Post Mortem (Bridges submission)
My 3-page paper concluding with the graphic rendered by this source code: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2015-March/011203.html (Python + POV-Ray) was roundly rejected by the Bridges reviewers. http://bridgesmathart.org/ "Citations are to Wikipedia pages, or peculiarly to the author's undergraduate philosophy thesis on Wittgenstein." says REVIEW 1, as a reason for rejection. Yes, just to the one Wikipedia page, where I get two graphics: a Wikipedia page I wrote most of, and the graphics were mine, contributed by me. Compare: http://wikieducator.org/Synergetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergetics_%28Fuller%29 "The paper is not formatted according to Bridges guidelines, as found on the Bridges website." They say it's about Art but papers are not part of the Art. The Art goes on a pedestal somewhere in the viewing chambers. The paper must conform, not express individuality or the artist's idiosyncrasies (cite "peculiarly"). REVIEW 2: "The paper first reminds us (in a very complicated way) that the volume of a tetrahedron with edge-length 2 is 0.9428. But after that it is not clear, what this paper is trying to tell us." What it's trying to tell you is that volume is 1.00000 in Synergetics because 3rd powering is modeled as an extrapolation of this treatment of A X B: https://youtu.be/2B1XXV2Eoh8 A x B x C is modeled as 3 edges from the origin of a regular tetrahedron. The lid defined by the three lengths defines a volume. When all edges are D (2R, 2 x radius of the unit-radius balls), that's Unit Volume. So we need a conversion constant: SQRT(9/8). That's in the published literature. I cited Dr. Bob Gray on that one. Review of the reviews: shows no comprehension of Synergetics which, having been published in the 1970s, is not something we should still be so clueless about, especially at a Math + Art conference. My confidence in the Bridges review process was never very high. I look forward to sharing these negative reviews as symptomatic of institutional retardation. Here's the paper, feel free to take a look: http://4dsolutions.net/synergetica/bridges_paper_final.pdf Read and make up your own mind. "The paper unfortunately does not give this reader any confidence that the author knows how to communicate clearly, which is important for Bridges conference purposes." REVIEW 1. Kirby
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:43 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
My 3-page paper concluding with the graphic rendered by this source code:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2015-March/011203.html (Python + POV-Ray)
was roundly rejected by the Bridges reviewers. http://bridgesmathart.org/
They rejected my friend David's paper too. We were hoping to present back to back. I set up the volume units, David phi-scales them. David: "I stand by describing the volume of an icosahedron in E modules 420E + 100e3 = 18.512995" Bridges: ""Outside some tedious but not very deep mathematics there is no artistic or other cultural component that one expects to see in a formal Bridges paper.” As a proposal screener for OSCON I'm mystified as to why they have reviewers directly taunting the proposers, especially when it's about Art for crying out loud. Where's the respect? I hope PSF takes this as a lesson. Minus a real Code of Conduct you're opening yourself to abuse. Your company submits a paper and it comes back with heaping bucket fulls of scorn. We don't do that with Pycon. We're friendly, not gratuitously rude. At least I got to the roadshow version at Portland State, branded as Mosaic. http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-tale-of-two-logos.html I had planned to invite my daughter to this, maybe meet the famous Vi, but that was before the many insults. Maybe Vi will come to Pycon. She'd be most welcome I bet. Kirby
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:43 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
My 3-page paper concluding with the graphic rendered by this source code:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2015-March/011203.html (Python + POV-Ray)
was roundly rejected by the Bridges reviewers. http://bridgesmathart.org/
They rejected my friend David's paper too. We were hoping to present back to back. I set up the volume units, David phi-scales them.
David: "I stand by describing the volume of an icosahedron in E modules 420E + 100e3 = 18.512995"
Just to give the flavor of David's paper, a bit arcane but accessible to high schoolers: """ PHI SCALING By scaling the edges of the E module larger or smaller by increments of phi we increase/decrease the volume by phi to the third power. The notation used describes the various sizes of the E module as they are scaled by phi^1 and their volumes are greatened or lessened by phi^3. Note the lower case e is used for the phi^-3 increments and E = e, but e alone is not utilized. E module denotations e6 = ((sqrt 2)/8)phi^-9 or .002325 e3 = ((sqrt 2)/8)phi^-6 or .009851 E = ((sqrt 2)/8)phi^-3 or .041731 E3 = ((sqrt 2)/8)phi^0 or .176766 E6 = ((sqrt 2)/8)phi^3 or .748838 The T module = 1/24 or .041666 The E module can be made of lesser scaled modules with the general volumetric relationship: E3 = 4E + 1e3 = 17e3 + 4e6 and so on. Likewise the volume of which has been dubbed the Super RT or a rhombic triacontahedron with a radius of phi^1 and the long diagonal of the rhombic face = 2, which is RBFullers edge for the tetrahedron, octahedron and the VE or cuboctahdron and the resultant icosahedron from the Jitterbug transformation process. The volume of the Super RT is 15√2 or 21.213203. 120E3 = 480E + 120e3 VOLUMES OF FIVE-FOLD POLYHEDRA The icosahedron with an edge of 2, inscribe within the Super RT, it has a volume of 18.52295 or 5(sqrt 2)phi^2. It has an exact E module volume of 100E + 20e3 or 420e3 + 100e6. The pentagonal dodecahedron, which inscribes in the Super RT with edges = 2(phi^-1) has a volume of 15.350018 = 84E + 12e3 = 348e3 + 84e6 """ You get the gist yes? He's measuring volumes in terms of a sliver, a tetrahedron, in various scales (shape constant). I've done a lot of Python code around these modules, the E, T, A and B, sometimes using Cyrillic to show off Unicode: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2014-May/011026.html Here's a picture of the E module: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f86411b.html (120 of these guys assemble into a rhombic triacontahedron).
Bridges: ""Outside some tedious but not very deep mathematics there is no artistic or other cultural component that one expects to see in a formal Bridges paper.”
Another reason they rejected David's paper is his choice of symbols for Phi was what the reader used for Null, as in Null Set. Wrong Unicode glyph! David is a union pipe fitter, a blue collar guy. He does his best to conform to academic rules but sometimes he makes mistakes. Kirby OST
VOLUMES OF FIVE-FOLD POLYHEDRA
The icosahedron with an edge of 2, inscribe within the Super RT, it has a volume of 18.52295 or 5(sqrt 2)phi^2. It has an exact E module volume of 100E + 20e3 or 420e3 + 100e6.
The pentagonal dodecahedron, which inscribes in the Super RT with edges = 2(phi^-1) has a volume of 15.350018 = 84E + 12e3 = 348e3 + 84e6
"""
Oops, I quoted from an early draft. David corrected me: On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 3:45 AM, David Koski wrote: The volumes for the icosahedron and pentagonal dodecahedron are not correct on this Should be Icosahedron = 100E3 + 20E = 420E + 100e3 Pentagonal Dodecahedron = 84E3 +12E = 348E + 84e3 All better now. Kirby OST
participants (2)
-
kirby urner -
Kirby Urner