Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

blog.tanyakhovanova.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#51

Post by VBprogrammer »

fanf2 wrote: post #38
edanm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating! Why is that the standard?

I looked at our stairs at home and they have 13 steps with a rise of what looks like a bit less than 20cm - hard to measure accurately with the carpet. That gives a total height of 2.5m which is nice and round. A bit of searching around and I find the building regulations permit a rise per step between 15cm and 22cm. And I find a site which says “A typical rise is 2,600mm, which divides easily into 13 200mm risers, o…

I'd wager that when that standard was established the divisivility of those metric measurements would not have been a consideration. Most likely it's also close to some even fraction of feet and inches.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#52

Post by ken »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #7

I'm the type of person who quantifies a lot of information from my everyday life, but it has never occurred to me to count the number of steps on flights of stairs that I climb. Quantification isn't a costless activity, and knowing numbers of steps just doesn't seem useful. I'm content to remain ignorant of these data.

As a musician (i.e., someone who frequently carries large objects up and down stairs), knowing the count is extremely useful to me. A significant portion of the time, I cannot see the ground. Instead of getting close and then feeling around with my foot one step at a time, I can just count to 14 (or whatever it is) and know I'm on the floor.

Even in a new building, it's common to walk the stairs at least once before hauling heavy equipment (to see where it's going to go), so I almost always have a count before I start.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#53

Post by albertgoeswoof »

teddyh wrote: post #23

“ ‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.’ ‘Frequently.’ ‘How often?’ ‘Well, some hundreds of times.’ ‘Then how many are there?’ ‘How many! I don’t know.’ ‘Quite so. You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and ob…

While good fiction, this is pretty dumb. Did Sherlock count the number of tiles on the wall as well? What about the colour of the carpet or the number of cracks in the ceiling?

Knowing how many steps there are is useless information and wasteful to retain.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#54

Post by exegete »

jacobolus wrote: post #16
CydeWeys wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're joking, but the number of steps is well defined and doesn't vary as it's essentially a difference. The difference between two numbers is always the same regardless of whether you're using a 0-indexed or a 1-indexed base system. E.g. regardless of whether you call an element in an array [1] or [2], it's still two elements away from whatever is [3] or [4] -- the number of stairs climbed is the same. So yo…

0-indexing steps is clearly the only reasonable choice. Who in their right mind would call the ground the “first step”?

I think it's the same people who call the ground floor the first floor. Coincidentally, I often have an off-by-one error in elevators.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#55

Post by still_grokking »

I don't count them. But from long experience I know the most staircase have an odd number of stairs.

My first step is "short" and whenever possible all following "long". That usually works.

But to the current day I don't know whether there is a real reason to this observation. Maybe it's pure coincidence. Or maybe something typical to may country. Or after all it has indeed some real (maybe even wired) reason.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#58

Post by wmccullough »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #53
teddyh wrote: post #23

“ ‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.’ ‘Frequently.’ ‘How often?’ ‘Well, some hundreds of times.’ ‘Then how many are there?’ ‘How many! I don’t know.’ ‘Quite so. You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and ob…

While good fiction, this is pretty dumb. Did Sherlock count the number of tiles on the wall as well? What about the colour of the carpet or the number of cracks in the ceiling? Knowing how many steps there are is useless information and wasteful to retain.

I think you may have missed the goal of the exercise friend. I think this is a larger metaphor about walking through the waking life without really observing what’s going on.

Disclaimer: I meant this constructively in case it comes of wrong.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#59

Post by albertgoeswoof »

wmccullough wrote: post #58
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While good fiction, this is pretty dumb. Did Sherlock count the number of tiles on the wall as well? What about the colour of the carpet or the number of cracks in the ceiling? Knowing how many steps there are is useless information and wasteful to retain.

I think you may have missed the goal of the exercise friend. I think this is a larger metaphor about walking through the waking life without really observing what’s going on. Disclaimer: I meant this constructively in case it comes of wrong.

I get the metaphor, I just think it’s stupid.

There are an infinite number of things you can observe about the world around you, and there are many many more things you will not see than things you will see. All the way from high society people relations down to individual quantum particle interactions, it’s mind boggling how much there is out there happening at all times in all spaces. It’s not possible to observe all of this and the tiny fraction that we do observe is minuscule.

Pretending that there is some profound way to observe the world comes across as obnoxious and cringe-worthy.

Re: A Nerd’s Way to Walk Up the Stairs (2011)

#60

Post by ethbro »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #53
teddyh wrote: post #23

“ ‘You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room.’ ‘Frequently.’ ‘How often?’ ‘Well, some hundreds of times.’ ‘Then how many are there?’ ‘How many! I don’t know.’ ‘Quite so. You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and ob…

While good fiction, this is pretty dumb. Did Sherlock count the number of tiles on the wall as well? What about the colour of the carpet or the number of cracks in the ceiling? Knowing how many steps there are is useless information and wasteful to retain.

The essence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock stories (and what makes them clever and recommended reading) is that the answer lies in plain sight.

Holmes does not succeed because he is superhuman (although the stories are not without their action bits), but because he applies himself more fully than others, and prepares and experiments more thoroughly.

Is the number of steps important?

Well, it would be if one were attempting to decide between two suspects, one on crutches and one a runner, and the time of path traversal was known.

But by then, others (notably the ever-mystified Scotland Yard) would have already dismissed stair count as unimportant.

Seemingly insignificant facts in aggregate, my dear albertgoeswoof, a case do build.

Post reply on HN