materials science, in general

Lyal's intelligence doesn't quit. an example from last afternoon, after quite a workout:

(D,P, F,I, S,F,V,K,O,P)Q: "How do you get some gooey stuff off?"
(R,O,A,R'S;S,A,V,O,R)A: "You take your hand and rub it back and forth over the goo, and the sticky stuff sticks to itself and finally makes a sort of dirty string and you just pick it off and throw it away."

I'd like a language with a word for 'question' starting with W(ill Sherwin) and a word for 'answer' starting with L(yal Michel). (roman script, please. Or maybe, what's a word for superficial translitteration based on letterforms instead of sounds? has this ever even been asked before? I should probably ask the OCR brain and not you, but I don't know to talk it's languge, or even enter it's time.) Maybe that language is English and I just can't test all it's words now. this would be a cheap kwanzaa gift for me: make me a convincing pair of words for this occasion. cheaper than a pair of earrings, and might it perhaps be better fitting to my ears?

maybe starting with Y could be a word for 'leading question'. ..earrings might come in threes someday. what comes in threes today? what comes in pairs of pairs? 6packs, what else//
commensurate grocery store purchases, proven by tiling the conveyor belt's surface. I ought to be taking pictures of these, my masterworks. paperclipped to it find the receipt becoming a shopping list for next time = timeless perfection

imaginary bridge

Last night I checked out this week's CS reading and get this: it includes a definition of "Gods" as "supposition of sentient physicality", moving the glossary to the top of my list! in summary, define a concept by it's utmost implication (utmost being a bit foggy, but still) might make a mess of math, or might help it along. brings to mind Rylan's description of her "imaginary bridge" as a machine for calculating the value of i.

(you know, (-1)^(1/2). or maybe you don't, in which case you should call me. I'd say ask google, but it'll just tell you to ask answers.qualm who doesn't really know. today's illustration, by the way, shows google using much more conventional, and in this case useless, definition methods than Mary Baker Eddy. in my other hand, I could be less single-minded and just suggest you ask your definer about "imaginary numbers"; 'i' standing for 'imaginary' anyways. but really we're talking about definitions, and "standing for" isn't really one.)

Rylan's machine, according to her, enacts Euler's formula by making damped wiggles from step functions popping (that's her bridge, between digital and analog computation). She threw in as an aside that another way of enacting this reality would be to iterate a step forward followed by a rotation back, which I couldn't follow, but someday I'll ask --depending on who you are (define by act) you might be the first to know.

If I had the same question in front of me I'd focus on stereo. the feelings of separation and togetherness, touching, that I guess the word "bridge" starts to get right. parallel worlds put into distant communication. orthogonality making a space between worlds that can't touch. perhaps my vexation at rylan's bridge is that it connects worlds of diferent types, of wholly different character, so their touching or not comes as no surprise at all.

there's something fake about rigor

my solution is moving to the tip of my tongue but isn't even there yet. I'll ammend this post when I finally hear what I think come out of my mouth. for now I'll say 'series of similar pryings, complex pairs, quaternions, non-commutivity, non-commutivity back-formation'

in the meantime, I'll delay with another side note: putting the glossary in front in S&H, makes it much like Irwin's Dictionary of Pipe Organ Stops, my original inspiration to stereo thinking, it's ancient forshadowing being the reconstruction of an Emily Dickinson poem from a concordance of her works (this also lighting my path to incipits)

I'll spend my day off on thank you notes!