"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>
> "[First thou shalt define a spherical primitive,] then shalt thou count to
> three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the
> number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither
> count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right
> out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached,
> then [shalt thou render thine ray-traced image]"
>
Hilarious! Truly, he is so wise in the ways of science...
>
> > A learned response, in other words.
>
> Or perhaps there's some "organic" neurobiological response that's more
> effectively stimulated with an arrangement of an odd number of objects than an
> even number.
>
Yes, I was likewise wondering if that has some validity. An even number of
symmetrically mirrored segments just looks... boring and linear (four would seem
to be the limit to that, though); whereas an odd number (or any number greater
than four) begins to look like 'randomness with order'.

Or maybe it's just me!

Post a reply to this message