...the idea that the ancients had amazing scientific
knowledge that was lost when the Library of Alexandria
was destroyed that we still haven't recovered today is
a pure fantasy.
Dated duples (left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative, communism vs. capitalism, blah-blah-blah) are
obsolete.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
...the idea that the ancients had amazing scientific
knowledge that was lost when the Library of Alexandria
was destroyed that we still haven't recovered today is
a pure fantasy.
Antikythera Mechanism, anybody?
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:51:38 -0000 (UTC), Don wrote:
Dated duples (left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, liberal vs.
conservative, communism vs. capitalism, blah-blah-blah) are
obsolete.
We don?t see a lot of that in multi-party democracies.
In other words, the good kind of democracies.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library."
That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The
problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so few
copies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an issue
today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one book-as-
object has no effect on the book-as-text.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
<snippo the ugly truth about AI>
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library."
That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The
problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so few
copies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an issue
today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one book-as-
object has no effect on the book-as-text.
But that isn't the case here; it is being referenced in regards to a
true (and modern) atrocity.
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
There is no modern atrocity related to scanning modernt printed material.
Paul S Person wrote in article
<58sj7lp8ph9aqtu9e3jrf9houh7a6b3rld@4ax.com>:
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
Sounds like an easy way to get out of a test.
That's the part that slays me about this "scandal." Everyone's
acting like some horror is occuring, but all that really happened
is that some companies bought some books. Nothing was removed
from the sphere of ideas, any more than it is if you or I buy
some books.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
<snippo the ugly truth about AI>
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library."
That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The
problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so few
copies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an issue
today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one book-as-
object has no effect on the book-as-text.
IIRC, in most cases where I have seen the destruction of the
Alexandria library brought up, it was as Just Another Christian
Atrocity.
IOW, it was part of anti-religious fanaticism.
But that isn't the case here; it is being referenced in regards to a
true (and modern) atrocity.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
That's the part that slays me about this "scandal."
Everyone's acting like some horror is occuring, but all that
really happened is that some companies bought some books.
Nothing was removed from the sphere of ideas, any more than
it is if you or I buy some books.
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks,
then there are plenty of other copies out there and destroying
one or two isn't going to hurt anything.
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there
aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks,
then there are plenty of other copies out there and destroying
one or two isn't going to hurt anything.
Imagine a future where AI chat bots have being trained on the
contents of Harlequin novels...
[Man seeking financial advice]
"Your credit score is bad but I have found a solution: a
contractual marriage with this heiress. Her family disapproves
of you, your past is scandalous, but the chemistry is
undeniable. Go here ... for some love, and tax benefits."
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't going >> to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there
aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
On 11/08/2026 01:45, Paul S Person wrote:few
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
<snippo the ugly truth about AI>
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library."
That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The
problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so
issuecopies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an
book-as-today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one
to?object has no effect on the book-as-text.
IIRC, in most cases where I have seen the destruction of the
Alexandria library brought up, it was as Just Another Christian
Atrocity.
IOW, it was part of anti-religious fanaticism.
But that isn't the case here; it is being referenced in regards to a
true (and modern) atrocity.
Yes, but *which* burning of the Library at Alexandra is being referred
IIRC there were at least four.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:39:53 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 01:45, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
<snippo the ugly truth about AI>
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very
/idea/ of destroying a book>
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library."
That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The
problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so few >>>>> copies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an issue >>>>> today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one book-as- >>>>> object has no effect on the book-as-text.
IIRC, in most cases where I have seen the destruction of the
Alexandria library brought up, it was as Just Another Christian
Atrocity.
IOW, it was part of anti-religious fanaticism.
But that isn't the case here; it is being referenced in regards to a
true (and modern) atrocity.
Yes, but *which* burning of the Library at Alexandra is being referred to? >>
IIRC there were at least four.
Whichever one they can blame on Christians, of course.
If more than one qualifies, then whichever one they think of first, I suppose.
I'm attempting /here/ to provide one answer to the question "why is
the burning of the Alexandria library such a big deal?".
I am always amazed at the ability of people to come with excuses for
clearly barbaric behavior. Or even behavior which is, as we said at
one point, "rude, crude, and socially unacceptible".
I am always amazed at the ability of people
to come with excuses for clearly barbaric
behavior. Or even behavior which is, as we
said at one point, "rude, crude, and socially
unacceptible".
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then there >>> are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't going >>> to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there
aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are
dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash bins, sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's Audio Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable. Others like the RCA Radiotron Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms that the originals are no longer worth much. There's a lot of change going on in the technical books world right now.
