Scatterbrained in Context.

[Batman3]

Has anyone else noticed that in the geometry section it is impossible to make an irrelevant comment about anything unless one is in the context of what has been the subject of conversation? I mean without speaking utter gibberish without any relation to anything in this universe or any other. I suppose one might hijack a thread but that would be gibberish. I am not talking about that.

In the Rototopes As Partitions geometry thread, how is it possible to speak(i.e. without gibberish like random letters), without understanding words such as rototopes or Toratopes?

Am I already speaking gibberish?

Don't misundertand me, I am not recommending that anyone speak gibberish in this tetraspace. :?

[wendy]

much of what lives out in four and higher dimensions has no real parallel in three dimensions. A good deal of this is encoded for brevity's sake.

Still, enough intellegent people understand what is being spoken that makes it the worthwhile.

I don't necessarily follow the rototope thread myself :S but still, there are kids there that do.

The geometry page is pretty much for those who want to tangle with the heavy iron of multiple dimensions. This is a useful place to look. Filling it up with random gibberish would make it less useful.

W

[Keiji]

Do a little looking around, and you'll find what you're looking for.

But to save you time, a rotatope is an object that can be defined in terms of starting with a point and repeatedly extruding or lathing it. Toratopes I still don't fully understand, but they include all the torii-based objects, and "beasts", whatever they are. And to top it off, all rotatopes and all toratopes can be called rotopes.

[PWrong]

Has anyone else noticed that in the geometry section it is impossible to make an irrelevant comment about anything unless one is in the context of what has been the subject of conversation?

The Rototopes As Partitions thread is essentially a conversation between Marek and I, but we're not excluding anyone. You're welcome to contribute if you have something to say about rotopes. If you want to talk about something else, it's best to start a new thread.

Rotatopes, toratopes and rotopes aren't real english words, obviously, but they do have precise, well-defined meanings. They're defined somewhere in one of those threads. If anyone wants me to, I'll start a thread for defining and explaining all these new words.

[Batman3]

I think Wendy misunderstood me. I was Not suggesting that we should speak gibberish. I was curious about the question of context and whether we can make sense in a context we don't know very well and not speak gibberish. Kind of like what its like in a mathematical sense to walk around a chess game blindfold. Or play it. Or walk in a 'math-house', whatever, or wherever, that might be. I think one might step over sleeping dragons.

I like the heavy iron stuff too. Um...When I tutor calculus , it feels kind of like I am showing somone who can't see at all around a house I know very well, blind. I wish I could see math color. Blind math is blind, but better than cold. Perhaps I am 'blindfolded'. Please let me see :?

Um..When I had Real Analysis II I stuggled with doing it blind and trying to get my 'blindfold off'. R.A.II has to do with how you deal with meanigs of single words defined in a context very far away and used in an immediate context. Blind and colorless. Meanwhile I was scared the Hell of single words, with good religious reason. I did have a talent for observing without color how to move about the immediate context. The teacher also wanted me to be able to build things math'ly. By which he meant, "memorize, then study!"

Does anyone get what I am trying to get at? :?

'Blindfold' is a literal metaphor. Please be gracious.

[PWrong]

I think Wendy misunderstood me. I was Not suggesting that we should speak gibberish.

Ok, so you don't think we should speak gibberish. I think we all agree on that. Do you think we are speaking gibberish?

I was curious about the question of context and whether we can make sense in a context we don't know very well and not speak gibberish.

If you don't know the context very well, you can either get to know it better, or not take part in the conversation. If you try to contribute without knowing the context, you are indeed speaking gibberish. But it's not that hard if you're really interested.

The teacher also wanted me to be able to build things math'ly. By which he meant, "memorize, then study!"

I never memorise anything when studying. I know what the words mean because I use them and think about them in many contexts. I believe if you can't derive something yourself without remembering it, it's not worth knowing.

R.A.II has to do with how you deal with meanigs of single words defined in a context very far away and used in an immediate context. Blind and colorless.

I've never heard real analysis described like that before. I assumed it was more to do with real numbers and functions.

Does anyone get what I am trying to get at?

Sorry, not quite. I'm sure if you were a bit more specific, we'd be able to help.

[Batman3]

I don't only mean 'how to not speak gibberrish in a context we don't know well' but also 'how to understand someone in a context we don't know well.'

For example, foreign languages such as Russian or French. Where we don't know the rest of the language very well(i.e. we don't have a best understanding of words in the context of that language.)

(1)I was in a Russian Metro Station in Moscow and I didn't know what 'B.D.N.H.' stood for but it seemed to stand for the station I was in. So I could take off from that point on that basis.
(2)I was in a Tallin pastry store in Estonia where a lady bought me a pastry without speaking. She made it obvious physically that it was a gift. Somehow.
(3)In the same store there was a very small child running around under the tables and everyones coats. His mother was trying to get him to behave, but she could not physically reach him. I looked in the eye of the lady giving me the pastry and looked around me at the ground(the kid was about 10 feet away so that it was evident that I was not literally looking for a kid but trying to communicate something about small children. I looked up and looked meaningfully into her eye and she got somekind of idea of about what I was trying to say. The nuace must certainly have been somewhat off, but w/out much context there was still some meaning transferred.

In each case above, the context was limited both by the enviroment and by language limitations. In each case nevertheless meaning was transferred but also presumably with an error or possible error of nuance.

To what extent then is it possible to speak and understand something in a language you don't know well?
Math. has been described as a language so the implication is, I think, obvious.

Btw 'nuance' means a 'fine difference in shade of meanng', if you had a hard time (understandng ) above.

[Batman3]

Quote: "R.A. II has to do with using the meanings of single words defined in a context very far way... "

and "R.A. has to do with real numbers and functions." --Pwrong

I think both sentences are true. Certainly Pwrong's is.

But if you try to read RA textbook, they define words and letters half a book away and I found it hard to remember those definitions from moment to moment (w/out flipping back 50 pages). That is what I had to struggle with. A context far away and in which if you don't remember the definitions of words,(say the precise def. of Limit), you have to flip back. If you fall behind, it is very hard to catch up.

I think we are communicating gibberish with&to the tetronians even when we speak of simple things like Duocylinders. We interpret a torus as a donut or sphere as an orange, wouldn't they interpret a duocylinder strangely too?

I certainly have no ability to see the irregularities on the surface of something like a duocylinder which I can't eat. So I don't know the tetronian's and duocylinder-food's context so I can't even try to eat one, even if I had 4d-teeth.

[wendy]

The discussion between Marek and PWrong have transcended mathematics. It's more a matter of a technical discussion, with its own language and terminology. Maths is not like that.

Still, i have not particularly have been following it either, but the redefinition of the torus-product, i suppose, had been forked off to a different thread for my benifit (i invented it).

I do read all the stuff on the list, just that some of it goes over my head!

W