreme. Exactly where did I say,
>imply or hint in any way that I didn't *like* the post which started this
>thread? The only thing did was to say I didn't understand it, nor the
>motivations behind making the post. Sure, many could (and will) interpret
>that as an impolite harsh criticism (and "bullying"), but people will
>always interpret everything in the worst possible way.

My opinion is that his motivation is his own business and I will sift
the dross (sorry Andrew) to find the gems. I just ignore all the
Haskell stuff the same way I, most of the time ignore you and Darren,
when you go on about C and C++ etc. It is of little interest to me as
I can't program for toffee :) But it is of interest to a lot of
people.
It does come across to me that you are down on him more than is good
for both of you. And you are wrong if you think people will always
interpret everything in the worst possible way. At least on this
newsgroup at this period of time.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>>Why do people post their POV-Ray renderings?
> 
> 
>   Maybe because this is a POV-Ray news server, and people who visit this
> server usually are interested in POV-Ray renderings?
> 
> 
>>Because they might amuse somebody...
> 
> 
>   I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
> some simple numbers and lines.
> 
>   Imagine I made a post like this here:
> 
> ---------------------
>   Hey, I just wrote a C program which prints numbers from 1 to 100, with
> 10 numbers at each line:
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main(void)
> {
>     int i;
>     for(i = 1; i <= 100; ++i)
>     {
>         printf("%i ", i);
>         if(i % 10 == 0) printf("\n");
>     }
>     return 0;
> }
> ---------------------
> 
>   Ok, so? Why would that be of any interest to anybody? Why would I want
> to make such a post? I just don't get it.
> 

It's kinda funny. Usually I open 'offtopic' and my eyes glaze over at 
the usual avalanche of postings by Orchid on topics I can't relate to. 
This nomogram thing is one of the few things that Orchid has posted that 
I *do* find I can relate to!  Maybe because it actually results in 
something visual.

Meanwhile, I enjoy reading your posts, Warp, and one of the things you 
did that *most* interested me, for all time, was a comparative series of 
  simple sort algorithms expressed in SDL.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> It's kinda funny. Usually I open 'offtopic' and my eyes glaze over at 
> the usual avalanche of postings by Orchid on topics I can't relate to. 
> This nomogram thing is one of the few things that Orchid has posted that 
> I *do* find I can relate to!  Maybe because it actually results in 
> something visual.

  If he had made a postscript which creates something like this, I would
have been truely impressed... :P

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Visual_Smith_Chart.png

> Meanwhile, I enjoy reading your posts, Warp, and one of the things you 
> did that *most* interested me, for all time, was a comparative series of 
>   simple sort algorithms expressed in SDL.

  That was a *really* long time ago. The memories...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   If he had made a postscript which creates something like this, I would
> have been truely impressed... :P
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Visual_Smith_Chart.png

Well, this is how I found out what "nomogram" actually *is*. ;-)

Now, if I actually understood for a second what the hell this nomogram 
is supposed to compute... maybe I could repeat it. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp a écrit :
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
>> It's kinda funny. Usually I open 'offtopic' and my eyes glaze over at 
>> the usual avalanche of postings by Orchid on topics I can't relate to. 
>> This nomogram thing is one of the few things that Orchid has posted that 
>> I *do* find I can relate to!  Maybe because it actually results in 
>> something visual.
> 
>   If he had made a postscript which creates something like this, I would
> have been truely impressed... :P
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Visual_Smith_Chart.png
> 

The whole discussion reminds of perhaps the only remotely useful 
postcript program I have written, to draw the parts of an Astrolabe. I 
really ought to finish that project in fact, so far I have done it on 
paper and cardboard, but I'd really like to build one in plywood...

Even had fun putting in transformations that leave a very funny looking, 
but still theoretically working astrolabe, as attached :-) (this is just 
  one of the most visible parts, of course).

Thing is, I'm not sure I'd understand how that program works, 3 years 
later :-D

Anyway, is that kind of thing called a nomogram as well?

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'astropart.png' (62 KB)

Preview of image 'astropart.png'

Warp wrote:
>   (And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
> interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)

Apparently not just the internet.

"""
A wide body of psychological research shows that on any number of 
hot-button issues, people seem hard-wired to believe the worst about 
those who disagree with them. ... said Glenn D. Reeder, a social 
psychologist at Illinois State University ... "We find it difficult to 
grant that other people come to their conclusions in good faith if they 
reach a conclusion that is different than ours." ...
"""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101439.html

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:02:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Warp wrote:
>>   (And, of course, the first law of the internet: Everything must be
>> interpreted in the wost possible way. Always.)
>
>Apparently not just the internet.
>

I think that behaviour is probably more prevalent on the internet
because people hide behind the anonymity of their handles (is that
term still used?) and don't feel threatened by RL peer pressure.  

