Unfortunately to see it you must click here
This poem uses the physics equation for energy E = Fd Energy is also called work "W"
Energy (or work) is the force applied to an object multiplied by distance that object travels
If we pull force out of the context of the sentence above and look at what defines force we will find that Newton’s second law states Force is equal to the mass of an object multiplied by the acceleration the object is experiencing. Now if we look at acceleration we find that acceleration is the change in velocity per the change in time. In our energy equation we are multiplying the F times the distance the object is traveling. The way we calculate distances is with the distance formula. The poem above uses the distance formula in a nine dimensional space where every verbogeometrical axis is described in the poem underneath the radical.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Unfortunately to see it you must click here
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Here is something unrelated to mathematical poetry but interesting none the less. I received this information from my vision science list today. These are the results from the best optical illusion contest of 2006 --- If you are an interested vision scientist, they are now calling for submission to the 2007 contest.
Check out the winners of 2006 here
Go to this page then click on TOP 10 finalists
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 8:24 PM
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
I tend to think that without logic, you cannot communicate and without communication, you cannot have a philosophy. To me logic presupposes philosophy ... Logic is the supportive structure for thought without it everything would fall apart, no one could predict where our next meal would come from, much less anything else. The other side of the coin is that without a philosophy coloring ones theory of logic, ones logic has no starting point. In this sense, ones logic can have no logic without a philosophical stone to stand on. It is a vicious circle!
The clipping below originally came from a polytope list and was sent to me by my friend the mathematician Paul Gailiunas. My original question to him a few weeks ago concerned the importance of infinity within modern scientific equations. Math poets seem to gravitate toward using infinity in our math poems and as professor Gailiunas told me scientists tend to avoid infinity as much as they can. The following is an example of scientific thinking in this area.
This came from a completely different direction.
I thought you might beinterested.
On Thu 7 Sep 2006 (21:46:48 +0100), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:54:09, "Wenninger, Magnus"
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:09 AM
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
My friend Keith Rowley pointed me at the equation above by 19th century American Mathematician George David Birkhoff. The equation comes from Birkhoff’s 1933 book entitled “Aesthetic Measure”. Here is a perfect example of an equation intended for artistic purpose and yet denotative. Here Birkhoff intends to write an equation to measure levels of aesthetic based on a ratio of order and complexity. Personally, I feel trying to quantify something as broad as the word ‘aesthetic’ is extremely difficult and elusive. I have not read his book so I withhold more comment until I have read what he has to say. My intuition tells me what he is doing is much like my syncopation theory. It will be interesting to see what differences there are.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 10:22 PM
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Detail of Factorial for Scott Glassman (above)
Scott Glassman responds to my posting of his poem with my translations. I believe this gives even more detail to the workings of Scott’s poetry:
Your analysis is fantastic, and takes the poem to a very intricate term-bound level, one maybe lurking in logic + subsconscious forces. I always find the tension between emotions and quantification to be wonderful and you elucidate this beautifully in the visualized quotients.
I see how "I" an "I" is divided by elements, sun, burning, moon, etc. "I" or identity, or body, is a ratio of dust and cosmic energy, no better expressed than the direct equations you write out. Seems to cut through the bull to the crux of the matter.
The you - myself graphic you present is compelling because it made me think more about what I was, or my subconscious, was getting out. you - myself = luck. Or getting out of my own head, the ego, is a positive thing and will bring all the benefits. This is a frequent theme in what I write because I often try to disable the "I" and write from some central, unified place. luck = myself + you recognizes that in addition to self-disabling ego-dissolution work, there must also be an outside energy one connects with, an "other" on which "luck" is contingent. (Not really "luck" then anymore I guess is it). love is another product of myself + you.
myself + you = luck / love
an equal ratio of these elements, for someone in love is lucky and vice versa, seemingly to an equal degree
The final part you elucidate is probably the most fascinating because it appears at first to turn the whole logic on its head.
love = myself - you
What I think this is saying, or getting at, is the importance of letting go, of surrendering that which makes one most complete. That human beings or forces ALTHOUGH they may complement one another and co-exist in a single orbit, as do electrons of an atom-- one is not made subservient to the other, one is not made solely for the other's pleasure. Now I'm aware this is entering into the realm of the philosophical, the why-are-we-here-and-seperate question? And I suppose it speaks to the inherent integrity of nature, the particles that solid matter is made from, always particulate, having their boundaries as does the earth, moon, dewdrop, etc. Just above the unified plain, what is visible to the most powerful microscopes. Might be expressed:
myself - you = integrity / love
I'm linking the image and post to my blog. Thanks again for your attention to the poem, opening its dimensions for me.
Posted by Kaz Maslanka at 11:15 AM