Subject:
|
Re: Mathematical proof that you can't build anything with LEGO bricks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:32:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
20394 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 - theres math...
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/02-how-did-lego-lose-its-mojo
Ive 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.
Heres a link to the original research paper:
http://www.changizi.com/org.pdf
|
Ive been sort of pondering this, and Ive concluded that the researchers
conclusion makes more sense if we use as a sample 100 random elements chosen
from the classic LEGO era vs 100 random elements from the newer Ninjago era.
Whatever the merits of Bionicle masks, I submit that they lack the generic
versatility of a 2x4 brick, so perhaps thats what hes driving at.
Also, Im not especially perturbed by his use of LEGOs as a designator, since
thats how approximately 100% of non AFOLs refer to them. Coin of the realm, so
to speak.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|