This is going to seem a bit off-topic, but my goal is to show how CS might recruit more liberal arts majors by focusing on namespaces in the humanities. Like I was saying earlier, every professor, of Near Eastern Studies, of Molecular Biology, of Postmodern Poetics, whatever BS, is a walking talking live specimen namespace. And when you get two or more professors in a room, what typically happens? Name collisions, and lots of them. So how has computer science helped solve the problem of name collisions, at least for the benefit of our poor slave electronic robots (AI bots), with no hope of understanding the subtlties of "context" without it? By means of dot notation, is one way. In Python, we'll see what that looks like. But let's get back to those professors for a moment, and take a good example of a name collision, familiar to everyone who studies Bucky Fuller's stuff on occasion (i.e. probably most gnu math teachers). Over on Synergeo (another obscure archive where I'm sometimes active), you'll maybe find some "chalkboard notation" like this: coxeter.4d < > einstein.4d < > fuller.4d What that refers to is the three different trajectories taken by the '4D' meme since like around 1900, when it was caught up in a maelstrom of competing schools of thought.[1] In his 'Regular Polytopes' this master geometer (who recently died -- there's new bio out), H.S.M. Coxeter takes pains to differentiate *his* meaning of "four dimensional" from that of the spacetime Relativity's.[2][3] Coxeter's *not* saying the Einsteinians are wrong to have their own namespace, just that the two schools have different usages for this same '4D' meme. Not getting that there's a difference will lead only to confusion. He mentions some science fiction that fell into this trap. The difference? In hyperspatial geometry, you have as many dimensions as you want, and they're all spatial. In Relativity, the time dimension is singled out for special treatment. Fuller, meanwhile, held back publishing his gestating meaning for '4D' until much later in life (1970s), and, upon unveiling, it turned out to be neither Coxeter's nor Einstein's, but had some family resemblance to both. Fuller's 4D is very like everyday high school's 3D, i.e. the XYZ apparatus, anchored at an origin (0,0,0) is conceived to exist independently of any specific event in spacetime. There's no "where or when" questions that need answering. XYZ exists in pure conceptuality, and gives us a refined idea of "a mathematical space" that's very like our own personal circumstances (i.e. spatial, volumetric), yet is conveniently devoid of what philosophers of the day called "secondary characteristics" e.g. color, sound, tactility -- the messy business of energetic reality. Why Fuller called it 4D instead of 3D is he was very impressed by the simple nature of the Tetrahedron, the fact that it had fewer faces, edges and vertices than the cube. In the world of hard edges, skeletons, sticks, it seemed the simplest of shapes (not a new realization -- mathematicians often call it The Simplex). Spheres seem a lot smoother, true, but in stick world they're just hugely multi-faceted and hence not simple at all. Axiomatically, one needn't buy a Continuum to practice geometry per Democritus. Buckaneering is digital, seems analog only because everything does. And the tetrahedron simply radiates 4ness, really more than 3ness, although the two complementary 3-edge spiral zig-zags always and only co-exist (as the local namespace would have it). And then, taking a page from Kant, we simply identify conceptuality with this Tetrahedron Space (a 4-space) and scoff at Abbott's 'Flatland' as a conceptual impossibility (i.e. we only *pretend* we can imagine a space of fewer dimensions -- always forgetting about the camera). Anyway, this is all a very different namespace than either Professor Coxeter or Professor Einstein were using. More philosophical, vs. Coxeter's mathematical and Einstein's physical. Each guy had his own trademark brand of 4D, and developed his thinking accordingly, systematically, consistently. Fuller came along late in the game, threw a new '4D' in the ring. So as of the 1970s, we have at least three, distinct, not-equal usage patterns, yet all using the same name. What are the chances of name collisions? Very high. But learning from computer science, and Python especially, we have this simple way of cleaning up the mess: use dot notation, to anchor names to their users, their professors (those who profess (Fuller claimed not to be "professing" but was just quibbling over verbs (always the stickler))). coxeter.4d < > einstein.4d < > fuller.4d In sum, I'm including this little chalkboard lecture on "The Three Meanings of 4D" in order to show how we, the liberal arts humanties types, have become enamoured of dot notation as a way to sort out name collisions, and the messes they sometimes engender. Ever since we in the Fuller School got clear on this "three schools" picture, we've had a lot easier time lowering the noise level in our meetings. As Fuller Schoolers, we're less likely to flounder around in BS, and we credit nearby Python Nation's high level of intelligence and civilization for helping us out. We import. We thrive. And we hope our exports are valued too (it's about trading, not stealing i.e. keeping in balance). Kirby [1] Linda Dalrymple Henderson. The Fourth Dimension and Non-Euclidean Geometry in Modern Art (Hardcover). ISBN 0691040087 [2] H.S.M Coxeter, 'Regular Polytopes' ISBN 0486614808, pg. 119 [3] The King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter: the Man Who Saved Geometry (Hardcover) by Siobhan Roberts -- which I just purchased about a minute ago from Amazon.com.