On 8/11/26 09:03, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:39:53 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
<grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 01:45, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comnospam> wrote:
<snippo the ugly truth about AI>
<back in the 50s, I had English teachers who would fainted at the very >>>> /idea/ of destroying a book>
"A modern-day version of the destruction of Alexandria?s library." >>>>>>That's a very foolish statement on the part of whoever made it. The >>>>>> problem with burning books in the old days was that there were so few >>>>>> copies that the book might be genuinely lost. That's just not an
issue
today. Except in the rare case of a rare book, destroying one
book-as-
object has no effect on the book-as-text.
IIRC, in most cases where I have seen the destruction of the
Alexandria library brought up, it was as Just Another Christian
Atrocity.
IOW, it was part of anti-religious fanaticism.
But that isn't the case here; it is being referenced in regards to a
true (and modern) atrocity.
Yes, but *which* burning of the Library at Alexandra is being
referred to?
IIRC there were at least four.
Whichever one they can blame on Christians, of course.
If more than one qualifies, then whichever one they think of first, I
suppose.
I'm attempting /here/ to provide one answer to the question "why is
the burning of the Alexandria library such a big deal?".
I am always amazed at the ability of people to come with excuses for
clearly barbaric behavior. Or even behavior which is, as we said at
one point, "rude, crude, and socially unacceptible".
˙˙˙˙Yes the monotheistic barbarians who skinned Hypatia with
the edges of sea shells were only doing what their priests them
to do with the heretical woman.
Scott Dorsey wrote:there
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are. If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then
goingare plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't
thereto hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and
arearen't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who
bins,dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash
Audiosadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's
RadiotronCyclopedia have become rare and valuable. Others like the RCA
theHandbook have been made available online in such convenient forms that
in theoriginals are no longer worth much. There's a lot of change going on
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years ago
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by >someone else.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run. But my second
year statistical physics text was part of the Berkley physics series. a >large print run, and it's been trading for several hundred dollars (and
cost me $7).
In the late Roman empire the learned complained that they could no
longer find copies of important texts. The scribes were all Christian
now and were spending all their time copying Christian texts which were >naturally in great demand. Better another copy of "The Shepherd" than >Aristotle's "On Justice". Middle ages coming up, we don't need no
steenking justice.
(I first mistyped "Statistical physics" and the spell checker gave me >"Fantastical physics". I regret correcting that).--
(I first mistyped "Statistical physics" and the spell checker gave me "Fantastical physics". I regret correcting that).
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
IIRC, technology has marched on to the point that some of those older
works can now be read.
begin fnord
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
(I first mistyped "Statistical physics" and the spell checker gave me
"Fantastical physics". I regret correcting that).
"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on
his work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
statistical mechanics."
- _States of Matter_, David L. Goodstein
Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
IIRC, technology has marched on to the point that some of those older
works can now be read.
I may have mentioned it before, but I am hoping˙ that we will find a
copy of Claudius' works on the Etruscans (a history and a grammar, I believe) before long.
Vesuvius erupted only a generation after he was emperor, and I suspect
that the status-seeking rich of Herculaneum would have works by the
later emperor (and now God) on their shelves, even if they had no
intention of ever reading them.
I've been waiting about thirty years for this technique to work. Results
are coming out, but painfully slowly.
William HydeI can only agree that Claudius on the Etruscans would be of
begin fnord
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
(I first mistyped "Statistical physics" and the spell checker gave me
"Fantastical physics". I regret correcting that).
"Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on
his work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study
statistical mechanics."
- _States of Matter_, David L. Goodstein
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then
there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't
going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there >>>> aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are
dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash
bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's
Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA Radiotron
Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms that
the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going on
in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years ago
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by someone else.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
<snippage>
On 8/11/26 4:49 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then >>>>> there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two
isn't going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there >>>>> aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are
dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash
bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's
Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA Radiotron >>> Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms
that the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going on
in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years
ago I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100
by someone else.
You and I talked about the Divinsky book here a few times many years ago (though I wasn't the one who offered anything for it). I actually found (ordered) a reasonably priced copy just a few years ago.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
I think you also mentioned that the U of T math department published a
set of advanced mathematics books, including "Tensor Calculus" by Synge
and Schild, which I inherited from a friend of mine when he retired.
Tony, who has not actually opened the Synge and Schild, but who has definitely opened the Divinsky
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions. >>Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would buy me.
begin fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand
Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Tony Nance wrote:
On 8/11/26 4:49 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks,
then there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two
isn't going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and
there
aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are >>>> dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into
trash bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like
Tremaine's Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA
Radiotron
Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms
that the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going
on in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years
ago I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered
$100 by someone else.
