cubic acres
Frank Stajano
fstajano at uk.research.att.com
Tue Nov 28 17:22:13 CET 2000
At 2000-11-28 15:42 +0100, Søren Krarup Olesen wrote:
>I don't understand that calculation, Frank, but it may be because I am a...
>
>>non-mathematicians ready to argue that a cubic acre is the volume of a
>>cube whose side has a surface of one acre.
>
>1 acre = 4047 m2, hence the hight of three acres must be the square root
>of 3 times 4047 m2 if we assume the bin to be a true cube. This gives
>us 110 meters--certainly a high building--more than 30 floors or so.
I refuse to perform any arithmetic on barbarian non-SI units such as
"acres" and "feet" so I'm not going to recheck the accuracy or lack thereof
of your mantissae, but I believe that the source of the trouble may be the
confusion between the following two interpretations of "three cubic acres":
(1, perverse): three times one cubic acre, so a volume equal to three times
the volume of a cube whose side has a surface of one acre.
(2, even more perverse): a volume equal to that of a cube whose side has a
surface of three acres.
Both violate basic mathematics insofar as they consider the cube of a
surface to be a volume, but the second adds the extra evilness of applying
the "cube" to the value instead of just the unit. (Is this bad? Yes. A room
of 18 square metres is not a square room of size 18 metres by 18 metres.
Those who believe otherwise will be unpleasantly surprised when they
attempt to buy a house.)
>Anyway, I complety agree with Vic. All these considerations are more or
>less meaningless. Who cares if there are one or two doors from the office
>to some library. Perhaps a certain splash panel would have looked empty
>without two doors, so Barks put them there. He probably hadn't imagined
>that years later someone would go and ckeck if those two doors were
>consistantly used in all his other stories. The very same goes for the
>butler situation etc. etc.
I, too, agree with this. To enforce and reconstruct this continuity is the
hallmark of Don's _libido colligandi_, which is one of the most interesting
aspects of his style -- but is certainly *not* something that Barks himself
did. This does not make Don's stories any less enjoyable for me, though --
in fact I enjoy them even more, as his own creations that nobody else could
have crafted with such a meticulous and loving attention to detail. I wish
I'd written all that book stuff in English in the first place -- there's
nothing more boring than translating your own writings, so I'll probably
never get round to doing it.
Frank (filologo disneyano) http://www.uk.research.att.com/~fms/
More information about the DCML
mailing list