Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then
there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two isn't
going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there >>>> aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are
dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash
bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's
Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA Radiotron
Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms that
the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going on
in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years ago
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by someone else.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
<snippage>
On 8/11/26 4:49 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks, then >>>>> there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two
isn't going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and there >>>>> aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are
dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into trash
bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like Tremaine's
Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA Radiotron >>> Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms
that the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going on
in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years
ago I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100
by someone else.
You and I talked about the Divinsky book here a few times many years ago (though I wasn't the one who offered anything for it). I actually found (ordered) a reasonably priced copy just a few years ago.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
I think you also mentioned that the U of T math department published a
set of advanced mathematics books, including "Tensor Calculus" by Synge
and Schild, which I inherited from a friend of mine when he retired.
Tony, who has not actually opened the Synge and Schild, but who has definitely opened the Divinsky
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions. >>Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would buy me.
begin fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand
Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Tony Nance wrote:
On 8/11/26 4:49 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The True Melissa˙ <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote in article <115dp5h$nu0$1@panix2.panix.com>:
Depends what the books are.˙ If they are Harlequin paperbacks,
then there
are plenty of other copies out there and destroying one or two
isn't going
to hurt anything.
If they are out of print textbooks that are primary sources, and
there
aren't very many copies left in circulation, it's a bad thing.
The latter books aren't sitting in warehouses. They're generally
in archives.
I hope so, but we have a generation of scientists and engineers who are >>>> dying off and their books are going up for sale (and often into
trash bins,
sadly) rather than being archived.
Some books that used to be common standard references like
Tremaine's Audio
Cyclopedia have become rare and valuable.˙ Others like the RCA
Radiotron
Handbook have been made available online in such convenient forms
that the
originals are no longer worth much.˙ There's a lot of change going
on in the
technical books world right now.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents.˙ Twenty years
ago I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered
$100 by someone else.
You and I talked about the Divinsky book here a few times many years
ago (though I wasn't the one who offered anything for it). I actually
found (ordered) a reasonably priced copy just a few years ago.
Well, that was U of Toronto press, probably a small run.
I think you also mentioned that the U of T math department published a
set of advanced mathematics books, including "Tensor Calculus" by
Synge and Schild, which I inherited from a friend of mine when he
retired.
Tony, who has not actually opened the Synge and Schild, but who has
definitely opened the Divinsky
There was quite a run of U of T math books, mostly being sold off
cheaply when I was there in the 1970s.
On 8/19/26 10:35 AM, Steve Coltrin wrote:
begin˙ fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde˙ <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this.˙ I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and
greatly
simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional
dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over
whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Note: I am not a physicist, BUT from my failing memory, and after poking around a bit online: Some of it is just picking your poison, as each has advantages over the other.[1]
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space) components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with Special Relativity without needing tensor calculus."
"Unlike vector calculus, which can suffer from gimbal lock or coordinate singularities in curvilinear systems, quaternions manipulate orientation
and rotation globally and smoothly."
Lastly, to my surprise:
While poking around, I saw a mention that the octonions are also being
in modern theoretical physics (in general). I did not look into why/when/where that is happening.
Again, I am not a physicist; and there are a few things up there that
are taken straight from an AI summary too.
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >>> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the >quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred >Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and >fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard >rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space) >components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with >Special Relativity without needing tensor calculus."
"Unlike vector calculus, which can suffer from gimbal lock or coordinate >singularities in curvilinear systems, quaternions manipulate orientation
and rotation globally and smoothly."
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly
simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the
quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred
Heaviside??s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Yes. We live in a three-dimensional world, and I guess I don't know what Maxwell would be used for outside of classical physics in our three dimensional world.
Maxwell's original book used only scalars and was pretty much incomprehensible. I tried to read it in grad school and it seemed
like everything was going around the bunch to get anywhere. So I
the 3D vector calculus was a huge advance in comprehensibility and
utility.
It was said before Heaviside's work that only three people understood >Maxwell's work. If it hadn't made a correct prediction of the speed of >light, possibly nobody would have finished reading it.
