On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ > >> >> > >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') > >> > > >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. > >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become > >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? > >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot. > >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. > >> That's curious. > > > >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented. > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator > > > "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by > Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom > have original ideas.Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high level guidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details. Einstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minutia.> > I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but > it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case.
ee's without math
Started by ●December 8, 2023
Reply by ●December 9, 20232023-12-09
Reply by ●December 9, 20232023-12-09
On 09/12/2023 16:10, John Larkin wrote: <snip>> We do polynomials all the time, in code or an FPGA, to linearize > things, like digitizing a resistor-thrmistor voltage divider into > temperature. Or yesterday, padding a digital capacitor to tweak its > effect on an LC oscillator. But that doesn't involve solving > equations; we run simulations, apply instincts, and tune.Sure, you can fit things with polynomials if that's the only tool you have, but IME there's often a better way. Labfit is a free program which tries all sorts of weird and wonderful equations, usually things you won't have thought of yourself. https://www.labfit.net/ -- Cheers Clive
Reply by ●December 9, 20232023-12-09
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:18:11 AM UTC-8, Clive Arthur wrote:> On 09/12/2023 16:10, John Larkin wrote: > > <snip> > > We do polynomials all the time, in code or an FPGA, to linearize > > things, like digitizing a resistor-thrmistor voltage divider into > > temperature. Or yesterday, padding a digital capacitor to tweak its > > effect on an LC oscillator. But that doesn't involve solving > > equations; we run simulations, apply instincts, and tune. > Sure, you can fit things with polynomials if that's the only tool you > have, but IME there's often a better way. Labfit is a free program > which tries all sorts of weird and wonderful equations, usually things > you won't have thought of yourself. > > https://www.labfit.net/Yes, there's certainly better ways; Legendre polynomials for interval-specific things, and Chebyshev polynomials for conjoined segments, for instance, are common ways to shoehorn a problem into that limited shoe. They're ugly. Even fractals have broad utility, and Fourier representations can beat polynomials all hollow. Give wavelets a chance, too!
Reply by ●December 9, 20232023-12-09
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ >> >> >> >> >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') >> >> > >> >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >> >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become >> >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? >> >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot. >> >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. >> >> That's curious. >> > >> >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented. >> > >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator >> > >> "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by >> Szil�rd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom >> have original ideas. > >Whoever wrote that is a fool. Einstein was obviously providing high level guidance on the project, and Szilard was tasked with working the details. Einstein was busy with more important things than to waste himself on minutia. >Guidance is not invention.
Reply by ●December 9, 20232023-12-09
On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:12:20 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ >> >> >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') >> > >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot. >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. >> That's curious. >> >> Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules >> didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places. > >Slide rule is a form of nomogram: > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule > >Now how does an applications engineer need to know anything to 9-places? Digital doesn't count.We work in PPMs and nanovolts in analog stuff, PPBs or worse for frequency. And I'm a designer, not an applications engineer.
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:19:54 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs > >> <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ > >> >> > >> >> (The aussies call it 'maths') > >> > > >> >This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. > >> I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become > >> products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? > >> >Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author of article is a case point, a complete idiot. > >> Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. > >> That's curious. > > > >Actually he did, he collaborated on the design of a refrigerator, and it was patented. > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator > > > "It has been suggested that most of the actual inventing was done by > Szilárd". That aligns with my observation that professor types seldom > have original ideas.John Larkin has his name on one patent taken out by a group he was collaborating with. probably because they felt the need to flatter him. I've got three patents, and my father and two of my friends have got roughly 25 each. John Larkin doesn't know much about original ideas. And he doesn't know much about professors either - Einstein wasn't a "professor type", he was a card -carrying genius.> I'd think that staring at equations would suggest possibilities, but it rarely does. The positron is an interesting case.Paul Dirac stared at a lot equations - most of which he had formulated, in order to explain what seemed to be happening. The prediction of the positron was an incidental results of that whole process, not of just staring at equations. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 4:20:25 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:> Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol. If someone strode > into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big, > swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser > minions were simply in awe. If you want to make an entrance - I mean a > *real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.I don't recall ever seeing a slide rule being displayed as a status symbol. By and large marketing and management went in for status symbols, and the engineers let their reputations create any impression that might have been necessary. One can see why Curistor Doom might want to make an "entrance" - he'd be hard pressed to deliver an impressive performance. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 6:52:25 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:43:09 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 12:19:54?PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:07:05 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:<snip>> Guidance is not invention.And John Larkin doesn't know anything about either. He's not got a patent of his own, and the "guidance" he offers here isn't impressive. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 6:54:34 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 09:12:20 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:25:51?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:<snip>> We work in PPMs and nanovolts in analog stuff, PPBs or worse for frequency.Who doesn't?> And I'm a designer, not an applications engineer.For a very loose definition of the word "designer". In fact his business is cobbling together circuits for particular applications. and he once claimed that most of them got put together and completely documented in a fortnight. Jim Williams was as serious applications engineer, if not quite as serious as he should have been. -- Bill Sloman, Sydhey
Reply by ●December 10, 20232023-12-10
On a sunny day (Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:20:15 +0000) it happened Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote in <q289ni9drc3oheh73viiqgihn2slrohj83@4ax.com>:>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 08:25:01 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 07:13:48 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs >><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 11:05:59?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>> https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/mathematics/ripple-effects-of-maths-crisis-spread-to-engineering/ >>>> >>>> (The aussies call it 'maths') >>> >>>This may come as a surprise to you, but engineers were NEVER good at math. >> >>I have a couple that are. But I have more crazy ideas - that become >>products - than they do. Is that a correlation somehow? >> >>>Hence all these charts, graphs, nomo's, table lookups, handbooks, standards, arithmeticization of transcendental math ( >>>transforms) and whatever else it took to get them *numbers* in least time, if at all. Engineers used to be exceptionally good at >>>arithmetic. They used to be ridiculously pathetic programmers totally lacking in analytical and organizational skills, and probably >>>still are AFAIK. Then don't even let them near singularities. Heaviside's so-called analysis is mere symbolic arithmetic. Author >>>of article is a case point, a complete idiot. >> >>Einstein almost invented a few things, like the laser, but didn't. >>That's curious. >> >>Calculators erased the need to be good at arithmetic. Slide rules >>didn't add or subtract or work to 9 places. > >Maybe not. But they *were* a coveted status symbol. If someone strode >into the office with a slide rule hooked to their belt, like a big, >swinging dick, you *knew* immediately he was an engineer. Lesser >minions were simply in awe. If you want to make an entrance - I mean a >*real* entrance - clutching a calculator simply won't cut it.Just wear a tin foil hat :-) Propeller hat will do too! Or these days: Jetpack
