[Edu-sig] Post Mortem (Bridges submission)

[kirby urner]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/attachments/20150409/51e24736/attachment.html>