> Good sense and mutually agreeable convention, however, > have always figured in honest and clear communication.
thus: with the M-set, you've found a new field, "squaring the cardioid," although it must be said that the M-set is *entirely* an artifact of the floatingpoint spec, and its many, many implimentations in hardware & software (it's IEEE-755, or some thing, with a more recent update); this was confirmed when monsieur M. begged my question about this, at a rather dull "general audience" talk that he gave at Royce Hall, UCLA, some time ago.
others have tried this, called Quadray for a spatial/tetrahedral one, and it doesn't seem to offer any utility, although it's possible that some interesting numbertheory could lurk therein (whereas, the quadray folks were rather more utilitatrian, seeking only to establish "Synergetics" as better than "cartesianism," with no really interesting result -- and when they both largely suck).
"spacetime" is a hopelessly useless abstraction, since it was really already highly formalized as phase-spatialization, using hamiltonians & lagrangians; unfortunately, it tends to give the "time travel" crowd a funny platform, like time is "going to go" some where, some how. well, "there's no where, therein," thanks to a momentary lapse by AE's teacher, Minkowski -- good N-d numbertheorist, as far as you could go with it!
thus: speaking of Kyoto, there is an almost historical article on the emmissions trading schemes of yore & today, in yesterday's NYTMagazine, via its billionaire proponent from the junkbond biz. only thing missing: how many billions of dollars per year is CCX hedging, and has it ever had any effect on, like, the price of oil?
> apt phraseology, "in sympathy," compared > to the typical Muslim Fisikist hypothesis that > there is no essential connection between the buildings > on the site -- when there are very many. > > the simplest one is that there is a *huge* concourse > running under the site, containing a subway, parking, > malls, utilities etc., into which the towers collapsed. > > > WTC7 seems to be forgotten here.
> thus: > what Miss Manners or Wikipedia Authority enshrines that, > that one should not stick one's reply at the beginning?... > assuming adequate referential skills, on both sides of the screen, > doesn't it save one from some repeatative strange injury?
> thus: > Pierre Duh, that's what our Muslim Fisikist, Schonfeld, > is trying to say: > that the biggest bombs ever to have hit the biggest buildings, > could not have resulted in such a "free fall" collapse, although > that's just a fisikal hypothesis.
> thus: > I may be extrememly socially retarded but I'm not stupid -- > this is a *classic* analysis of Muslim Fisiks, > which also tend to be hardcore examples of it.... > the real question is, > Why should Earth's tallest, rather highly tensile structure not > collapse > at the speed of freefall?... > I said, Why not?... > anyway, there's a good analysis of the comparison > between a surreptitious bombing, and > an inside controlled demo, in the current issue of that MIT mag > -- *Technology & Innovation*, or some thing -- > using the Murrah Building for the example.... > still, it is high time to impeach Trickier Dick Cheeny, > who did *what* in the Nixon Administration with Don Rumfseld?... oh, > you were convinced by that braindead guy, that he did it?