aldiboronti - 21 April 2008 08:19 AM

This is an example of the factorization method that we first used at school.

Example: Find the square root of 144.

1. Factorize 144.
2. 144 = 12 x 12
3. 12 can be written as 4 x 3.
4. 4 can be written as 2x2.
5. Hence 144 is 2x2x3x2x2x3.
6. Therefore the square root of 144 is 2x2x3 = 12

Well, that was rather obvious at step 2.
I gather that this method only works for perfect squares, or yields answers like “sqrt(18)= 3 x sqrt(2)”

To expand on Zythophile’s comments (which show that he gets it after all), an important distinction of genre sf is not just what the speculative element is, but how it’s treated.  In genre sf, if the protagonist woke up and found he’d been turned into a cockroach*, he’d start working immediately on either how to turn himself back into a human, or how to turn the situation to his advantage (take revenge on his enemies, perhaps).  Gregor Samsa wakes up, discovers his transformation, and spends the next five pages or so thinking about how how crappy his job is.

*or whatever.  I know that Kafka did not specify a cockroach.

I had to use log tables in my maths exams, and the year after calculators were allowed.

I’d say Asimov was a lousy stylist in his fiction but a great populist of science and reason in his non-fiction. Does anyone know Philip Jose Farmer? His Riverworld novels appealed to me at the time because of all the pseudo-intellectual name-dropping. Or that is how I see it nowadays. These could repay rereading now I am a PINM!  They were certainly a vast undertaking; entertaining and displaying great erudition.

venomousbede - 22 April 2008 08:33 AM

I’d say Asimov was a lousy stylist in his fiction but a great populist of science and reason in his non-fiction. Does anyone know Philip Jose Farmer? His Riverworld novels appealed to me at the time because of all the pseudo-intellectual name-dropping. Or that is how I see it nowadays. These could repay rereading now I am a PINM!  They were certainly a vast undertaking; entertaining and displaying great erudition.

Don’t forget Asimov’s history books.  I discovered them in junior high school.  I hadn’t been particularly interested in history, but I loved his science essays so I tried them.  I won’t say I wouldn’t have gotten interested in history without him, but he definitely gave me a push.

That being said, I recently re-read his autobiography, for the first time in two decades.  Looking at him in my middle age, it is perfectly obvious that he was insufferable:  a raging ego overlying a quivering blob of insecurity, manifesting itself as a constant need to be the center of attention.  I don’t doubt that he was a good public speaker, and the life of the party at science fiction conventions.  I suspect that I would thoroughly enjoy his company for up to an hour at at a time.  Longer than that would likely be problematic.  (Oh, and did I mention that he left his first wife, the mother of his children, by packing up his stuff and leaving a note while she was out of the house?  During the divorce negotiations his lawyer and her lawyer reached an agreement he though very fair.  Then she got a better lawyer, and he felt much put upon.)

As for Farmer, I never read him much, even back when I was reading a lot of SF.  I recently checked out of the library a “best of” collection, and bounced off it.  So I can’t really comment beyond that he clearly is not to my taste.

So, how about that ”Law of Unintended Consequences”?
If I had posted that I had a subscription to Analog instead of Asimov’s, would the thread have gone off into analog vs. digital watches? Astounding! (^_^)

I suspect that I would thoroughly enjoy his company for up to an hour at at a time.

I sure did.  I once managed to arrange for myself and a small group of friends to have lunch with him, and enjoyed it immensely. 

Oh, and did I mention that he left his first wife, the mother of his children, by packing up his stuff and leaving a note while she was out of the house?

Is that in his biography?  Which biography?  As I recall, he barely talked about his divorce in In Memory Yet Green/In Joy Still Felt.  I don’t recall I, Asimov or It’s Been a Good Lifeso well; truth to tell, I’m not sure if I read them or if they’re still sitting on the shelf waiting for me to get a round tuit.

Dr. Techie - 22 April 2008 10:38 AM

I suspect that I would thoroughly enjoy his company for up to an hour at at a time.

I sure did.  I once managed to arrange for myself and a small group of friends to have lunch with him, and enjoyed it immensely.

I believe it.  I never met him, but I know the type:  congenial and vastly entertaining, so long as at the center of attention.  Come to think of it, my daughter is the same way.  Of course she is not quite five months old.

Dr. Techie - 22 April 2008 10:38 AM

Oh, and did I mention that he left his first wife, the mother of his children, by packing up his stuff and leaving a note while she was out of the house?

Is that in his biography?  Which biography?  As I recall, he barely talked about his divorce in In Memory Yet Green/In Joy Still Felt.  I don’t recall I, Asimov or It’s Been a Good Lifeso well; truth to tell, I’m not sure if I read them or if they’re still sitting on the shelf waiting for me to get a round tuit.

It would be the second volume, In Joy Still Felt.  He doesn’t talk about the underlying reasons for the divorce.  It could be that his first wife was a horrid shrew, and he was too much a gentleman to say so.  More likely, it was a more typical growing apart.  But the bit about his slipping out the door was in the book.

Part of what fascinated me reading this is his unselfconsciousness.  He had a public persona of over-the-top egotism, but it was always with a wink at the reader, who was in on the joke.  But in the autobiography, his egotism does not come across that way to me.

Another example:  He was at a science fiction convention (Boskone, I think) and being treated like a king and loving it.  But he had made a previous commitment to speak at a chemistry convention and had to leave the con early.  He was unhappy about this, expecting a small audience.  As he sat in the auditorium while other speakers gave their presentations the audience gradually drifted away, getting smaller and smaller and Asimov getting more and more unhappy.  But as his scheduled time approached, people started drifting back into the hall, and by the time for his talk, the room was packed.  He gave a brilliant talk, received thunderous applause, and was treated like a king:  all was well!  The kicker is he comments that ever since, he has been confident of receiving this treatment by any group with (I’m paraphrasing) any pretensions to intellect or learning.  I detected no hint of the Asimov wink to the reader.

I grew up idolizing Asimov.  I recognized the game, and was more than happy to play along.  It was a bit disconcerting coming back decades later and realizing this is someone I would not have been able to tolerate being around.