You and I talked about the Divinsky book here a few times many years
ago (though I wasn't the one who offered anything for it). I actually
found (ordered) a reasonably priced copy just a few years ago.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
I think you also mentioned that the U of T math department published a
set of advanced mathematics books, including "Tensor Calculus" by
Synge and Schild, which I inherited from a friend of mine when he
retired.
Tony, who has not actually opened the Synge and Schild, but who has
definitely opened the Divinsky
There was quite a run of U of T math books, mostly being sold off
cheaply when I was there in the 1970s.
On 8/19/26 10:35 AM, Steve Coltrin wrote:
begin˙ fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde˙ <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this.˙ I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and
greatly
simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional
dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over
whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Note: I am not a physicist, BUT from my failing memory, and after poking around a bit online: Some of it is just picking your poison, as each has advantages over the other.[1]
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space) components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with Special Relativity without needing tensor calculus."
"Unlike vector calculus, which can suffer from gimbal lock or coordinate singularities in curvilinear systems, quaternions manipulate orientation
and rotation globally and smoothly."
Lastly, to my surprise:
While poking around, I saw a mention that the octonions are also being
in modern theoretical physics (in general). I did not look into why/when/where that is happening.
Again, I am not a physicist; and there are a few things up there that
are taken straight from an AI summary too.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >>> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the >quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred >Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and >fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard >rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space) >components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with >Special Relativity without needing tensor calculus."
"Unlike vector calculus, which can suffer from gimbal lock or coordinate >singularities in curvilinear systems, quaternions manipulate orientation
and rotation globally and smoothly."
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly
simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the
quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred
Heaviside??s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Yes. We live in a three-dimensional world, and I guess I don't know what Maxwell would be used for outside of classical physics in our three dimensional world.
Maxwell's original book used only scalars and was pretty much incomprehensible. I tried to read it in grad school and it seemed
like everything was going around the bunch to get anywhere. So I
the 3D vector calculus was a huge advance in comprehensibility and
utility.
It was said before Heaviside's work that only three people understood >Maxwell's work. If it hadn't made a correct prediction of the speed of >light, possibly nobody would have finished reading it.
On 8/19/26 10:35 AM, Steve Coltrin wrote:
begin fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >>> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over
whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Note: I am not a physicist, BUT from my failing memory, and after poking around a bit online: Some of it is just picking your poison, as each has advantages over the other.[1]
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and
fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space)
components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with
The reason mentioned as to the cost of storage would be
obviated by repairing the books and reselling them.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years ago
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by >someone else.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years agoWhich Divinsky are you talking about? If you mean Nathan Divinsky, the University of BC Math professor who went on to become vice Science
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by
someone else.
Dean at UBC and was heavily involved on the board of the Chess
Federation (he was at one time national secretary - which I now am) of
Canada then I'm definitely interested as I was a student of his in the
70s and spoke at his funeral for the Chess Federation.
(Given the topic of the book my Divinsky is probably your guy)
I'm assuming this book is long out of print
but as a university math
student I would probably understand it.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
Just curious - how long do you believe that process takes?
Reason I ask is because between my library and the shelves on the
other side of the room containing my late wife's books we have
600-1000 books. Most of mine are on chess, most of hers are history of
some sort - such as her most treasured gift to me (at least besides
our kids) a first edition of Churchill's WW2 history. (Missing the
original dust jackets alas but definitely a first edition)
In particular is there anything I should do to preserve these? (I've
attached non-binding notes to my kids which I've put in the same
envelope as my will asking them to carry out my wishes concerning the
chess books)
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
Just curious - how long do you believe that process takes?
Reason I ask is because between my library and the shelves on the
other side of the room containing my late wife's books we have
600-1000 books. Most of mine are on chess, most of hers are history of
some sort - such as her most treasured gift to me (at least besides
our kids) a first edition of Churchill's WW2 history. (Missing the
original dust jackets alas but definitely a first edition)
In particular is there anything I should do to preserve these? (I've
attached non-binding notes to my kids which I've put in the same
envelope as my will asking them to carry out my wishes concerning the
chess books)
It depends. The USA's Second class citizens, Catholics, could only
afford pulp paper for most of THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHIRST. My 1910 copy
shows significant signs of deterioration.
About a dozen of its illustrations are printed on what appears to
be clay based paper. Those illustrations show no significant signs of >deterioration.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years agoWhich Divinsky are you talking about? If you mean Nathan Divinsky,
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by
someone else.
I'm assuming this book is long out of print but as a university math
student I would probably understand it.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 9 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 72:29:37 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 85,583 |