email exchange
Mohammed certainly has the convex hull sorted but I still need to beconvinced about the 3d voronoi (too many edges incident on a vertex) but he
will be around I hope so we can look at the 3d voronoi as the next step in
your project (still think 2d is probably ok for space planning)P-----
p
Sent: 03 October 2004 13:38
To: Subject: RE: baudrillard poststructuralist-complexest
i think its not to discard the innateness hypo, but because empirically (and shown as the space syntax analysis) space exactly a participant, one of (perhaps many: gravity, materiality, etc?) linguistic agents whose in maturana's term are within the process of mutual "triggering" of behaviour. this the same to say that space behaves?
agree to position as poststructuralist-complexest, do you think we know enough about the ultimate topological necessities, apart from the relative position rule? i think alot about "the boundary" needed so much to emerge "correct(as you always judge them, and i always like them the way they are)" cell shapes (of course in 3d too, mohammed's strange shapes), and suspect it has something to do somehow with the topology at the same time with the symmetry. say, to test how far away the boundary points are needed to correct(!) the inner cells?
come to think of it to the real, the earth limits the plane: the 2d, but might be limitless in terms of 3d. and there i should look for 3d voronoi that reads "holes" when we say, we won't grow to the neighbouring planets.
but we haven't done any with 2d anyway, perhaps in 2d first?
however however, i need to know if we got the convex hull part working correctly in the last version, because as i remember it, i cheat (with the biggest triangle). but if you think mohammes has solved it, i should talk to him.
cheers, i will post this to my blog.
choesnah
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:22:23 +0100
i can just about understand this. still not sure if the whole too-much-simulation-removes reality bit is relevant, but i like the 5 steps with the code as step 3. it makes me think about the argument i had with bill h. i was saying that the algorithm for the alpha syntax generator was the model or description, and that it provides its own 'reality' rather than the idea that there is some essential essence of space that can be capturd by analysis.
he didnt agree, and i always thought it was a bit of a circular argument - but apparently baudrillard thinks its the correct one - dont know whether to be pleased or depressed.
( this also has to do with the current disapproval of the innateness >hypothesis (brain has built in capacity for language) which can be discarded as unnecessary due to the emergence of language as part of >mutual perturbation in structural coupling )- so hillier is a
structuralist like chomsky, whreas we might say we are more inclined to
the post structuralist emergence hypothesis where order defines itself un connected to "underlying">order apart from ultimate topological necessities.
p
Mohammed certainly has the convex hull sorted but I still need to beconvinced about the 3d voronoi (too many edges incident on a vertex) but he
will be around I hope so we can look at the 3d voronoi as the next step in
your project (still think 2d is probably ok for space planning)P-----
p
Sent: 03 October 2004 13:38
To: Subject: RE: baudrillard poststructuralist-complexest
i think its not to discard the innateness hypo, but because empirically (and shown as the space syntax analysis) space exactly a participant, one of (perhaps many: gravity, materiality, etc?) linguistic agents whose in maturana's term are within the process of mutual "triggering" of behaviour. this the same to say that space behaves?
agree to position as poststructuralist-complexest, do you think we know enough about the ultimate topological necessities, apart from the relative position rule? i think alot about "the boundary" needed so much to emerge "correct(as you always judge them, and i always like them the way they are)" cell shapes (of course in 3d too, mohammed's strange shapes), and suspect it has something to do somehow with the topology at the same time with the symmetry. say, to test how far away the boundary points are needed to correct(!) the inner cells?
come to think of it to the real, the earth limits the plane: the 2d, but might be limitless in terms of 3d. and there i should look for 3d voronoi that reads "holes" when we say, we won't grow to the neighbouring planets.
but we haven't done any with 2d anyway, perhaps in 2d first?
however however, i need to know if we got the convex hull part working correctly in the last version, because as i remember it, i cheat (with the biggest triangle). but if you think mohammes has solved it, i should talk to him.
cheers, i will post this to my blog.
choesnah
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 12:22:23 +0100
i can just about understand this. still not sure if the whole too-much-simulation-removes reality bit is relevant, but i like the 5 steps with the code as step 3. it makes me think about the argument i had with bill h. i was saying that the algorithm for the alpha syntax generator was the model or description, and that it provides its own 'reality' rather than the idea that there is some essential essence of space that can be capturd by analysis.
he didnt agree, and i always thought it was a bit of a circular argument - but apparently baudrillard thinks its the correct one - dont know whether to be pleased or depressed.
( this also has to do with the current disapproval of the innateness >hypothesis (brain has built in capacity for language) which can be discarded as unnecessary due to the emergence of language as part of >mutual perturbation in structural coupling )- so hillier is a
structuralist like chomsky, whreas we might say we are more inclined to
the post structuralist emergence hypothesis where order defines itself un connected to "underlying">order apart from ultimate topological necessities.
p
posted by choesnah at 10/05/2004 09:38:00 pm
