The index line on scale C is always put over the number to be multiplied on scale D. The answer is then read off scale D, below the multiplying, number on scale C, using the cursor line for ease and accuracy
e.g. set the 1 on scale C over the 2 on scale D (note: this is not the first 2 you can see as this is actually representing 1.2, it's the larger 2). You can now read off 4, 6, 8, 10 etc. on scale D under the figures 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. on scale C (Use the cursor line to find the answer).
Then if you slide the 10 on scale C over 2 on scale D you can read multiplication answers of 2 x 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 beneath each number, so completing the scale (Use the left or right hand index,depending on the numbers to be multiplied)
That would be great. All I use essentially is Word at home and Excel at work, and I'd trade them for open source alts happily. (If I could get Linux running, I'd probably use Emacs and Latex.)
Thanks for the Mandriva suggestion. I chose RH because I'd used it before (7.2, and loved it).
R cross Z = { | a is a member of R and b is a member of Z}?
Maybe instead of 'cross' you meant 'union'? Or maybe this is some unorthodox (to me anyway) notation? I just don't understand this hint.
Anyway, is the answer not "the north pole", so the cardinality of the solution set = 1 (and not R, as the hint implies)?
just try proving something like the binomial theorem. Or trying to understand what -2! means, and why. Or even convincing yourself that when you add 32 and 549 by the common method you get the same answer you would if you put 32 strokes next to 549 strokes and counted them all up together.
Of course there are people who understand these things, but for every one of them there are a hundred more who have simply accepted them. Mathematics is a wonderland right in front of our faces.
One of the challenges in designing the Civilization games, it would seem to me, is keeping the game from becoming too centered on Western culture, i.e. its developments and accomplishments. How have you tried to address this issue? Is it important to you and your development team? For example, do you think it would be worthwhile to switch out the Hoover Dam Wonder for a Three Gorges Dam Wonder?
I hadn't thought of the inside-of-a-balloon analogy. But I think you're right that that won't work either.
But again, I don't see how this is connected to the brain. I think it's just that the idea of something expanding (literally expanding) etc. makes no sense. I'm tempted to think that talk of "expanding," "the beginning of the universe," etc., is metaphorical. There is some sort of (rather weak, it seems to me) analogy between an expanding balloon and something scientist's refer to as "the beginning of the universe." I sort of suspect (though my knowledge of cosmology is pretty limited) that scientists have a rather technical notion of "the universe" that makes it intelligible to speak of its beginning. The problem I have in trying to picture the beginning of the universe is that, as the original poster pointed out, whatever the Universe is to be contrasted with (say, a black background) must also be a _part_ of the Universe, and so the thing that I've been calling "the Universe" couldn't have been the Universe after all. I think that's the root of the problem: picturing the birth of the Universe on the model of a kind of expansion is a self-defeating endeavor.
But that's not because my brain is small, or large, or simple, or complex, or silicon-based, etc. It's because (or so I'm tempted to think) of the all-inclusiveness of our (but perhaps _not_ the cosmologists') concept of the universe.
How is the failure to understand an ill-explained concept--in this case, that of "the beginning of the universe"--the fault of my brain?
I think it's rather the fault of the scientist, or rather, of the concept. The problem is not, I think, that we're all too stupid, but that the concept doesn't make much sense. When we trying to think of the beginning of the universe on the model of a growing sphere against a black background, or on the model of an explosion, it doesn't make sense. How else should I conceive of it? What I need is a better metaphor, but I don't know where to look, and I haven't heard of one.
In my kitchen drawer I have a knife, the blade of which completely broke off years ago, and the handle of which I seem to have lost.
I guess it's not surprising to see an author borrow from his own work. I didn't realize that Dr. Chronotis had his origin in Dr. Who, but I remember reading (a long time ago) a teleplay of a Dr. Who episode in which the Krikkit Men of "Life, the Universe and Everything"-fame figured prominently. Did that script ever get produced? If not, I'd like to see them make a flash version.
