Just to be clear, the first paragraph of my post was a quote from Kevin Lynch (beginning with "Also, given that official weather... And ending "... Even if there's no climate change. ") in his post 'Everyone's a winner " My apologies for not editing the subject line and making the quote apparent. So I was commenting on his quote, not asking a question. On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 09:31 <math-fun-request@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Send math-fun mailing list submissions to math-fun@mailman.xmission.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to math-fun-request@mailman.xmission.com
You can reach the person managing the list at math-fun-owner@mailman.xmission.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of math-fun digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Everyone's a winner! (Dan Asimov) 2. Re: Everyone's a winner! (James Propp) 3. Re: math-fun Digest, Vol 185, Issue 48 (Stuart Anderson) 4. Re: math-fun Digest, Vol 185, Issue 48 (Dan Asimov) 5. Re: 3D printers & musical instruments (Hilarie Orman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 11:07:46 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Everyone's a winner! Message-ID: <1439810851.8502.1532455666695@wamui-jasmine.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
----- You're a physicists? How many? :-)
... ...
Similarly, Randall Monroe pointed out that, per unit mass, a firefly is thousands of times brighter than the sun. See https://what-if.xkcd.com/151/ -----
Maybe you mean Randall Munroe? :-)
?Dan
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:15:42 -0400 From: James Propp <jamespropp@gmail.com> To: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>, math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Everyone's a winner! Message-ID: <CA+G9J-fM-G46625f5+LMJkzuZPVrvawh+dfrG= TE+F_DjiU0Fw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
I don't know if everyone's a winner, but it seems everyone's a comedian. :-)
Jim
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> wrote:
----- You're a physicists? How many? :-)
... ...
Similarly, Randall Monroe pointed out that, per unit mass, a firefly is thousands of times brighter than the sun. See https://what-if.xkcd.com/151/ -----
Maybe you mean Randall Munroe? :-)
?Dan
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 07:32:16 +1000 From: Stuart Anderson <stuart.errol.anderson@gmail.com> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [math-fun] math-fun Digest, Vol 185, Issue 48 Message-ID: <CA+3-r9PiXBQN1fx= 8qagPXeDomt4oDzoEreh_S6EgAfTQRi8Xw@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Also, given that official weather records have only been kept for about 150 years in the US, as there are more than twice that many days in a year it's unusual if at least one day each year *doesn't* set a record for highest or lowest temperature, or most rainfall or snowfall, for that date, even if there's no climate change.
If each of the years were statistically independent with no el Nino climate correlation or climate forcing wouldn't the expected number of record setting events be equal to the sum of the number of terms of the harmonic series? For 150 years that would be about 5.6 and as time goes on records would be set less often.
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 16:01:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] math-fun Digest, Vol 185, Issue 48 Message-ID: < 1123546516.18500.1532473261302@wamui-kristoff.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
As I try to think about this, I'm getting confused between records for *years* (of what?) and records for *specific days* in a year, which are also mentioned.
Aha ? I now see that I'm *also* confused about "expected number of record-setting events"). Since records began? Okay, now it makes sense.
I would need to know *exactly what* type of record-setting events, and also *exactly what knowledge* of these events is assumed when calculating the probability.
E.g., is this asking what the expected number of records will be, before record-keeping began and assuming no knowledge of new records after they are made? Looks that way.
?Dan
((( Many real-world records, like fastest marathon ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_world_record_progression#Men), show periods of steady, almost differentiable growth over the years, but also have plenty of what look like discontinuities. )))
?Dan
Stuart Anderson wrote: ---- Also, given that official weather records have only been kept for about 150 years in the US, as there are more than twice that many days in a year it's unusual if at least one day each year *doesn't* set a record for highest or lowest temperature, or most rainfall or snowfall, for that date, even if there's no climate change.
If each of the years were statistically independent with no el Nino climate correlation or climate forcing wouldn't the expected number of record setting events be equal to the sum of the number of terms of the harmonic series?
For 150 years that would be about 5.6 and as time goes on records would be set less often. -----
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 17:30:55 -0600 From: "Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [math-fun] 3D printers & musical instruments Message-ID: <201807242330.w6ONUtpq015735@rumpleteazer.rhmr.com>
There are 3D printed violins, but they are indeed too heavy. There are electric violins with lovely 3D printed pieces, and there is some hope for customizing such instruments to the anatomy of the artist, and that might be worth the cost of the instrument (for jazz or country musicians).
Let me note (a 441 A) in passing that the mystique of a Strad is largely due to marketing hype from a couple of hundred years ago. Yes, they are generally very good instruments, but they have been modified from their original construction to meet modern demands (and to repair them from sometimes awful injuries!). Newly minted instruments from a master luthier can sound equally good.
In considering design alternatives based on "aesthetics", it is important to consider the artist as part of that. The instrument must respond to control by the artist, it must be predictable, it must have a range of dimensions and an intuitive interface with tactile feedback. I think that this might be achieved with nanomaterials and active control. I've no idea how to do this, nor if it amounts to "reinvent wood."
Hilarie
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 09:22:19 -0400 Richard Howard contended:
Airplanes don't have feathers. Given 3D printing and full acoustic simulation, why would you make a "violin". That design came from another set of constraints (properties of wood, available configuration tools, etc.). New instrument would be based on other constraints, which could use principles of aesthetics.
--R
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Simon Plouffe <simon.plouffe@gmail.com
wrote:
​Hello,
they made one experiment once to make a violin from scratch using a design based on acoustic and physics only, they actually ​succeeded in making one, the sound was good, even comparable to a Stradivarius, it worked, the only thing is that the violin was ugly. The article was on Scientific American a long time ago.
I think that 3D printing is about the same, we probably could print a violin, it could also sound pretty good, but it won't replace the look and feel and lightness of a wooden real model. Does anybody ever saw the film : The Red Violin ?
Best regards, Simon Plouffe _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
------------------------------
End of math-fun Digest, Vol 185, Issue 49 *****************************************