Sylvester’s models lay hidden away for a long time, but recently the Mathematical Institute received a donation to rescue some of them. Four of these were carefully restored by Catherine Kimber of the Ashmolean Museum and now sit in an illuminated glass cabinet in the Institute Common Room.
Some of you might have noticed the reference to the Ashmolean Museum?
It seems only the good scientist John Baez had epitomes the construction of the Platonic solids? A revision then, of the “time line of history” and the correction he himself had to make? Let’s not be to arrogant to know that once we understand more and look at “the anomalies” it forces us to revise our assessments.
The Art form
I relayed this image and quote below on Clifford’s site to encourage the thinking of young people into an art form that is truly amazing to me. Yes I get excited about it after having learnt of Gauss and Reimann’s exceptional abilities to move into the non euclidean world.
Some think me a crackpot here? If you did not follow the history then how would you know to also include the “physics of approach,” as well? Also, some might ask what use “this ability to see the visual abstraction” and I think this art form is in a way destined, to what was kept in glass cabinets and such, even while the glass cabinet in analogy is held in the brain/space of them) who have developed such artistic abilities.
It’s as if you move past the layers of the evolution of the human being(brain casings) and it evolution and the field that surrounds them. Having accomplished the intellect( your equations and such), has now moved into the world of imagery. Closet to this is the emotive field which circumvents our perspective on the greater potential of the world in the amazing thought forms of imagery. This move outward, varies for each of us from time to time. Some who are focused in which ever area can move beyond them. This paragraph just written is what would be considered crackpot(I dislike that word)because of the long years of research I had gone through to arrive at this point.
Of course, those views above are different.
Is it illusionary or delusional, and having looked at the Clebsch’s Diagonal Surface below, how is it that “abstraction” written?
The enthusiasm that characterized such collections was captured by Francis Bacon [1, p. 247], who ironically advised “learned gentlemen” of the era to assemble within “a small compass a model of the universal made private”, building
… a goodly, huge cabinet, wherein whatsoever the hand of man by exquisite art or engine has made rare in stuff, form or motion; whatsoever singularity, chance, and the shuffle of things hath produced; whatsoever Nature has wrought in things that want life and may be kept; shall be sorted and included.
There is no doubt that the long road to understanding science is the prerequisite to mapping the images from an equation’s signs and symbols. While not sitting in the classroom of the teachers it was necessary to try and move into the fifth dimensional referencing of our computer screen to see what is being extolled here not just in image development, but of what the physics is doing in relation.
In 1849 already, the British mathematicians Salmon ([Sal49]) and Cayley ([Cay49]) published the results of their correspondence on the number of straight lines on a smooth cubic surface. In a letter, Cayley had told Salmon, that their could only exist a finite number – and Salmon answered, that the number should be exactly 27
So of course to be the historical journey was established like most things, Mandelstam current and what is happening there as an interlude, as well as helping to establish some understanding of the abstractions that had been developed.
But yes, before moving to current day imagery and abstraction, I had to understand how these developments were being tackled in today’s theoretical sciences.