Re: virus: Level Three-Belief and Utility.
Sun, 3 Nov 1996 16:17:45 -0600 (CST)

On Sat, 2 Nov 1996, KMO wrote:

> Kenneth,
> based on the inferences you can conservatively make about my math and
> theoretical physics background based on the language I use in my posts,
> did you believe at the time you posted your response to my question
> about orthonormal frames that your answer would be useful to me? Did I
> write something that gave you the impression that I could follow your
> explanation? You seem to put a lot of effort into your posts, and I'm
> wondering what impact you think they have on most of the readers of this
> list. Presumably you wrote this one post with me specifically in mind.
> Did you intend for your reply to clarify the concept of orthonormal
> frames, or did you merely wish to indicate to me how little I know and
> what kind of sophistication and background I would need to understand
> any meaningful answer to my question? What are your intentions?
> Take care. -KMO

"The self-norming fallacy strikes again."

I intended to clarify the idea. Apparently, I failed.

I assumed, when creating the posting, that my audience could visualize
tangent lines to curves and tangent planes to spheres/surfaces [NOT
compute them!], and that the concept of right angles and distance were
reasonable. The above IS sufficient to understand "orthonormal frames".
The crossreferences to theoretical physics are not essential, they just
provide another context.

It would be very surprising to me, KMO, if you were blind, or did not
come from a culture that used right angles in architecture.

The concept is complicated dramatically by translation into mathematics,
and apparently I didn't do the reverse translation clearly.

Part of the problem is that "clarifying" the idea involves explaining the
relevant background. A failed clarification attempt might give the
"show-off impression". [I'm speculating; we're discussing a failure to
correctly predict social reactions. This is a daily occurence, to me.]


Do you want me to try again? I think a more pictorial approach would
have a better chance. The concept can almost entirely be explained

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd