Subject:
|
Re: On the recursive subdivision of two-dimensional food items
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:51:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1022 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Todd Lehman wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.geek, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> > You know, I think I may take this as proof that I am missing the GEEK
> > gene, as I heard the discussion first hand, and now I'm reading it
> > again..... and STILL the *ONLY* part I understand is "copious amount of
> > liquor."
>
> Heh heh, ok, lemme see if I can give it a non-geeky explanation...
>
> Instead of eating your french toast by carving out roughly equal-sized
> small pieces one at a time, do this: Cut the toast in half and consider
> each half a new piece of toast. For each of those halves, cut those in
> half and consider those quarters to be new pieces of toast. And for each
> of those quarters, cut those in half and consider each of those eighths
> to be new pieces of toast. And so on and so on, down to really tiny pieces
> until they're little bite-sized pieces.
>
> With me so far? OK, but here's the twise: don't do all the cutting all
> at once. Instead, only make a cut when it's absolutely necessary -- either
> to eat a piece immediately or to cut a piece in half for further cutting.
>
> After four cuts, you'll have:
>
> one 1/2 piece
> one 1/4 piece
> one 1/8 piece
> two 1/16 pieces
>
> The 1/16 pieces are probably small enough to eat, so eat those. Then cut
> the 1/8 piece into two 1/16 pieces and eat those. Then you "pop stack"
> back to the 1/4 piece and find that it's too big to eat, so you cut that
> into two 1/8 pieces and work on those. Only don't cut both of the 1/8
> pieces into 1/16 pieces at the same time -- cut the first one, eat both
> of the 1/16's, and the work on the second one. Then you "pop stack" back
> to the 1/2 piece, and subdivide that one into two 1/4's, etc.
>
> Basically this is an example of recursion.
>
> --Todd
Hey thanks Todd, I think.
To be honest I just found the whole thing so funny because I can honestly say,
none of my non-Afol friends can manage to spell "recursively" after a night of
drinking never mind have a working theory around it based on French Toast.
So non-geeky explanations totally rule my world, thanks for numbing it down for
me. After all I was the one that needed an AFOL to send an email to my kids,
since working a laptop was beyond any of my available resources. I can now
resume my normal life and put the IHOP behind me. Frankly though, I doubt I
will ever be able to eat French Toast again without giggling.
Now when you are ready to discuss, oh I don't know, something like Itten's
colour theories such as cause and effects of light penetration, absorption
rates, and refraction and how it relates to what its directly in harmony with,
we can crank it back up a notch.
Oh darn, I just brought up colour, do we have to FUT this thread now?
Janey "Red Brick"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
