Help
Oh I thought the sequel was "Flatterland - like flatland, just more so". But maybe that was one of the nonsense book reviews from a Scientific American april issue.
Btw to answer Josh's question: the number of positive integers is 42. It is true that larger numbers are sometimes used on this forum, but only to describe negative things like the number of relevant truths withheld by Dick Cheney, or the number of suggested defenses turned down by the ACBL. So those are generally considered negative numbers.
Noah's Ark
#341
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,397
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2009-April-08, 17:36
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#342
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,025
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2009-April-08, 18:01
Flatterland is a sequel to Flatland, but it's not one I've read, so I didn't mention it. It, and several other books and movies (!) are linked on the Flatland page I posted.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#343
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2009-April-08, 18:07
Well I'll be...
There is a Flatterland, written by Ian Stewart. I found this reference on the Wikepedia. oops, see Blackshoe above
I was about to say something about Flatulenceland but decided not to.
There is a Flatterland, written by Ian Stewart. I found this reference on the Wikepedia. oops, see Blackshoe above
I was about to say something about Flatulenceland but decided not to.
Ken
#344
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,025
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2009-April-08, 18:29
helene_t, on Apr 8 2009, 06:36 PM, said:
Btw to answer Josh's question: the number of positive integers is 42. It is true that larger numbers are sometimes used on this forum, but only to describe negative things like the number of relevant truths withheld by Dick Cheney, or the number of suggested defenses turned down by the ACBL. So those are generally considered negative numbers.
ROFL!
Somewhere, long ago, I read some anthropologist who opined that {a} primitive languages only contain three words for numbers: "one", "two", and "many", and {b} the reason for that is that primitive minds cannot really understand any number larger than "two". As I recall, I decided to toss the book in the trash and read some other anthropologist.
BTW2, the answer to everything is 42. So sayeth Douglas Adams, anyway.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#345
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,811
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2009-April-08, 20:04
blackshoe, on Apr 8 2009, 07:29 PM, said:
helene_t, on Apr 8 2009, 06:36 PM, said:
Btw to answer Josh's question: the number of positive integers is 42. It is true that larger numbers are sometimes used on this forum, but only to describe negative things like the number of relevant truths withheld by Dick Cheney, or the number of suggested defenses turned down by the ACBL. So those are generally considered negative numbers.
ROFL!
Somewhere, long ago, I read some anthropologist who opined that {a} primitive languages only contain three words for numbers: "one", "two", and "many", and {b} the reason for that is that primitive minds cannot really understand any number larger than "two". As I recall, I decided to toss the book in the trash and read some other anthropologist.
BTW2, the answer to everything is 42. So sayeth Douglas Adams, anyway.
Shssssss!