Re: OT: art and language and THE DAVINCI CODE

En réponse à Andreas Johansson :


>'Explain' at what level? I mean, even I, who am neither a physicist nor known
>for my ability to saying in two easy words what can be said in one difficult,
>could probably explain quantum mechanics for that ascientific person over a
>dinner well enough that he/she thought he/she had an idea was it was all about
>and what it can be used for. But I wouldn't claim that I 'understand' quantum
>mechanics, still less that I could use it for anything remotely practical.
I meant "explain" in the sense that I described the principles, main
consequences and results of those principles, and an overview of the world
at nanoscopic sizes, without entering into the details of the equations. I
think this qualifies as a pretty thorough explanation. Anyway, this is
something *any* scientist should be able to do, since it's part (or should
be part) of our education. As I've so often been taught, the solution to an
equation is not the solution to a physical problem. The solution to a
physical problem is a sentence with words, not mindless figures, and with
simple words (I had a physics teacher who insisted that when we gave the
solution to an exercise, the end should always be a couple sentences with
no more than two scientific words per sentence. It certainly teaches you to
simplify your scientific speech ;))) . I admit I've lost a lot of what he
taught ;))) ).

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.