Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Beardsley
Indeed, although of course it would be less of a problem for monolith builders as you can't build a monolith that is 0 by 1 by 4. (I was going to put an exclamation mark* at the end of the sentence but realised it could be confused with 4-factorial.)
Incidentally, I recall from the book that the monolith was not merely 3-dimensional, so the sequence continued.
|
Well, then, clearly they started with zero, it's just that the monolith's zero-length dimension is not in one of our three.
BTW, I understand what Jeff is trying to say about "producing" numbers.
2 x 5 = 10.
1 x 5 = 5.
In the first case, you
started with 2 and 5, and you
produced 10. 10 is something new.
In the second case, you started with 1 and 5. Thus, it makes no sense to say you "produced" 5 - you already had it, it's not something new.
Not necessarily saying I agree with him on the relevance of it, but I get his point.