"I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel"
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.pvponline.com/2005/05/10/tue-may-10/
L. Ron has been trying to tell you people for years!
The index line on scale C is always put over the number to be multiplied on scale D. The answer is then read off scale D, below the multiplying, number on scale C, using the cursor line for ease and accuracy e.g. set the 1 on scale C over the 2 on scale D (note: this is not the first 2 you can see as this is actually representing 1.2, it's the larger 2). You can now read off 4, 6, 8, 10 etc. on scale D under the figures 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. on scale C (Use the cursor line to find the answer). Then if you slide the 10 on scale C over 2 on scale D you can read multiplication answers of 2 x 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 beneath each number, so completing the scale (Use the left or right hand index,depending on the numbers to be multiplied)
longest in length, huh? do you mean, as measured in units of length?
Thanks for the Mandriva suggestion. I chose RH because I'd used it before (7.2, and loved it).
I couldn't get XWindows to run no matter what I tried. Nothing off the web helped; nothing in any Linux beginner's guide helped.
I've been equally frustrated with Windows before, but not at such an early stage of the game. I mean, a command line is only so much fun.
Z = Complex #'s?
R cross Z = { | a is a member of R and b is a member of Z}? Maybe instead of 'cross' you meant 'union'? Or maybe this is some unorthodox (to me anyway) notation? I just don't understand this hint. Anyway, is the answer not "the north pole", so the cardinality of the solution set = 1 (and not R, as the hint implies)?
just try proving something like the binomial theorem. Or trying to understand what -2! means, and why. Or even convincing yourself that when you add 32 and 549 by the common method you get the same answer you would if you put 32 strokes next to 549 strokes and counted them all up together. Of course there are people who understand these things, but for every one of them there are a hundred more who have simply accepted them. Mathematics is a wonderland right in front of our faces.
One of the challenges in designing the Civilization games, it would seem to me, is keeping the game from becoming too centered on Western culture, i.e. its developments and accomplishments. How have you tried to address this issue? Is it important to you and your development team? For example, do you think it would be worthwhile to switch out the Hoover Dam Wonder for a Three Gorges Dam Wonder?
Ohhhh... if it's supposed to be possessive, it's just 'its', but if it's supposed to be a contraction, it's 'it-apostrophe-s'. scalawag.
I hadn't thought of the inside-of-a-balloon analogy. But I think you're right that that won't work either. But again, I don't see how this is connected to the brain. I think it's just that the idea of something expanding (literally expanding) etc. makes no sense. I'm tempted to think that talk of "expanding," "the beginning of the universe," etc., is metaphorical. There is some sort of (rather weak, it seems to me) analogy between an expanding balloon and something scientist's refer to as "the beginning of the universe." I sort of suspect (though my knowledge of cosmology is pretty limited) that scientists have a rather technical notion of "the universe" that makes it intelligible to speak of its beginning. The problem I have in trying to picture the beginning of the universe is that, as the original poster pointed out, whatever the Universe is to be contrasted with (say, a black background) must also be a _part_ of the Universe, and so the thing that I've been calling "the Universe" couldn't have been the Universe after all. I think that's the root of the problem: picturing the birth of the Universe on the model of a kind of expansion is a self-defeating endeavor. But that's not because my brain is small, or large, or simple, or complex, or silicon-based, etc. It's because (or so I'm tempted to think) of the all-inclusiveness of our (but perhaps _not_ the cosmologists') concept of the universe.
How is the failure to understand an ill-explained concept--in this case, that of "the beginning of the universe"--the fault of my brain? I think it's rather the fault of the scientist, or rather, of the concept. The problem is not, I think, that we're all too stupid, but that the concept doesn't make much sense. When we trying to think of the beginning of the universe on the model of a growing sphere against a black background, or on the model of an explosion, it doesn't make sense. How else should I conceive of it? What I need is a better metaphor, but I don't know where to look, and I haven't heard of one. In my kitchen drawer I have a knife, the blade of which completely broke off years ago, and the handle of which I seem to have lost.
How did you get past the guards on mitos 15? I throw the rock to distract one of them, but then every time I approach the other guard, he shoots me!
I guess it's not surprising to see an author borrow from his own work. I didn't realize that Dr. Chronotis had his origin in Dr. Who, but I remember reading (a long time ago) a teleplay of a Dr. Who episode in which the Krikkit Men of "Life, the Universe and Everything"-fame figured prominently. Did that script ever get produced? If not, I'd like to see them make a flash version. "I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel"