I am (admittedly, and over a great span of time) the, "Village Gfx Idiot," but, in the top diagram, the isometric angles on the buildings, on the lower left, seem to be different than those on the lower right ... ?
5 industrial sets
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,286
Snodmaulvenn, your new Industrial City Sprawl graphics are looking very interesting (the old one is part of the PtW scenarios folder), but I think you should open your own thread about this terrain graphics and not hijack Kyriakos` thread about his new city graphics.
Well then! ![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
To a long, prosperous, and creatively fulfilling "New Next Year" to you! - And let's throw in "health" and "longevity" as well ... 
And, of course, some spectacular Metropoli, too 
To a long, prosperous, and creatively fulfilling "New Next Year" to you! - And let's throw in "health" and "longevity" as well ... And, of course, some spectacular Metropoli, too 
Gojira54
The folly of Man
Happy Birthday!It is actually my birthday, today
... And, in the meantime, about those cities - 
... And, in the meantime, about those cities -
I actually did get back to those, for a while - but don't have much to show currently. I am also being helped by Vuldacon in my attempt to make a unit (I am at an even earlier stage in that!)
But for the time being I am more involved in the Goedel stuff. Actually made some decent progress - partly because I am 1/3 into reading a massive 800-pages book on the subject (Goedel-Escher-Bach), which only recently (that is in the last 100 pages...) started to help me
to you, and @Vuldacon !But for the time being I am more involved in the Goedel stuff. Actually made some decent progress - partly because I am 1/3 into reading a massive 800-pages book on the subject (Goedel-Escher-Bach), which only recently (that is in the last 100 pages...) started to help me
I remember reading that in the - late 1970s? - when it came out. It was extremely intriguing at the time, and I'm delighted that those last 100 pages are proving helpful, but I would never (and did not, Back Then) give any credence, whatsoever. to his hypothesis that human consciousness has its basis in recursion.
I remember reading that in the - late 1970s? - when it came out. It was extremely intriguing at the time, and I'm delighted that those last 100 pages are proving helpful, but I would never (and did not, Back Then) give any credence, whatsoever. to his hypothesis that human consciousness has its basis in recursion.
Yes, I recall some bit about human consciousness, with which I didn't agree. But I am (likely) not in the part you allude to (although he has mentioned recursion already, maybe 200 pages prior to where I am for the first time). I did find his claim that the human mind picks up something intelligible in a message - as opposed to projecting inner human-mind stuff, triggered by stuff in the message's form - problematic. But obviously the book isn't trying to be about general philosophical matters much
My own view, for what it's worth, is that math isn't cosmic, although it clearly is related to the human mind.(nice avatar, by the way
)
(nice avatar, by the way
Based upon some of our intellectual - philosophical - artistic exchanges over the past couple of decades or so, somewhere in the back of my mind, all that time, I do think I might have assumed that,
Ο αυτοκράτορας Κυριάκος ο Μέγας! (And I really hope That Google Translate got that right!)
Kyriakos... are you becoming more involved with recursive writing or simply interested in it?
My nature is recursive thinking or perhaps I should state that as the "keep it simple stupid" approach
Ozy... I agree = "The emperor Kyriakos the Great!"
My nature is recursive thinking or perhaps I should state that as the "keep it simple stupid" approach
Ozy... I agree = "The emperor Kyriakos the Great!"
Last edited:
Not recursive writing (not sure if that alludes to something specific, or what one can infer from the phrase ), but recursive sets and stuff about them do feature in Goedel, so yes, I did have to learn about them (which isn't over either...). Not that much math is involved in the Goedel theorems, but some is (recursive, comparing sets with infinite members but different size from each other), and then there are the stuff about ascribing symbols to numbers (mostly arbitrary) and showing that the symbol system itself already is expressible by number theory (not arbitrary at all).
As for writing... My writing was always heavily recursive, I could say. In that usually each story has one element which gets mirrored in sub-particles of it. It's not by chance ( :/ ) that I managed to have a mental breakdown in the first year of university. At the time I was trying to examine (as if I had no other problems) what the relation of thinking is to the thinker. Funnily, though (not arbitrary either), I had the chance to get into formal logic in the first year of my university studies, since those were in philosophy. But I didn't like the tractatus logico-philosophicus* book I picked up from the library. So I stuck with Kafka, for another decade.
*Why would anyone like Wittgenstein? And in the second year of my uni studies, in a megastore in central London I came across a PC-game magazine which had a cover with a person with funny hair, and the title: "Return to Castle Wittgenstein".
), but recursive sets and stuff about them do feature in Goedel, so yes, I did have to learn about them (which isn't over either...). Not that much math is involved in the Goedel theorems, but some is (recursive, comparing sets with infinite members but different size from each other), and then there are the stuff about ascribing symbols to numbers (mostly arbitrary) and showing that the symbol system itself already is expressible by number theory (not arbitrary at all).As for writing... My writing was always heavily recursive, I could say. In that usually each story has one element which gets mirrored in sub-particles of it. It's not by chance ( :/
) that I managed to have a mental breakdown in the first year of university. At the time I was trying to examine (as if I had no other problems) what the relation of thinking is to the thinker. Funnily, though (not arbitrary either), I had the chance to get into formal logic in the first year of my university studies, since those were in philosophy. But I didn't like the tractatus logico-philosophicus* book I picked up from the library. So I stuck with Kafka, for another decade.*Why would anyone like Wittgenstein? And in the second year of my uni studies, in a megastore in central London I came across a PC-game magazine which had a cover with a person with funny hair, and the title: "Return to Castle Wittgenstein".
Last edited:
Gojira54
The folly of Man
psh, writers...
The following isn't near completion at all. And St Paul likely will end up in size3 anyway.
Do not let perfection be the enemy of achievement! - Looking mighty fine! 
Similar threads
