| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1159.1 | | AITG::DERAMO | Je kunt mij toch geen poets bakken. | Sat Dec 09 1989 22:28 | 3 |
| Well, it is less than or equal to five.
Dan
|
| 1159.2 | | HPSTEK::XIA | In my beginning is my end. | Sun Dec 10 1989 16:56 | 11 |
| If you dark all the points of rational coordinates on the surfaces, the
area is 0. On the other hand, I don't think this is what the author of
.0 wanted. :-)
Eugene
P.S. As a matter of fact, I think this will do the job since lights
are esstially continuous waves, and if you set any continuous function
0 at the rational points, you get the 0 function. Now if you
model light as composed of photons of 0 surface area..., that is
another story. :-)
|
| 1159.3 | | DWOVAX::YOUNG | History punishes the late - MG | Sun Dec 10 1989 20:32 | 8 |
| Tsk, tsk. Its a math problem, not a physics problem. The author of .0
intends that light be taken to be Lines in Euclidian Cubic Geometry.
The set of all rational points on the surface of the cube *would* have
area of 0, but it would also only block out 0% of all the possible
light paths through the cube, where light paths are idealized lines.
-- Barry
|
| 1159.4 | Plateau's problem ? | ALLVAX::ROTH | If you plant ice you'll harvest wind | Mon Dec 11 1989 08:10 | 21 |
| If you dipped it in soap film one of the possible minimal surfaces
would do it I think...
For example, 12 isosceles triangles from each edge to the center
have areas summing to
12 * sqrt(2)/4 = 3 * sqrt(2) ~= 4.24264
Think of the analogy with the square in the plane.
+-------+
|\ /|
| \ / |
| \ / |
| X | <--- astigmatic square
| / \ |
| / \ |
|/ \|
+-------+
- Jim
|