Mexico's V-2 Distribution in GR

[William Evans Bailey]

Hello All--

I am glad that the issue of "Pynchon's" liner notes to "Barefoot in the Head"
has been more or less resolved.  Though I don't suppose one could know for 
sure, Byron Coley's authorship seems likely.  Any news on the Spike Jones 
liner notes?

----

A different question: in GR, p.54 of the Viking edition, Roger Mexico and 
Jessica Swanlake have the following exchange:

"Roger has tried to explain to her the V-Bomb statistics: the difference be-
tween distribution, in angel's eye view, over the map of England, and 
their own chances, as seen from down here.  She's almost got it: nearly under-
stands his Poisson equation, yet can't quite put the two together...

"'Why is your equation only for angels, Roger?  Why can't we do something, down
here?  Couldn't there be an equation for us too, something to help us find a 
safer place?'

"'Why am I surrounded,' his usual understanding self today, 'by statistical
illiterates?  There's no way, love, not as long as the mean density of strikes
is constant.  Pointsman doesn't even understand that.'"


	It seems to me that Mexico is mistaken or dissimulating here.  Only 
if the density of strikes is constant, i.e. independent of position in London, is he correct that no one place is safer than another.  But this isn't the 
case here, if there is a non-trivial distribution of hits over the 576 squares
into which he has discretized London.  

	Now all this could be true if the _mean_ density of strikes, as an
average over all _time_, is independent of position.  There could, then, be
a space dependence of strike density for any given time interval, but your
chances of being hit if you stay in the same place forever wouldn't depend
on which place you chose.  But then there would have to be a time dependence
for each individual strike density, and the "Monte Carlo Fallacy" of which 
Mexico accuses Pointsman would be a fallacy no longer...in other words, 
it would then make sense to move around depending on where the bombs hit.  

	What do y'all think?  Weisenburger in the _GR_Companion_ makes no
mention of the conflict I'm seeing here.  Perhaps there is a double-entendre
in the omniscient narrator's characterization of Mexico as "understanding as
usual."  A possibility, anyway.  

Bill Bailey