On 8/19/26 10:35 AM, Steve Coltrin wrote:
begin fnord
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
Apparently Lanczos rewrote the Maxwell equations using quaternions.
Nowadays that might be very useful in imaging.
I am trying to think why I would ever want this. I certainly understand >>> Heaviside's rewriting the Maxwell equations in terms of vectors and greatly >>> simplifying things, but I can't understand what an additional dimension would
buy me.
Me neither, but Crowe's _A History of Vector Analysis_ (which I own but
have not read) states that there was much disagreement in the 1800s over
whether vectors or quaternions were the way forward.
Note: I am not a physicist, BUT from my failing memory, and after poking around a bit online: Some of it is just picking your poison, as each has advantages over the other.[1]
Vectors seem to have "won" historically (19th century) because the quaternions aren't multiplicatively commutative, and because the
quaternions are 4-dimensional. (i.e. Because everyday classical physics
only requires 3 spatial dimensions, 19th century scientists preferred Heaviside?s trimmed-down 3D vector calculus.)
Modern computing can favor quaternions, as they require less memory and
fewer computational steps to calculate 3D rotations compared to standard rotation matrices.
If you "upgrade" space and time into a single four-dimensional
quaternion space, the four equations collapse into one single formula.
And, two quotes from an AI summary:
"Quaternions naturally combine scalar (time) and vector (3D space)
components into a single 4D object. This mirrors the structure of
Minkowski spacetime, making the equations automatically compatible with
The reason mentioned as to the cost of storage would be
obviated by repairing the books and reselling them.
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years ago
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by >someone else.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years agoWhich Divinsky are you talking about? If you mean Nathan Divinsky, the University of BC Math professor who went on to become vice Science
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by
someone else.
Dean at UBC and was heavily involved on the board of the Chess
Federation (he was at one time national secretary - which I now am) of
Canada then I'm definitely interested as I was a student of his in the
70s and spoke at his funeral for the Chess Federation.
(Given the topic of the book my Divinsky is probably your guy)
I'm assuming this book is long out of print
but as a university math
student I would probably understand it.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
Just curious - how long do you believe that process takes?
Reason I ask is because between my library and the shelves on the
other side of the room containing my late wife's books we have
600-1000 books. Most of mine are on chess, most of hers are history of
some sort - such as her most treasured gift to me (at least besides
our kids) a first edition of Churchill's WW2 history. (Missing the
original dust jackets alas but definitely a first edition)
In particular is there anything I should do to preserve these? (I've
attached non-binding notes to my kids which I've put in the same
envelope as my will asking them to carry out my wishes concerning the
chess books)
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 16:52:13 -0000 (UTC), "Don" <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that it is the
nature of the universe for knowledge to be destroyed. If
you just leave a book sitting on a shelf, the pages will
slowly decay, it will gather dust and insects, and,
eventually, the book will disintegrate. The only way to
preserve a text is by copying it. In other words, it
takes real effort to save a text from destruction.
Just curious - how long do you believe that process takes?
Reason I ask is because between my library and the shelves on the
other side of the room containing my late wife's books we have
600-1000 books. Most of mine are on chess, most of hers are history of
some sort - such as her most treasured gift to me (at least besides
our kids) a first edition of Churchill's WW2 history. (Missing the
original dust jackets alas but definitely a first edition)
In particular is there anything I should do to preserve these? (I've
attached non-binding notes to my kids which I've put in the same
envelope as my will asking them to carry out my wishes concerning the
chess books)
It depends. The USA's Second class citizens, Catholics, could only
afford pulp paper for most of THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHIRST. My 1910 copy
shows significant signs of deterioration.
About a dozen of its illustrations are printed on what appears to
be clay based paper. Those illustrations show no significant signs of >deterioration.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 16:49:02 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
I bought Divinsky's "Rings and Radicals" for 98 cents. Twenty years agoWhich Divinsky are you talking about? If you mean Nathan Divinsky,
I was offered $75 for it. When I mentioned this I was offered $100 by
someone else.
I'm assuming this book is long out of print but as a university math
student I would probably understand it.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 169:33:46 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 82,695 |