Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Solve exact problem with approx solution, or solve approx problem
with exact solution
Posted:
May 17, 2006 6:33 AM
|
|
Gerry Myerson wrote:
> In article <rGlag.2106$No6.45677@news.tufts.edu>,
> Jerry Dallal <gdallal@nospam.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
>> datamatter@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Can you elaborate further? I believe when you refer to model building
>>> as an "art", then clearly the artist would use one of those two tools,
>>> or both. Otherwise, if the person is creating an exact solution for an
>>> exact problem formulation then we'd call her a scientist.
>>>
>> If two people working together produce something better than they could
>> working alone, it's science.
>> If two people working together produce something less than they could
>> working alone, it's art.
>
> So, Gilbert & Sullivan were doing science? and Rogers & Hammerstein?
> and Torvill & Dean?
>
(1) While there are some very nice pieces with two composers or two
lyricists involved, they generally sound more formulaic than when genius
comes from a single individual. (BTW, I'll take Hart over Hammerstein on
most days, Old Man River notwithstanding.)
(2) What is the sound of one hand clapping? :-)
Some things by definition--art, science, whatever--involve two people.
The rule kicks in after only after the minimum requirement is met. What
most people don't know is that Torvill & Dean started out as a
trio--Torvill, Dean, and (their American friend Scott) Hamilton. One
day, they were sitting around wondering why things were going so poorly
when all of a sudden it struck Jayne, "You know, boys, I hate to say it,
but I think this would go better if there were only two of us. You'll
have to draw straws." Scott had to admit that the trips to England for
practice were taking their financial toll and offered to try a solo
career. The rest is history!
(3) When I was growing up in the early '50s, my mom would try to get me
to eat by telling me that "children were starving in Europe". One day,
I challenged her to, "Name *one*!" When she couldn't, I had time to
ponder this as I sat in a corner and discovered a universal truth: When
one hears a sweeping statement to which no exceptions can be named or to
a short list is offered in refutation--that is, if the the statement is
not lame enough to be judged false *without* the need for any
counterexamples--then it's probably within hyperbole of being true!
|
|
|
|
