Replying to LO27720 --
Dear Leo, dear colleagues,
you sum up your inspiration (inspiring :o) by :
> So if I translate these two ideas into numbers:
>
> Smuts: (2 + 10) > 2 + 10
> (3 + 9) > 3 + 9
> (4 + 8) > 4 + 8
> (5 + 7) > 5 + 7
> (6 + 6) > 6 + 6
>
> Newton: 2 x 10 = 20
> 3 x 9 = 27
> 4 x 8 = 32
> 5 x 7 = 35
> 6 x 6 = 36
In both of your analogies, the sum of the components (the summands) is
constant (12), thus each summand is limited (from above, by the constant
sum).
Let me suggest another point of view (formula :o): suppose the ratio of
the components to be constant - then by adding to one, you automatically
change the other ... (this can be put nicely in a formula, making x times
y to stay constant (C), and then looking at (x+t) and C/(x+t), but why
bother?)
now, this doesn't necessarily increase the sum, but still i would say that
it makes the "whole" bigger than it's components' sum by "fraternity" -
for good and worse.
Judy Tal
--Judy Tal <judyt@netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.