Subject:
|
Re: Mathematical proof that you can't build anything with LEGO bricks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:48:43 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
19870 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Don Rogerson wrote:
| |
Dr. Mark Changizi claims that LEGO sets have reached a point where most of
the pieces no longer fit other pieces. Sound crazy? Wait - there’s math...
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/02-how-did-lego-lose-its-mojo
I’ve actually had an open conversation with Dr. Changizi about this article
and the original paper on which he bases his conclusions. He has made some
claims that are not supported by his research or by common observation, and
his method of classifying LEGO piece types is suspect.
Wondering what others think of this article.
Here’s a link to the original research paper:
http://www.changizi.com/org.pdf
|
He says “LEGOs” which makes his work suspect right there. :) Not very rigorous.
The paper is from 2001... the piece palette has improved somewhat since then.
But generally I’m not sure he’s drawing valid inferences/conclusions. LEGO
elements are not neurons, or electronic components, and total network
connectivity is not their most important metric. Rather, at least in my view,
what is important is whether pieces interoperate well with each other locally.
And we know they do. There are more ways to interconnect LEGO elements than any
other building system I know.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
