| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
| | | | |
| | I thought the title text was referring to the danger of lines on a 2d graph "falling through" the hole and inadvertently gaining a third dimension, which might collide with graphs at z=-1 etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.75|162.158.34.75]] 16:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC) | | I thought the title text was referring to the danger of lines on a 2d graph "falling through" the hole and inadvertently gaining a third dimension, which might collide with graphs at z=-1 etc. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.75|162.158.34.75]] 16:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
| − |
| |
| − | My RSS reader picked this comic up at exactly midnight UTC on Feb 8, which stood out to me because usually they seem to be posted later in the day. [[User:Danielp82|Danielp82]] ([[User talk:Danielp82|talk]]) 04:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This comic reminded me of Complex Analysis, where we integrate in circles around singularities of complex functions (aka holes). See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_integral_formula Cauchy integral formula]. Maybe we should mention that in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 07:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | :The beauty of the Wiki is that you can add it yourself, if you think you can word it relevently. Or anyone who now wants to. (Whoever does, note that <code><nowiki>{{w|Cauchy's integral formula}}</nowiki></code>, or an altered text version like your <code><nowiki>{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy integral formula}}</nowiki></code>, would be the prefered wikilink format to use.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.151|141.101.98.151]] 08:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I made the unfortunate but defensible change from "airmen" to "air missions". The FAA re-consecrated "NOTAM" to the gender-neutral (and execrable) form on 2 Dec 2022. The "airmen" form may still be in use by ICAO or nations other than the US. [[User:Der57|Der57]] ([[User talk:Der57|talk]]) 10:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Don't you think it's uncharacteristic of Randall to deviate from the normal math practice of placing the x coordinate first before the y coordinate when not explicitly identifying them? Furthermore, each coordinate is backwards from the convention of smaller number first, then larger? This is so out of step for him I think he did it deliberately and we're missing a subtle joke... [[User:Paso Dan|Paso Dan]] ([[User talk:Paso Dan|talk]]) 16:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | :What are you talking about. He lists the number as (X, Y) completely normal with X on the lower axis and Y on the one going up and so does the numbers he gives follow normal style. Also he starts with the number that comes first on the x-axis. See no reason to start with another, and this is also relevant for making it look like he is given a time period. Seems to me you must have made a mental mistake when you wrote this? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Yeah, like Kynde said, he's using standard notation... the region (1.5, 1), x = 1.5 and y = 1, and (2, 1.5), x = 2 and y = 1.5... X first, then Y, standard. He even plots those points, with dotted lines denoting a square "cordoned" off... And when sorted, graph points usually go left-to-right (so, ascending order by X), which he did. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | :I get what Paso Dan is saying, and it was my impression as well. Indicating that the coordinate plane is closed between two ''points'' (A,B) and (C,D) doesn't by itself tell you whether the closure is along the line between those two points, or a circle with a diameter running from (A,B) to (C,D), or some other 2-D shape. The diagram indicates a square with corners at (A,B) and (C,D) and sides parallel to the axes, but that information isn't in the text. If on the other hand it's interpreted as a closure for the region where x is between 1.5 and 2 and y is between 1 and 1.5, you get a full description of the closed area. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] ([[User talk:Brossa|talk]]) 17:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::Two points are capable of defining an axis-aligned rectilinear quadrilateral, or a diamondoid (if you decide to use the convention of a 45-degree skew), ''or'' an arbitrarily-rotated square (defining one of the long diagonals). Pretty much any other quadrilateral (or other shape) needs further pre-agreed presumptions or more points of definition. A circle can be defined by three (non-colinear, non-identical) edge-points, or an oval (even skewed) by, at the ''very'' least, a third value/coordinate in different manners.
| |
| − | ::(Oh, ok, you ''could'' assume a circle defined by just two points (diametrically opposed), the circumscircle to the arbitrary square, above, or even the circle that is inscribed to it. Or "centre and point on radius". From that stage you could indicate further polygon that can be circumscribed thusly, oriented either constantly to the axes or to the direction defined by the (initial) radial point. So your toolkit ''can'' feature a "drawShape(coord1,coord2)" for all kinds of areas, one for each possible kind and treatment.)
| |
| − | ::Yet, in the absence of any detail other than "this defines an area", two surface coordinates almost certainly will be best assumed to defibe a rectangle (or a graticule, given latitude/longitude coords) and two 3D coords ones a cuboid/whatever. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.185|172.69.79.185]] 20:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Finally, I get an explanation why I've seen so many mentions of "China balloon" lately (and the picture of the moon with a silhouette on it, like the one I saw with X-Wings photoshopped flying off to it, didn't even realize they were related). :) I didn't feel like Googling it, figuring it would come to my attention eventually. LOL! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
| |