>"""
>A wide body of psychological research shows that 

I think modern life is making this a bit worse :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> I think modern life is making this a bit worse :(

Spoken like a true oldie!

John (a callow youth)

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:28:04 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> 
>> I think modern life is making this a bit worse :(
>
>Spoken like a true oldie!
>
Yes, I'm beginning to sound like my grandparents :)

BTW did you catch your mice?

>John (a callow youth)

Nay, a sweet faced youth :)

The Comedy of Errors, Act 5, Scene 1
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:28:04 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I think modern life is making this a bit worse :(
>> Spoken like a true oldie!
>>
> Yes, I'm beginning to sound like my grandparents :)
> 
> BTW did you catch your mice?
> 
Yup! No problemo!
The idiot walked straight into my trap. Prosecution to follow unless the
BoD chicken out
Details at 11

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

>  Again, you are implying some kind of extreme. Exactly where did I say,
> imply or hint in any way that I didn't *like* the post which started this
> thread? The only thing did was to say I didn't understand it, nor the
> motivations behind making the post. Sure, many could (and will) interpret
> that as an impolite harsh criticism (and "bullying"), but people will
> always interpret everything in the worst possible way.

I thought it was pretty lame of you to make fun of Andrew by posting a small 
C program in comparison.

Whether it's your intention or not, your posts certainly seem to be trying 
to discourage him to make such postings, which is a shame.  Just because you 
may already know everything about nomograms and postscript coding, don't 
make fun of other people who are just learning and sharing their 
experiences.

Post a reply to this message

I was thinking, "Why would Andrew be getting a mammogram?" then I reread the title.  

That would perhaps be more interesting, though.  ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> ---------------------
>   Hey, I just wrote a C program which prints numbers from 1 to 100, with
> 10 numbers at each line:
> 
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int main(void)
> {
>     int i;
>     for(i = 1; i <= 100; ++i)
>     {
>         printf("%i ", i);
>         if(i % 10 == 0) printf("\n");
>     }
>     return 0;
> }
> ---------------------

Ohh, wow! That is just sooo cool. and the use of the modulus operator! 
Brillant!

:D

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Because they might amuse somebody...
> 
>   I just can't understand what's so amusing about a PDF file which contains
> some simple numbers and lines.

OK, a bit more serious now. I don't quite understand why they're 
interesting either, but he felt compelled to share what he did because 
someone else might be interested in it. Andrew has a profound interest 
in mathematics, and perhaps here's something deeper to these nomograms 
that I don't get.

Post a reply to this message

Kyle wrote:
> I was thinking, "Why would Andrew be getting a mammogram?" then I reread the title. 

> 
> That would perhaps be more interesting, though.  ;-)

..........??!?

*walks away slowly*

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> I thought it was pretty lame of you to make fun of Andrew by posting a small 
> C program in comparison.

  I still fail to see the relevant difference.

> Whether it's your intention or not, your posts certainly seem to be trying 
> to discourage him to make such postings, which is a shame.  Just because you 
> may already know everything about nomograms and postscript coding, don't 
> make fun of other people who are just learning and sharing their 
> experiences.

  No, I don't know anything about nomograms and little about postscript,
but the post seemed so trivial that I asked why it should be of any
interest. Is there something there I'm not seeing?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Andrew has a profound interest in mathematics

  Which is precisely why I didn't understand his post.

  I'm profoundly interested in programming, but that doesn't mean I would
post every single little piece of trivial software I make. If I come up
with something *really* ingenuous then I might be compelled to share it
with the few others here who might be interested in clever programming
tricks.

  Thus maybe I just missed something in his post. That's what I asked.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   No, I don't know anything about nomograms and little about postscript,
> but the post seemed so trivial that I asked why it should be of any
> interest. Is there something there I'm not seeing?

Drawing some lines and a few numbers on a sheet of paper *looks* pretty 
easy. However, you try making it so that when you draw the lines, you 
actually get the *right* answer.

This is more difficult than it sounds...

Sure, the result might just be a few numbers on a page, but it took me 
ages to get it to produce the correct answers. (Do you know the 
mathematical properties of similar triangles? I had to look them up...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>  No, I don't know anything about nomograms and little about postscript,

Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
have been posted, and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
to knowing little about the subjects involved!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
> have been posted

  Where exactly?

