So this is sock B(5) that I have added to before sending off again into the world.
It still weighs 15g, and the measurements are the same.
The package weighs 48g now, as I have removed a piece of paper.
I shall post it tomorrow morning on the way to work.
Received sock B(4).? weight of package = 51g
weight of sock alone =15g
Length of sock without tag 25cm, with tag 37cm
I’m hoping Sophie remembered to take a photo of her work, as I either mislaid or forgot – and can’t even remember that, but have looked on both camera and laptop and none to be found… sorry folks. I’m useless.
So, I’ll leave this post for sockateer S to add aphoto if she has one, and I’ll post again with the latest addition.
RECEIVED: SOCK A(4) 10th October 2012
Dear Sockateer e
Thank you for the delightful and delicate stitching you added to Sock A – yet again your skilful stitching amazes me – I don’t think I have ever seen such neat and tiny chain stitch. Beautiful!
Regarding the colour – I quite like to think that it is a trail of blood from the dinosaur jaws after they have savaged something for tea – though I may be showing my paleontological ignorance here, as ones on Sock A may well be herbivores?!
I have the perfect addition in mind to add to that…..
Short post… as I’ve posted it three times now and each time it has fallen down a hole and not published. Grrrr…..
Same Jiffy bag from Sockateer F (Franny Swann) returned. Weighs 38g unopened – lost 3g? Sock now weighs 14g, packaging 24g.
It contains words. Interesting, as Sock B now contains words too.
I shall stitch my bit tonight and post to Sockateer S in the morning.
Response to questions of a Mathematical nature
This isn’t the post I’m planning on big maths, just a repsonse to some of the things raised last week.
Dear S, what you’ve done hasn’t set a precident. Things change, the model I’ve done for your step will never reflect the changes and as a prediction can never be tested. As I’ve said its illustrative, and that is fine. The project would be boring if everyone did the same thing. Other additions to length or weight or width or any of the other physical changes that take place can be logged and I can do some analysis on them at the end of the project which might bring forward some interesting questions. If I can plot a graph and run a regression line through it at the end for example then does that mean it could of all been modelled from the beginning with enough information – reductibility raises its head again!
Leading from that, taking measurements allows me to look at relationships afterwards but it doesn’t really help with modelling the overall process initially. To do that using graph theory requires some knowledge of how you are choosing people to post the socks to. This raises lots of issues. Many of them relate to the qualitative as opposed to quantitative value; as for the quantities chosen in some way affecting the qualitative value, that is a very interesting question!
Regarding efficiency and paint by numbers – I’m trying to let you’re process lead my maths wrangling. This has led to the inefficiency in the allgorith, but as S suggests is useful from the artistic Point of view and prevents “some hideous chain letter.” I think I have now found a way to take this into account with the graph theory. The process is still inefficient in terms of a travelling salesman problem BUT in this respect the maths shouldn’t lead the art if you as artists feel the curatorial process is important. Also if it is allowing measurements to be taken then it is feeding later maths. If you were interested then the efficient way to pass the sock is a Hamiltonian Cycle. And as for whether its still art if it is paint by numbers I guess that depends on how integral you view the nature of the maths.
As for differentiating down to a simple equation. Probably not, and you can’t use the word differentiation in that way I’m afraid
Dan (probably raising more questions than I’ve answered)