SUO: Re: Continuants and Accidents In 4-Dim
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Oops! I must be tyred ...
I forgot to tip due credit for
that Google Search, its result,
or excerpt, so here t'ar, Mack!
http://www.google.com/advanced_search.html
http://www.driving.co.uk/4accinv.htm
In addition, if more incidentally, the article phonetically known as
"Plain Language In Documents And Paperwork Reduction Act" (PLIDAPRA)
requires me to rephrase my "Genreic Disclaimer" in a plainer manner:
| Who thinks that I'd be stealing his trash,
| Has sooner likely been stealing my Peirce.
Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> GENREIC DISCLAIMER
>
> 1. The writer writes under the presumption that the substance,
> if any, of what he writes is characterizable under either
> one of two cases:
>
> a. Wholly derivative subsidiary to the works
> of one Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).
>
> b. Wrong.
>
> 2. If the writer writes anything, the substance of which,
> if any, he presumes to originate with himself, he will
> be sure to make a special note of it, and to issue the
> appropriate notification. Otherwise, the presumption
> may safely revert to that covered in Clause 1, above.
>
> 3. If any other writer, or representative of a fictive
> entity, intelligent of otherwise, should presume to
> imagine that he, she, it sees in the writing of the
> present writer some reflection of his, her, its own
> original and proprietary thought, then the present
> writer suggests what is most likely the much safer
> presumption, in deed, he puts forth a claim as to
> what is most likely the much greater probability,
> that the other writer or representative exhibits
> thereby the lack of due diligence required to
> establish the truth of the matter, to wit,
> that the substance, if any, of what the
> other writer writes is characterizable
> under either one of two cases:
>
> a. Wholly derivative subsidiary to the works
> of one Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).
>
> b. Wrong.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
> [ A whole lot of non-motor-city-related stuff,
> | and then finally something more motorvating:]
> >
> ...
> >
> > Cars run on roads, but one doesn't do vehicle design by looking at tarmac.
>
> Actually, one does ...
>
> Google Search on <vehicle design tarmac road asphalt>
> turned up 322 hits. Not to be picky, I deal the card
> off the top of the deck, which oddly enough turns out
> to be on AI (Accident Investigation), very intriguing:
>
> > AI's make increasing use of computer software packages to
> > process and analyse specific accident data and trajectories
> > accurately. The data input is derived from:
> >
> > -- mathematical models, formulas and calculations derived from the laws of physics
> > -- statistical correlations collected from previous RTAs and field test results
> > -- vehicle occupant crash models
> > -- pedestrian impact models
> > -- manufacturers' vehicle handling and tyre performance data
> > -- independent research investigations
> >
> > Forensic science, based on Locard's Principle
> > that states 'every contact leaves a trace' is
> > as important to road traffic accidents as it
> > is to murder scenes. The difference is that
> > the AI is dealing with tyre marks and vehicle
> > damage rather than fingerprints and cloth fibres.
> >
> ...
> >
> > The maximum cornering speed a vehicle is capable of can be also be determined
> > by the friction value of the road surface. Attempting to negotiate too tight
> > a corner or bend at a speed beyond the critical limit is one of the main causes
> > of vehicle occupant fatalities. The front tyres remain on their steered course,
> > but the unsteered rear wheels loose adhesion, putting the car into a spin which
> > presents one side of the car, (the least protected part) to the front. Should
> > the side of the car hit a lamp post, tree or another approaching vehicle the
> > chances of escaping injury are very low. Impact depth is calculated at
> > one inch for each mph of impact speed.
> >
> ...
>
> Now, this is about AI, but I think that
> the impacts on vehicle design are clear.
> I was going to invert the metaphormasis
> to derive the bearing of this lesson on
> the relation between logic and semiotic,
> but, of course, Peirce already did that:
>
> | 'On the Definition of Logic'.
> |
> | Logic will here be defined as 'formal semiotic'.
> | A definition of a sign will be given which no more
> | refers to human thought than does the definition
> | of a line as the place which a particle occupies,
> | part by part, during a lapse of time. Namely,
> | a sign is something, 'A', which brings something,
> | 'B', its 'interpretant' sign determined or created
> | by it, into the same sort of correspondence with
> | something, 'C', its 'object', as that in which it
> | itself stands to 'C'. It is from this definition,
> | together with a definition of "formal", that I
> | deduce mathematically the principles of logic.
> | I also make a historical review of all the
> | definitions and conceptions of logic, and show,
> | not merely that my definition is no novelty, but
> | that my non-psychological conception of logic has
> | 'virtually' been quite generally held, though not
> | generally recognized. (CSP, NEM 4, 20-21).
> |
> | Charles Sanders Peirce,
> | 'The New Elements of Mathematics',
> | Volume 4, Edited by Carolyn Eisele,
> | Mouton, The Hague, 1976.
>
> Be Careful Out There,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