On Jul 8, 2:46*pm, riverman wrote:


In a similar vein, the old Rand McNally Road Atlas used to have (maybe
still does...) a great page in the back where it showed a few hundred
cities as dots, and had little red lines connecting them,
approximating the road networks. The lines were labeled with the
distance and time required to travel between these adjacent cities. In
my younger days I used to drive all over the place...a very similar
pattern to my older life it appears....and relied on this page a lot
for determining my route. I discovered that it was impossible to
determine the best route from LA to Boston, as there were only short
segments, but I assumed that if point C lay somewhere between point A
and point B, then the shortest distance from A to C, then C to B,
would be the shortest distance from A to C. Then, of course, add point
D between A and C, and point E between A and D, etc.....and strangely
enough...I soon found that the shortest distance from A to C worked
itself out from the details.

Very similar to the approach taken by Messrs. Lewis, Clark, Thompson,
Humboldt (not necessarily in chronological order) etc. Of course,
these and their ilk generally left more, and more explicit and
accurate, directions than they found.....but they and their immediate
successors would have found the whole process eerily familiar and
instantly recognizable and useful.

Seems obvious

Yes, it does.

(and was later proven with mathematical studies of
Hamiltonian Paths and Euler Circuits and Dijkstra's Algorithm)

Wouldn't know.....never heard of any of those.

but
you'd be suprised how many people will take the long (time and
distance) route around town on a highway rather than the short (time
and distance) route through town just because they are in love with
feeling motion.

Maybe. Probably not. Not easily surprised in these latter days.

Travelling 60mph for a half hour seems like its
'faster' than travelling 30 mph for 25 minutes, yet people do it.

Travelling 60 mph for whatever length of time is "faster" than
travelling 30 mph for whatever length of time......twice as fast, as a
matter of fact. Travelling 60 mph will also get you to wherever you
are going in exactly half the time as moving toward it at thirty miles
per hour over the same route. On the other hand, if we're dealing
with different routes then making the trip in 25 minutes at 30 mph
would appear (at first glance) to offer obvious and insurmountable
advantages to travelling at 60 mph hour for 30 minutes to the same
destination. That's the trouble with first glances.

In fact, I deal with an uncannily similar situation daily (more or
less) on my way to work in the mornings. I can take a 6 mile route
over "surface streets" or a bit more than twice as long route via the
freeway. The freeway route takes an average of about a minute longer
despite the much higher (more than double) average speed.....most
days. Just about a horse apiece.....slight advantage to the surface
streets. But.....

But the surface streets are littered with 17 traffic lights. If I hit
them all wrong the balance tilts WAY over to the freeway side in terms
of travel time. And, in any case, the fuel savings via the freeway
(no stop and start) tilt heavily in it's favor regardless of a few
seconds difference in travel time.

I think most people don't really think, let alone analyze, when they
are doing stuff.

Maybe. But it could just be more a question of what they think about
and what analytical tools and data they have at their disposal, the
former being highly dependent on the latter.

Its refreshing to hear stories of people who do.

Yeah......generally. But then we run into people who do it
badly.....and that's at least as distressing as people who don't do it
at all, ainna? I mean, look at the diminutive member, the kennies,
davie, etc.

You'd truly enjoy the opening chapter of "Beyond Numeracy' by John
Allen Paulos.

You're assuming I'd understand it. That's flattering.....or
naive.

giles