  Yes, always interpret everything in the worst possible way.

> and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
> interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
> has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
> to knowing little about the subjects involved!

  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
your opinion, is wrong and rude.

  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
worse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't 
>> have been posted
> 
>   Where exactly?
> 
>   Yes, always interpret everything in the worst possible way.
> 
>> and asking if there is any "more" to it that would make it 
>> interesting to you (which in itself is considered pretty rude when the OP 
>> has explained pretty clearly what it's about), and all this when you confess 
>> to knowing little about the subjects involved!
> 
>   So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> your opinion, is wrong and rude.
> 
>   Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> worse.
> 

It's the language barrier, Warp.

Backhanded complements and snide remarks are an art form in English, and 
exploited throughout drama and comedies. While you were just asking 
'What makes this interesting?' it comes across as though you are 
suggesting that the math and lines are 'too simple to actually be 
interesting or useful.'

I wouldn't ask about a Rube Goldberg machine, 'So, what does it actually 
do?' because the tone suggest that I find it useless for 'just' breaking 
an egg.

Post a reply to this message

>> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't
>> have been posted
>
>  Where exactly?

"What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."

>  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> your opinion, is wrong and rude.
>
>  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> worse.

Keep digging!

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Great, so you're publically calling someones work so trivial it shouldn't
> >> have been posted
> >
> >  Where exactly?

> "What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."

  You are reading more than there is in my text.

> >  So let me get this straight: I don't know much about the subject, and
> > thus I ask for reasons for the subject to be interesting, and this, in
> > your opinion, is wrong and rude.
> >
> >  Yeah, sure. Whatever you can come up with that will make things look
> > worse.

> Keep digging!

  Was that a note to self or something?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> "What I don't get is why you posted it here, really."
>
>  You are reading more than there is in my text.

OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you that in 
English it is considered rude to give the *impression* of pretending 
ignorance to undermine someone elses work.  Even if you really are ignorant, 
don't write something that others may take as you pretending to be 
ignorant - because you'll be labelled as rude and offensive.  If you are a 
clever person, you need to be even more aware of this, as people will often 
think you are pretending not to understand if you say so.

In this case Andrew clearly stated exactly what he had done and posted his 
results.  People who read this ng regularly will have guessed that you 
probably understood exactly what Andrew had done, yet you seemingly 
pretended you "didn't get it" and asked "what else is there that i didn't 
get".  That's rude, when there obviously isn't any more to it.

Another example, if you are seeing someone give a bad presentation, you 
don't then ask at the end "please send me the final version when you've 
finished it".  Or at a dinner party, you don't say after a small main course 
"great starter, what's the main?".  I'm sure you can think of more examples, 
maybe it's acceptable in Finnish?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> OK I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and explain to you that in 
> English it is considered rude to give the *impression* of pretending 
> ignorance to undermine someone elses work.  Even if you really are ignorant, 
> don't write something that others may take as you pretending to be 
> ignorant - because you'll be labelled as rude and offensive.  If you are a 
> clever person, you need to be even more aware of this, as people will often 
> think you are pretending not to understand if you say so.

> In this case Andrew clearly stated exactly what he had done and posted his 
> results.  People who read this ng regularly will have guessed that you 
> probably understood exactly what Andrew had done, yet you seemingly 
> pretended you "didn't get it" and asked "what else is there that i didn't 
> get".  That's rude, when there obviously isn't any more to it.

> Another example, if you are seeing someone give a bad presentation, you 
> don't then ask at the end "please send me the final version when you've 
> finished it".  Or at a dinner party, you don't say after a small main course 
> "great starter, what's the main?".  I'm sure you can think of more examples, 
> maybe it's acceptable in Finnish?

  You just made an excellent essay on the first rule of the internet:
If something can be interpreted more than one way, someone will interpret
it in the worst possible way.

  Basically the rationale is: "He wrote something which I feel can be
considered rude, ergo he was being deliberately rude, ergo I should
get angry with him for being deliberately rude."

  This alternative rationale is completely out of question: "He wrote
something which could be interpreted as rude, but maybe he didn't mean it
that way."

  While both interpretations are possible, the principle of maximization
of indignation requires for the worst possible interpretation to be chosen.

  Whatever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Jul 2008 09:47:07 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  While both interpretations are possible, the principle of maximization
>of indignation requires for the worst possible interpretation to be chosen.

One other point that need to be taken into consideration is that this
is an ongoing thing. You, yourself, said that you must stop baiting
Andrew and you did.

I thought that the first rule of the internet was not to explicitly
trust people who you don't know.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message