Re: fast tires

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 20:36:28 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 6/19/2025 7:39 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 16:54:38 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
 

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:55:07 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:49:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:25:10 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 13:59:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:57:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:48:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:46:09 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:20:34 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
>

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> writes:
>

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:58:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

(...)

IOW if you turn an object loose with only its weight acting on its mass,
it accelerates downward at one "gee."

>
Count me unimpressed by Krygowski's cut and paste.

>
I'm reasonably sure that was written extemporaneously.  Any engineering
professor should be able to do the same.  Any practicing engineer will
have gone through the same reasoning many times.

>
I'm reasonably sure he copied out of a book.

>
To impress you, must one now memorize all the proofs and calculations?
That seems a bit excessive.  Do you memorize everything?  I don't,
mostly because my memory is not as good as when I was young.
Secondarily, because I don't like distributing potentially wrong
proofs and calculations.  If you have memorized everything, I too
would be very impressed.

>
I don't learn things by rote, I learn by knowing how things work.

>
I didn't mention rote learning by repetition without understanding. Is
learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by cut and
paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an attempt to
change the topic.
>
Ok, I'll bite.  Rote is just one of many ways people learn.  We all
did that learning basic arithmetic, alphabet, spelling, names of
things, etc.  We have to start somewhere, and rote memorization is a
good way to begin learning.  I still learn by rote today.  For
example, I'm inundated with amazing facts by a newsgroup personality.
I make no attempt to understand those facts.  Some might be true, but
most are false.  I do some research and develop some understanding.
Sometimes, it's on topics of which I know little.  If you've read my
comments in rec.bicycles.tech, you will likely be reading the results
of that research.
>
Do you have any proof of your claims?  If Frank had copied from a book
or from the internet, I should be able to search for quotations that
match his explanation of relationship between pounds force and pounds
mass.  I searched for "keeping track of units properly, the
calculation should be" and a few other quotes and found nothing:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22keeping%20track%20of%20units%20properly%2C%20the%20calculation%20should%20be%22>
The explanation might have come from a textbook, except that the
grammar was in the style of a verbal discussion, and not a textbook.
Also, if you've ever read something that was partly plagiarized from a
book, what you invariably will find are two styles of writing.  One
from the book and the other from the writer.
>
If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know how
things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what you're
doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it possible for
you to know how things work without first knowing first learning?

>
https://oxfordlearning.com/difference-rote-learning-meaningful-learning/

>
Yes, that's fine background information.  You were the one who
introduced rote learning to this discussion.  I'm trying to determine
why you did that and what it has to do with Frank's explanations of
pounds force and pounds mass.
>
Here are two of my questions that you ignored.  I obviously can't
demand answers, but I am interested in any answer you could provide.
That's because I don't care (much) about anyone's convictions,
beliefs, opinions etc.  I do care how they derived or calculated those
convictions, beliefs, opinions etc.
>
1.  Is learning by rote somehow related to you being unimpressed by
cut and paste or copying out of a book?  That seems to me like an
attempt to change the topic.

 
I thought it was obvious that I was unimpressed by what I thought was
cut and paste..
 

2.  If you learn by knowing how things work, you would need to know
how things work BEFORE you could learn something.  If that's what
you're doing, it's rather self contradictory.  If not, how is it
possible for you to know how things work without first knowing first
learning?

 
As for " learn by knowing how things work," what I should have said
was that I learn by analyzing how things work.  I am, as you might
have noticed, not very good at explaining myself. That's probably due
to me not being particularly interested in explaining myself.
 
Below, I was responding to how the term "learn by rote" got into the
discussion...
 

I detirmined that Krygowski was a "learn by rote" guy a while back
when he couldn't analyse the research data he posted and instead, just
quoted the researcher's conclusions.

>
You again ignored my questions and diverted to bashing Frank, again
with a "one-liner".  That's fine.  I can't force you to answer.
>
I do the same thing that Frank did you quoting the researchers
conclusions.  However, I don't include all their logic and reasoning
because it would be too much for most readers.  I simply reference the
researchers conclusions so that the readers can skim the comments at
their leisure and hopefully add some background and context to my
comments.  I like to highlight a relevant quotation from the research
that hopefully reinforces my point of view to the readers.

 
I usually ignore the researcher's conclusions. I will, if I'm
interested, analyses it for myself. I may look to see who they are and
see what their agenda is so I can determine their bias insofar as the
collection and presentation of data. Often I can't see who they are,
but there are some things to be learned simply by noting what they're
researching and how they define and label it.
 
I should say that more often than not I'll simply ignore those
"studies." People don't spend time and money on them unless they have
an agenda, which I'm not going to be interested in.
 

Do you expect your readers to analyzer your data for you?  How about
someone else's data?  Isn't that what you're asking Frank to do by
expecting him to duplicate or verify the researchers calculations and
conclusions?

 
No, actually I challenged him to explain his statement about the
pretend study I presented being like similar to the study he
presented.
 

I know enough statistics to get myself into trouble.  I
would be hard pressed to perform a proper statistical analysis on a
research paper.  If you ask Frank to do that, are you prepared to do
the same?  How's your statistics experience?

 
One needn't be an expert in statistics to note that because sometimes
people with guns in their homes get shot doesn't mean that having a
gun in the house makes it more likely to get shot.
 

It's difficult for me to guess(tm) what actually happened from your
one-line description.  Frank probably cited a reference that had done
some research involving cycling.  Knowing Frank, it was probably about
bicycle infrastructure.  That's a very controversial topic, that has
as many opinions as there are researchers.  Frank probably posted a
link to a research report that agreed with his point of view.  With
minimal effort, I could probably find a research report with opposite
or alternative points of view.  Or, I could massage the data to
reflect my point of view.  What were you expecting?  Faulty data or
faulty conclusions?

 
Actually, I'm not interested in studies involving cycling, nor am I
interested in defending my contradictory opinions. I'm also not
interested in seeing/hearing someone else defend their opinions, other
than, prhaps for analyzing their thought processes.
 

Anyway, I don't see why you don't appreciate learning by rote.  It's
just another way of learning.  I learned to play piano by wrote.

 
Actually I do appreciate it and I mentioned a number of things I've
learned by rote. When I say someone is a "learn by rote" person I'm
saying their primary learning process is rote, and thus, they're poor
problem solvers.
 

Same with anything I had to learn that require practice.  I didn't
really understand what I was expected to do until after I performed it
by rote.  Those who chose to look deeper eventually learned to what
the composer was trying to do and how it worked.  First, I learned how
to do it by brute force (rote).  Later came understanding, not the
other way around.

 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
I may not have understood your position yet.
>
Without a grounding in the basic principles/ rules/ laws/
formulae of any given field you really cannot solve problems
with any efficiency, at least not the problems previously
solved by others who wrote those formulae for you.
>
Th best defense attorneys are brilliantly creative (some
might say to an absurdly unreal level) but their success
(and billing rate) is firmly grounded in a diligent thorough
understanding of the Statutes and untold numbers of prior
case decisions in all their picayune detail.
>
'Reinventing the wheel' and all that is a hard (and
unnecessary) slog.

Lawers must first know the basic principles....  but most good
lawyers, especially courtroom lawyers are problem solvers, which
requires more than what you can learn from books.

I believe the movers and shakers of the world have learned both ways,
rote learning and meaningful learning.

--
C'est bon
Soloman