AtD pg 675

[Mark Kohut]

very interesting....but without working out the thoughts yet, I might want
to argue that seeing into "the"--any--future is NOT a good thing in AtD.

A-and, I'm going to continue my monority case-making that much/most
math expertise in AtD is satirized, is scored AGAINST....


----- Original Message ----
From: "grladams at teleport.com" <grladams at teleport.com>
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 5:29:08 PM
Subject: Re: AtD pg 675

Those who have the power to see across a dimension have an intellect that
is useful in ATD. They might desire/ or inadvertently without desire use it
to tease insight from the future or from a result. Like speculation on the
stock market relies on knowing a little something, or an
engineer/mathmatician gets a vision - thought happens faster than old
fashioned space permits, to turn a phrase.. Then dropping to knees and
scribbling a formula on a tree trunk--has to do with the end of euclidian
and beginning of a new kind of space, the changing times lovingly depicted
in ATD. I even thought that when that guy (Frank? Lew? Forgot by now)
enters the diving bell into the water off ancient mediteranean lands
(?Rome? sorry) and see the markings pn ancient walls at the floating above
angle, or even when Yashmeen is driven to consider inexplicable mathspace 

I imagine this space
http://www.metlin.org/content/graphics/mathematics/riemann_spheres/riemann-s
phere-large.jpgriemann 

and I imagine being on the verge of hitting a curve, so therefore being on
>this side< of the flip, and being able to look up and see the other side,
where the visitors (we?) are...



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Michael J. Hußmann michael at michael-hussmann.de
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:37:10 +0100
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: AtD pg 675


Richard Fiero (rfiero at gmail.com) wrote:

> ". . . he understood that this zigzagging around [yo-yoing?] around 
> through four-dimensional space-time might be expressed as a vector in 
> five dimensions.  Whatever the number of n dimensions it inhabited, 
> an observer would need one extra n+1, to see it and connect the end 
> points to make a single resultant."
> Why does Kit seem to think that n+1 dimensions are needed?

Good question. You don't need an extra dimension just for the resultant
vector, and you might just add up the individual vectors to draw the
resultant, all within n dimensions. But insofar as "seeing it" requires
an outside observer -- you cannot "see" a path on a two dimensional
surface unless you rise above this surface in a third dimension --,
another dimension becomes necessary.

- Michael


Michael J. Hußmann

E-mail: michael at michael-hussmann.de
WWW (personal): http://michael-hussmann.de
WWW (professional): http://digicam-experts.de



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20080105/39832e2d/attachment-0001.html>