Subject:
|
Re: Mathematical proof that you can't build anything with LEGO bricks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:30:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
20216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
I spend too much time on Facebook. I very much want to click “Like” to both
David Laswell’s and Dave Eaton’s comments here.
As for the argument Dr. Changizi presents, I’m too distracted by the opening
of the article, which to any experienced Lego fan merely echoes the countless
debates we’ve had on Lugnet, and before that on rtl, and before that when we
only had the neighbor’s kid to talk Lego with, on the topic of specialized
elements versus basic ones. The end results of such debates, regardless
which side you might fall on, have always been:
A) Basic bricks remain the cheapest per-piece way to add Lego to a household
- by way of Creator/Basic/Universal/Tub sets that have always been and are
still available, and often consist of mostly basic elements.
B) SOME specialized elements are important to developing more advanced
building techniques and creativity, and arguably have been necessary to the
development of themes that hold fan interest into adulthood.
C) Mathematicians haven’t looked at Brickshelf photos of Brick convention
displays.
Whether the article presents any valid arguments actually worth adding to the
old debate, I can only doubt.
-Hendo
|
Yes, the debate is the same one that has been going on forever, but when you
compare his research with his opening claim that “The sets kids receive as
gifts today are replete with made-to-order piece types special to each set,
useful in one particular spot, and often useless elsewhere” it’s clear that
even his own data do not support him.
To support this claim, one would have to look at the rate at which LEGO
introduces new elements, as well as how many sets a certain element appears in.
I pointed out to Dr. Changizi in an e-mail that the pieces in the set he uses as
an example (the Geonosian Starfighter) are all actually fairly common pieces
used in hundreds of other sets. He replied that this does not undermine his
argument, but it clearly does. Usually the only pieces that are ever specific to
one set are the minifig elements, and these are not part of the construction.
His research is about the flexibility of the system to build new and unique
networks (a LEGO set is a network in his model.) Clearly, TLC is making wide use
of its elements, not to mention the individual builders who are finding new
applications that do not appear in any sanctioned sets.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
