Moving stuff over the goal posts
-
Not sure about you
Weirdest thing to chuck over those goalposts. Hence
... huh, there's another emoticon. I guess one just wasn't enough!
-
-
Oooh, can I play?
-
-
Good job, @boomzilla. With this title it looks like Jaloopa is doing it wrongtm!
Filed Under:
-
-
-
-
Too obvious...
-
Minidisc? Seriously? Are there emojicons for other obsolete technologies like 8 track or Betamax?
-
-
ie, yes.
-
-
damn i missed.
and not what I expected to see when I read "black nib"
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hmm...something's not quite right about that. Let's try again:
That's better.
-
-
-
that one looks about right at least.
(even if my brain insists on seeing it as rotated by 36 degrees instead of 180)
-
even if my brain insists on seeing it as rotated by 36 degrees instead of 180
You're weird
<I like that
-
You're weird
what else is new?
that's the strange thing about rotational symmetry. there's nothing to designate one point of the star as special so they can all be the "top"
-
-
-
(even if my brain insists on seeing it as rotated by 36 degrees instead of 180)
It IS rotated 36 degrees
-
is that a
fractal?
-
-
is that a fractal?
it appears to be a 3rd generation variation on the koch snowflake fractal..... so yes. it is.
-
It's
s all the way down.
-
"eight_pointed_black_star"
It's one of my favourite emojicons, because every part of the name is wrong.
-
or -36°
degrees are weird stuff.. did you know that 450° === 90° ???
-
it appears to be a 3rd generation variation on the koch snowflake fractal..... so yes. it is.
So, that goalpost is a very special snowflake, is what you're saying?
-
well no it isn't really.
Restricting all references to turning of the screw to the ling axial upon which in normal attaching things to other things usage the screw is intended to be turned:
turning a screw 90 degrees and turning it 450 degrees will displace it by the same relative rotation when measured statically, but as the 450 degree turn rotated through an entire extra turn that screw will be deeper embedded into the substrate into which it was placed, assuming of course clockwise rotation. in the case of counter clockwise rotation it will be less deeply embedded.
unless of course the screw happens to be left hand thread.
further assuming, based on feedback from the inestimable @loopback0, that the screw is already embedded in the substrate such that no additional force other than the rotation is required to move the screw through the substrate
so 450 degrees ~== 90 degrees
The first in a series of posts that earned a badge. -bz
-
turning a screw 90 degrees and turning it 450 degrees will displace it by the same relative rotation when measured statically, but as the 450 degree turn rotated through an entire extra turn that screw will be deeper embedded into the substrate into which it was placed.
Rotating it 90 or 450 degrees while providing a downwards (or whichever way the pointy bit is facing) force will achieve that. Simply rotating it will not.
-
indeed. i have altered the list of assumptions to cover that edgecase. thank you for your input
-
Unless the substrate was threaded.
-
thank you for your input
Figured I'd point it out before one of the actual pedants came along
-
@Jarry said:
It IS rotated 36 degrees
I thought it was rotated 324 degrees
Looks more like 0.2 π to me.
-
-
It's goal posts all the way up?
Hanzo:
@NedFodder said:It's
s all the way down.
I stand by my point of view.
-
-
well no it isn't really.
turning a screw 90 degrees and turning it 450 degrees will displace it by the same relative rotation when measured statically, but as the 450 degree turn rotated through an entire extra turn that screw will be deeper embedded into the substrate into which it was placed, assuming of course clockwise rotation. in the case of counter clockwise rotation it will be less deeply embedded.
unless of course the screw happens to be left hand thread.
further assuming, based on feedback from the inestimable @loopback0, that the screw is already embedded in the substrate such that no additional force other than the rotation is required to move the screw through the substrate
so 450 degrees ~== 90 degrees
Your entire argument failed to specify 1 thing: which axis is the screw rotating on? There is only one axis upon which your statement works. Any other axis, and your entire argument fails.
Further, @Jarry was proposing an equivalence in regards to a two dimensional model. It has been shown that while something may hold true in
ndimensions, it may completely fall apart inn+1dimensions.Truly, your attempted pedantry has no impact on @Jarry's statement because of two changes you made to the base assumption from which he was operating:
- You changed the operating space from 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions. This is a pretty big change.
- You then embedded the object in a substrate. This is also a big change.
These changes vastly change the environment, and thus impact any following statements and conclusions. In other words, your alterations don't really impact what he said because you moved to a different environment.
-
@accalia said:
thank you for your input
Figured I'd point it out before one of the actual pedants came along
ISTM that the pedants have been here the whole time.
-
Your entire argument failed to specify 1 thing: which axis is the screw rotating on?
In that case allow me to retoractively specify that. As my post was the origin of the screw analogy and the analogy has not been expounded on i am justified in doing so.
Restricting all references to turning of the screw to the ling axial upon which in normal attaching things to other things usage the screw is intended to be turned:
Further, @Jarry was proposing an equivalence in regards to a two dimensional model. It has been shown that while something may hold true in n dimensions, it may completely fall apart in n+1 dimensions.
Incorrect. @jarry's equivalence was a rotational, or polar model. standard cartesian model does not apply here. likewise my statement above was also places in the polar coordinate system. I am also showing that Jarry's unqualified equivalence statement is incorrect by providing a counter example. my statement merely needs to be correct for a set of conditions that @jarry's assertion would be correct for. my counter example is not required to be generalizeable.You changed the operating space from 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions.
a point however i could also have used the example of a spool winding up wire or cord, which would have had the same effect and can trivially be shown to be the same condition as the example i gave when expanded to the third dimension.
You then embedded the object in a substrate. This is also a big change.
irrelevant. Jarry did not specify that his equivalence did not hold in such a situation. he stated an absolute equivalence, i provided a specific counter example.
These changes vastly change the environment, and thus impact any following statements and conclusions. In other words, your alterations don't really impact what he said because you moved to a different environment.
also irrelevant. @jarry stated an absolute equivalence, i provided a set of circumstances where his assertion (which as i have stated multiple times was unrestricted in environment) did not hold.
Pendantry achievement unlocked. -bz
-
Well screw you all too.
-
Well screw you all too.
hmm... not without at least buying a girl dinner, and @raceprouk would have to aprove as well.
-
Incorrect
irrelevant
also irrelevant
Your initial post was flagged, but didn't quite do it for me. However, I admire your persistence. That has a dickweedery all its own. Enjoy your
.
