Re: a comment on We Do Not Write About by faithmairee	14-Mar-06/9:54 AM
No there aren't. And if there were, yikes, where would we store them?!
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/7:25 PM
You are full of beans. Even Russell would be ashamed.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/5:37 PM
In short, you are a prize loon. You can't even say what part of numbers you find so exciting and eternal, so I'm going to help you. Here are the possibilities: 1) The symbols and sounds themselves. That is, first you make a w, then a schwa, then a n, and you have 'one'. Or you make a straight vertical line, possibly with a little cap - 1. Well, that's just clodly. Obviously, if every English speaker died or forgot English, there would be no "one" or "1". There would just be "uno", "waHad", ")" or any of a million things. You can't be talking about that. 2) The values themselves. How, in a universe with no intelligent life, you could have a plum and another plum, and you, Dovina, showing up from our universe can say, "Look, a plum and a plum - two plums!", just like in our universe. So then you're not really talking about the independent existence of numbers or number-symbols; you're just talking about the independent existence of OBJECTS: the plums continue to exist even if no one's there to see them. So why don't you just say that? Oh, because numbers are magic. And you're a clod. If you're not, you can't possibly be talking about that. 3) How numbers, the things we call 1, 2, 3, and so on, perfectly correspond to whole objects. Well, obviously. and we have names for all the things that don't correspond to whole objects, like pi, e, or 9.126923683427. For obvious reasons, we've used the shorter symbols to refer to whole things, since we're more likely to be talking about whole eggs or goats. Is that what's so magical? That we made up a short symbol for something we talk about regularly? Then you are a loon. 4) Plato was actually talking about how circles and spheres not only EXIST outside human consciousness, but that they're BEAUTIFUL and PERFECT outside human consciousness. Like, if all humans died and another intelligent species came along millennia later and made a sphere, it would think spheres are the acest shape, too. And gold. They'd think gold was the best substance, because it's, like, God's substance, and God's not going to let anyone forget about it. Do you see how this can't possibly be what you're talking about, rambling about perfect 183? Do you see how, if it is, you're the not-brightest person ever?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/5:14 PM
I mean, every symbol or word we use for describing quantity describes one unique real-world value? Yes. So? If it didn't, if the word "seven", say, applied to two different values, that would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it? You'd tell your wife or husband to pick up seven eggs and he wouldn't know how many to get. People would probably start referring to the lower "seven" as "little seven" and the higher seven as "big seven". And people like you would stupidly think "little seven" was a magical eternal thing. bow'ls.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/4:59 PM
If I remember correctly, you don't believe in the intrinsic values of THINGS (ie, gold), only numbers. How odd. Or dumb. I'm sure I don't care which.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/4:54 PM
If you had never existed, would there still be a Platonic, eternal Dovina floating around somewhere? Where?
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/4:52 PM
Reality doesn't shift. Say we've got gravity, and we've got a formula that calculates the gravity to masses exert on each other. Suppose we find out that, um, at really large masses (or on the infamous quantum level) the formula doesn't work. Something different happens. That doesn't mean reality's changed, or even gravity; just that the formula was wrong under certain circumstances. Gravity (and quantum mechanics) have probably always worked the same, we just didn't know. No right-minded mathematician has a problem with that.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/2:03 PM
The better math is at replicating (or whatever the word is) reality, the better it's considered, right? But I can make art about nothing that's ever happened, art that actually contradicts reality, and it can still be considered great art. Closeness to reality is not the main factor in art's greatness, like it is for math.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/1:51 PM
Because math is hardly ever inspired or sublime. Before someone goes nuts about genius mathematicians making wild, sublime deductive leaps, let me explain: Math even at its best is only be a description of what already exists. Art actually brings new things into existence. If you disagree, you don't understand math or art.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/1:44 PM
For one, "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze", in which Fred Ott sneezes, is one of Ott's two acting credits. The other one involves doing something on one of Edison's test recordings, too. If you can't count those, you can't rightly call Ott an actor. Ergo, the question's bunk. For two, the man friggin' sneezes on, like, the first film ever. Give him some credit. I'd like to run it by UVA and see what they think. When I actually did this full-time, OOB was my Bible. I bet they're looking for actor-actor connections, and not actor-director or actor-producer. Considering Ott's alone in the films he's in, that would make things kind of difficult.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/1:32 PM
I had to cheat and google. Here's what I got: 1. Ott to Edison (director) in "Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze" 2. Edison (producer) to Vivian Reed in The Patchwork Girl of Oz 3. Reed to Jimmy Stewart in Vivacious Lady 4. Stewart to Kathleen Quinlan in Airport '77 5. Quinlan (Tom Hanks' wife) to Kevin Bacon in Apollo 13.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/12:18 PM
Very easy. From the remake: 1. King Kong to Naomi Watts 2. Watts to Sean Penn in 21 Grams 3. Penn to Kevin Bacon in Mystic River. From the original: 1. King Kong to Bruce Cabot (the orig. Jack Driscoll) 2. Cabot to John Wayne in Chisum 3. John Wayne to Robert Duvall in True Grit 4. Duvall to Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder 5. Cruise to Kevin Bacon in Top Gun.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/10:28 AM
It is fun to agree with people, occasionally. The way things are is pretty close to not being fun, in my opinion.
Re: a comment on We Do Not Write About by faithmairee	13-Mar-06/10:21 AM
Don't ask me to explain. Mathematical operations on infinity is about the time my synapses fried in Math School.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/10:16 AM
Test me.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/10:15 AM
Oh Christ. Like the Liar-Confuser discussion. Or "Middle Aged White Woman." Do you think she really thinks she won all of those?
Re: a comment on We Do Not Write About by faithmairee	13-Mar-06/10:04 AM
The square root of infinity is infinity. But [square root of infinity] < [infinity].
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/9:56 AM
Not today.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/9:43 AM
No. Order of operations means you do times first.
Re: a comment on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	13-Mar-06/9:40 AM
Haven't we had this conversation? Say, here? http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=135905 (scroll about one-third-way down.)