Science > Physics > Schwartz, spareness of form with maximum generality
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Helland" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2004 10:11:38 AM |
| Object: |
Schwartz, spareness of form with maximum generality |
Schwartz,
In a message here you said:
"Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3FFD9FE1.12F38E75%40hate.spam.net
Thats awesome. Did you borrow that quote from somewhere, or should I
attribute that to you?
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwartz, spareness of form with maximum generality |
20 Oct 2004 11:45:12 AM |
|
|
Mike Helland wrote:
Schwartz,
In a message here you said:
"Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3FFD9FE1.12F38E75%40hate.spam.net
Thats awesome. Did you borrow that quote from somewhere, or should I
attribute that to you?
Near as I can tell it's a typical shot from the hip with no
antecedent. It is what we do, after all. When you see an equation
that stretches for lines (other than tensor equivalents and such) you
immediately suspect somebody is trying to model an elephant with a big
pile of mice. Such flummery denies understanding - hence economics
and psychology and their inevitable bottom line disasters.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Schwartz, spareness of form with maximum generality |
22 Oct 2004 09:04:41 AM |
|
|
I have no trouble believing this an original statement from UncleAl.
A number of years ago, after spending a lot of time trying to find an
inexpensive alternate for an electrical grounding problem, I asked
UncleAl.
His suggestion was simple, inexpensive, and it worked.
While I dont have the educational background of most of the people
posting to this newsgroup, I believe that simplicity comes from
intellect and solid understanding.
I often read the posts to the sci.chem newsgroup. There are a few
people who post to this group who dont seem to like Uncleal.
I suspect it is because he has called them on their embicilic
nonsense.
If I see posts that are antiAl, I dont bother reading more. They have
revealed their relative value as a source of good information.
There is a real nutcase who poses as an Indian doctor and continues to
take up space with ridiculous postings, many of which are anti Al.
I used to wonder about people like this and what made them tick. I
came to the conclusion that it is better to ignore them and go on to
the good stuff.
Thanks to those like you and UncleAl who post interesting comments
(even if I dont understand all of the content)
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<41769618.968AFD54@hate.spam.net>...
Mike Helland wrote:
Schwartz,
In a message here you said:
"Science strives for spareness of form with maximum generality."
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3FFD9FE1.12F38E75%40hate.spam.net
Thats awesome. Did you borrow that quote from somewhere, or should I
attribute that to you?
Near as I can tell it's a typical shot from the hip with no
antecedent. It is what we do, after all. When you see an equation
that stretches for lines (other than tensor equivalents and such) you
immediately suspect somebody is trying to model an elephant with a big
pile of mice. Such flummery denies understanding - hence economics
and psychology and their inevitable bottom line disasters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
