jbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (11/14/85)
Net.math has had a high volume of inappropriate postings lately. There seem
to be three main areas:
1) Is the mind representable as a computer? This started legitimately enough,
as a discussion of Godel's Theorem and its implications. The current
discussion has very little to do with math; please post it only to
net.philosophy. You might add net.ai to get more interested people involved.
2) Traveling polar bears. This is what net.puzzle is for. I know that a lot
of net.math people like puzzles, but they read net.puzzle as well. In
fact, many of the articles were cross-posted to net.puzzle.
3) Neural nets. This belongs in net.arch (computer architecture), and maybe
net.cog-eng (cognitive engineering) or net.ai.
There's a reason to use the right group. You're likely to get a better
discussion started.
Let's have more math in net.math. Sorry there's not more math in this
article.
--
Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc.
UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd.
ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (11/18/85)
> 2) Traveling polar bears. This is what net.puzzle is for. I know that a lot > of net.math people like puzzles, but they read net.puzzle as well. > Let's have more math in net.math. > Joe Buck Certainly the first polar bear problems were not very original, and they required more creativity than mathematics. However, I think the most recent sequel, "traveling" polar bears, belongs in net.math. (Should have picked a different title). Unless I am missing an obvious solution, it seems to require a fair amount of math, at least to prove the answer. It may not be graduate math, but it is interesting (to me) nonetheless. The problem, for those of you who self-righteously skipped it, was essentially this: Construct a topography, such that a bicycle equipped with square wheels has a smooth ride when traveling over this terrain. I started thinking about the problem, and decided it was ambiguous. Thus, the reason for this article. Can the originator of this problem define "smooth" ride for me. One possibility is "level" ride. That is, the rider doesn't move up and down. Another possibility is an "inertial" ride. That is, the speed is constant, for a given peddling rate. Perhaps both conditions must be satisfied (seems unlikely). Perhaps the "energy" expended by the rider should be constant, for a given peddling rate (no need to shif gears). Please clarify. Thanks. Does this problem have a more general solution, say for bicycles with N-sided wheels? Are there wheels which never permit a smooth ride? -- Nothing's worse than a dishwasher full of spotty dishes. Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad