Technical knowledge transfer

[Freethinker]

Chill. I was the one from the beginning that said the lines were just another symbolic representation that needed reference.

 

I was just playing around.

 

And for the record, the concept was that the dot is the intertia of a body at rest. Nothing, the smallest dot I could generate. The other line is actually "infinite" as it would resize with the display.

 

Thus the path of a body at rest and a body in motion.

[Uncle Martin]

I didn't even notice the dot and line 'till you mentioned it. Now I understand.

[TeleMad]

Sorry FreeThinker, I didn't read through the thread. My bad.

 

I may be wrong, but now it looks to me that you, Uncle Martin, and I agree on a few things...such as the lines being symbols and their not being able to communicate information without preexisting or accopanying context.

[Freethinker]

Ya, a FEW things, your not ALWAYS wrong! :-)

 

And yes, I see lines as just another symbolic language system.

[FrankM]

Ogham is a straight forward "line" language. Most of the letter forms do not require complex shapes

thus making it easier to chisel into wood or rock. Ogham requires a reference to the original language

to be understood.

 

I still think one can present a mathematical concept using just lines, that are proportional or scaled,

and the only requirement for it to be understood is that you know the same mathematical concepts.

Once you know that a set of lines can present mathematical concepts, you then would be able to

extend this to scientific concepts.

 

The example I cited, with a 1/4, 1/2 and full wavelength at 21.106 cm identified several scientific

principles with just three lines. It still requires the reader to know what 21.106 cm means. Once

you know a specific wavelength/frequency is being presented with lines, then another specific frequency

could be presented as a wavelength, which might mean, listen here, or it might be another basic emission,

which we may or may not be familiar with.

[Freethinker]

FrankM, for what it's worth, with this thread going in so many different directions, ...

 

I am not arguing that lines could not form some method of communicating information. I was just relating it to the subject of this thread. Which as you first posted, stated:

Originally posted by: FrankM

Can complex mathematical and scientific concepts be presented without a textual reference or a symbolic language? Once you think about it, I am sure one or more methods will come to mind.

But I do not see a line based language as not being a "symbolic language".

 

I am still wondering how you are going to fill that requirement. Do you have another example?

[FrankM]

The set of lines I used in my examples is a symbolic system, it is not a language, it has no syntactical

basis. I can present the mathematical information with any size line, just so long as they are proportional.

 

It is possible to create a line system that consistently presents information the same way, but then one

has created a syntax of usage, which then qualifies it essentially the same as a language. My examples

were random, standalone for each concept presented. I guess we are done.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: FrankM

The set of lines I used in my examples is a symbolic system, it is not a language, it has no syntactical basis.

syntactics - a branch of (a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols) that deals with the formal relations between signs or expressions in abstraction from their signification and their interpreters (WWWebsters).

 

Thus it would be obvious that your lines ARE "syntactical".

My examples were random, standalone for each concept presented. I guess we are done.

Random? But you claimed they had specific ratio's RE their length. How can it be random and sepcifically relational at the same time?

 

Guess WE are not done. Proclaimation to the contrary aside.

 

Unless you mean you just can't try to explain it away any better than that?