Editing Talk:2694: Königsberg
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | ||
+ | ; Aluminum foil | ||
Why would aluminum foil be valuable? I can see how it would be hard to produce at the time. But how would it be used and why would people of the time see a lot of value in it? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.65|172.71.146.65]] 03:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | Why would aluminum foil be valuable? I can see how it would be hard to produce at the time. But how would it be used and why would people of the time see a lot of value in it? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.65|172.71.146.65]] 03:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
:Good question, but I'm persuaded the novelty and scarcity of metallic aluminium would have made it plenty valuable among those already wealthy enough to recognize what it was. Prussia was wealthy and Königsberg was its largest port city back then, so probably the mayor would have been able. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.205|172.70.206.205]] 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | :Good question, but I'm persuaded the novelty and scarcity of metallic aluminium would have made it plenty valuable among those already wealthy enough to recognize what it was. Prussia was wealthy and Königsberg was its largest port city back then, so probably the mayor would have been able. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.205|172.70.206.205]] 03:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
::::: But, for aluminium foil, I suspect it would have been like pineapples in English(/European?) stately circles... Not to be used for anything practical, but shown off (as long as it did not deteriote beyond a certain point), possibly there'd be money to be made in 'hiring it out' to decorate tables at fancy dinners (in carefully handled fragments, after the first few tearing incidents). L | ::::: But, for aluminium foil, I suspect it would have been like pineapples in English(/European?) stately circles... Not to be used for anything practical, but shown off (as long as it did not deteriote beyond a certain point), possibly there'd be money to be made in 'hiring it out' to decorate tables at fancy dinners (in carefully handled fragments, after the first few tearing incidents). L | ||
:::::: “Not to be used for anything practical”: Well they could wrap their leftovers in it… | :::::: “Not to be used for anything practical”: Well they could wrap their leftovers in it… | ||
− | |||
− | |||
::::: No doubt a natural philosopher or somesuch would give his eyeteeth to analyse the substance, but being so far beyond the ability to recreate (assuming they discovered what they might even need to do) it would take the bankrolling of an extremely rich patron to obtain permanent posession of some without obligation to return it to the social circuit situations. So easily destructed (I wonder if they'd discover thermite a hundred and more years early, before they ran out of potentially finely shredded aluminium?) or at least aesthetically denatured. | ::::: No doubt a natural philosopher or somesuch would give his eyeteeth to analyse the substance, but being so far beyond the ability to recreate (assuming they discovered what they might even need to do) it would take the bankrolling of an extremely rich patron to obtain permanent posession of some without obligation to return it to the social circuit situations. So easily destructed (I wonder if they'd discover thermite a hundred and more years early, before they ran out of potentially finely shredded aluminium?) or at least aesthetically denatured. | ||
:::::I suppose a screwed up ball of foil (carefully glued together internally, of all fragments still reobtainable) could be the end-game for the original roll, and a wonder it could still be (again, taking the "pineapple place" on the tables of the high and mighty, relatively untarnishing as it would be and gingerly some lucky few would be allowed to hold it and marvel at its sharp fragility and metallic lightness. | :::::I suppose a screwed up ball of foil (carefully glued together internally, of all fragments still reobtainable) could be the end-game for the original roll, and a wonder it could still be (again, taking the "pineapple place" on the tables of the high and mighty, relatively untarnishing as it would be and gingerly some lucky few would be allowed to hold it and marvel at its sharp fragility and metallic lightness. | ||
:::::...or, in another destiny, perhaps it would be given to a master tailor, in order to (try to?) create some sartorial masterpiece for one or other monarch of the age. Not that I'm sure they'd be able to accomplish that properly (limited pre-offcut trials on how to attach it to underfelts/whatever and to somehow exploit its flexibility without exceeding its very low tolerance for shear-force damage). It'd be a story and a half, whatever happened to it! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | :::::...or, in another destiny, perhaps it would be given to a master tailor, in order to (try to?) create some sartorial masterpiece for one or other monarch of the age. Not that I'm sure they'd be able to accomplish that properly (limited pre-offcut trials on how to attach it to underfelts/whatever and to somehow exploit its flexibility without exceeding its very low tolerance for shear-force damage). It'd be a story and a half, whatever happened to it! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
::::::"Aim for brevity while avoiding jargon." —Edsger Dijkstra [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.210|172.69.33.210]] 06:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ::::::"Aim for brevity while avoiding jargon." —Edsger Dijkstra [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.210|172.69.33.210]] 06:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
Noting that "the citizens' old coffeehouse problem" (c.f. linked reference), originally of how to cross the bridges was never solved but instead proven by Euler to be insoluble. He did give a proof to satisfy those who had henceforth decided there perhaps could be no solution, but that necessarily postdates the initial issue that could not originally be solved, and which Euler (in turn) also did not solve. But how to rewrite this to everyone's satisfaction? I see a bit of a tussle of interpretation in the edit history over this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | Noting that "the citizens' old coffeehouse problem" (c.f. linked reference), originally of how to cross the bridges was never solved but instead proven by Euler to be insoluble. He did give a proof to satisfy those who had henceforth decided there perhaps could be no solution, but that necessarily postdates the initial issue that could not originally be solved, and which Euler (in turn) also did not solve. But how to rewrite this to everyone's satisfaction? I see a bit of a tussle of interpretation in the edit history over this. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
:Proving that a problem has no solution is still called solving it in math and logic. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | :Proving that a problem has no solution is still called solving it in math and logic. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.126|172.70.211.126]] 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
::That's solving the issue of the solution (if you've proved there is none), at the meta- level. It is described as a "negative resolution" in the primary wikilink, which adds another semantic complexity but at least points to what was proven. Right in its first paragraph. For the everyday reader that hasn't yet burrowed into the wikilink, and without in-depth knowledge of terminological scope, they shouldn't be given the wrong idea about what question was actually answered. And "We've solved it: there's no solution!" is not a particularly helpful reduction of this kind of outcome. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ::That's solving the issue of the solution (if you've proved there is none), at the meta- level. It is described as a "negative resolution" in the primary wikilink, which adds another semantic complexity but at least points to what was proven. Right in its first paragraph. For the everyday reader that hasn't yet burrowed into the wikilink, and without in-depth knowledge of terminological scope, they shouldn't be given the wrong idea about what question was actually answered. And "We've solved it: there's no solution!" is not a particularly helpful reduction of this kind of outcome. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 16:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |