From the San Francisco Chronicle, August 5th, on the Archimedes documents. "Archimedes' words, it turns out, took a long and winding road to Stanford after he jotted them down in the 10th century,.." We're not surprised when journalists are confused on scientific matters, but shouldn't they be able to get the history right? This one is off by more than a millenium. dg At 09:26 PM 8/3/2006, you wrote:

1) I went to an excellent talk on this tonight. This is great stuff!

2) Here's the web site http://archimedespalimpsest.org/

3) Here's a photo of Stan Isaacs showing George Miller's stomachion puzzle replica to Nick Baxter and John Watson, just after the lecture http://www.flickr.com/photos/thane/206197024/

4) Tomorrow, at 4pm Pacific (US time), there's a live webcast http://www.exploratorium.com/archimedes/index.html where they're going to reveal pages (perhaps even scanned in near-real time)

Thane Plambeck http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm

Simon Plouffe wrote:

...

This just came out,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5235894.stm

They found a way to read a old document with x-rays.

simon plouffe

_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun

_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun