Reopen the women’s World Cup good luck Lionesses thread hear me out mods

[Bjorn Brimble]

Mods decided to close to women’s World Cup thread as it turned into discussion about achievements within the women’s game in general

The World Cup had ended was their stance. Thread closed.

But folk on here love to chat about women’s footy. Almost as much as the men’s game. And in some cases more. Lots of big characters and great role models in the England team who have captured the public’s imagination.

It deserves a thread to itself. Gets too confusing discussing the men’s and women’s game in one thread. And they’re two distinct sports in their own right. Everyone accepts that.

So why not reopen the women’s World Cup thread and just give it a new title. The women’s beautiful game would be my suggestion. Or women’s footy.

It makes sense.

Or just start a new thread.

None of could have foreseen the significance of the World Cup before it began and the lasting legacy it created.

[Slutty Rimmer]

Originally Posted by Bjorn Brimble

Mods decided to close to women’s World Cup thread as it turned into discussion about achievements within the women’s game in general

The World Cup had ended was their stance. Thread closed.

But folk on here love to chat about women’s footy. Almost as much as the men’s game. And in some cases more. Lots of big characters and great role models in the England team who have captured the public’s imagination.

It deserves a thread to itself. Gets too confusing discussing the men’s and women’s game in one thread. And they’re two distinct sports in their own right. Everyone accepts that.

So why not reopen the women’s World Cup thread and just give it a new title. The women’s beautiful game would be my suggestion. Or women’s footy.

It makes sense.

Or just start a new thread.

None of could have foreseen the significance of the World Cup before it began and the lasting legacy it created.

It’s the same beautiful game surely, just a different league with differing talent ?

More than a bit sexist and ‘glass of sherry for the little woman’ type of dinosaur thinking to exclude them from the footy thread just because they play in a women’s league. Nothing in the ‘Beautiful Game’ thread which excludes the women’s game…it isn’t an exclusive gentleman’s club (and nor should it be !). The women play on the same pitches, to the same crowds, to the same rules, and the matches are talked about around the same bar tables in the same footy discussions.

By your thinking there ought to be a dedicated thread for each division, literally…

…maybe we should divide all threads into a male and female thread ? Then each of those into a straight and gay thread, then each of those into a white and coloured thread, then each of those into Jewish, Christian, Muslim thread, then each of those into a jam first and jam last thread, then each of those into…

Why does it end ?

Better to keep it simple else the board would just become a dysfunctional schizophrenic fractal of non-topics.

…much like some people and societies I suppose, in that respect !

Kind Regards,
Rimmer.

Thanks for the suggestion

Think it's best to keep it simple at the moment, anyway

One footy thread to cover all. The Women's World Cup was for a specific event which is a bit different.

[ex nihilo]

Originally Posted by Slutty Rimmer

…maybe we should divide all threads into a male and female thread ? Then each of those into a straight and gay thread, then each of those into a white and coloured thread, then each of those into Jewish, Christian, Muslim thread, then each of those into a jam first and jam last thread, then each of those into…

Why does it end ?

Better to keep it simple else the board would just become a dysfunctional schizophrenic fractal of non-topics.

…much like some people and societies I suppose, in that respect !

Kind Regards,
Rimmer.

Yep. It's all those things, as is nature herself. Simple at first glance, but as you zoom in, becoming increasingly complex, but keeping its shape, as per the initial boundary set. Probably represents, a symbiotic natural relationship between what's in our mathematical toolkit and social evolution.

I'm afraid, colourful language would not allow dysfunctional schizophrenic fractals by definition. Unless of course we start from a wrong c.

Part of the fractal charm is that they come from the simple equation z = z squared + c. The terms z and c are complex numbers. One begins by assigning a fixed value to c, letting z = 0 and calculating the output. One then repeatedly recalculates, or iterates, the equation, substituting each new output for z. Some values of c, when plugged into this iterative function, produce outputs that swiftly tend toward infinity. Other values of c produce outputs that eternally skitter about within a certain boundary. This latter group of c's, or complex numbers, constitutes the Mandelbrot set and a fractal is therefore a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.

They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals.

We can't live without them, just as we can't have air traffic control vectoring, without the square root of minus 1...

[Slutty Rimmer]

Originally Posted by ex nihilo

Yep. It's all those things, as is nature herself. Simple at first glance, but as you zoom in, becoming increasingly complex, but keeping its shape, as per the initial boundary set. Probably represents, a symbiotic natural relationship between what's in our mathematical toolkit and social evolution.

I'm afraid, colourful language would not allow dysfunctional schizophrenic fractals by definition. Unless of course we start from a wrong c.

Part of the fractal charm is that they come from the simple equation z = z squared + c. The terms z and c are complex numbers. One begins by assigning a fixed value to c, letting z = 0 and calculating the output. One then repeatedly recalculates, or iterates, the equation, substituting each new output for z. Some values of c, when plugged into this iterative function, produce outputs that swiftly tend toward infinity. Other values of c produce outputs that eternally skitter about within a certain boundary. This latter group of c's, or complex numbers, constitutes the Mandelbrot set and a fractal is therefore a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.

They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals.

We can't live without them, just as we can't have air traffic control vectoring, without the square root of minus 1...

Anybody ?

…nope, me neither.

Kind Regards,
Page 130.

[ex nihilo]

Originally Posted by Slutty Rimmer

Anybody ?

…nope, me neither.

Kind Regards,
Page 130.

I would have expected that as I had described an iterative process for creating the infinitely complex Mandelbrot Set, that n and n+1, would have been deemed implicit in the equation I wrote.

But, just for you Loz and the sake of perspicuity , then let's say Zn+1 = Zn squared + C

The point is that when we iterate a function that in some portion, at some scale, resembles the parabolic function, Z squared then we will find small copies of the Mandelbrot Set, in the map of that function.

No dysfunctional schizophrenic fractals, anywhere in sight...

[Slutty Rimmer]

Originally Posted by ex nihilo

I would have expected that as I had described an iterative process for creating the infinitely complex Mandelbrot Set, that n and n+1, would have been deemed implicit in the equation I wrote.

But, just for you Loz and the sake of perspicuity , then let's say Zn+1 = Zn squared + C

The point is that when we iterate a function that in some portion, at some scale, resembles the parabolic function, Z squared then we will find small copies of the Mandelbrot Set, in the map of that function.

No dysfunctional schizophrenic fractals, anywhere in sight...

Tchhh. Well that’s footy for yer.



Kind Regards,
Page 130.