Miscellaneous desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 18[edit]

Defining Continental Asia[edit]

The Continental Europe article says that this term is usually defined as excluding the islands of Iceland and the British Isles. This makes clear sense because these are islands not connected to the mainland. However, it is sometimes defined as excluding the Scandinavian peninsula.

But, how about in defining Continental Asia?? This term doesn't have a special Wikipedia article; it just re-directs to Asia. Thus, Wikipedia says nothing about what this term excludes. It's clear that it excludes the Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, and Sri Lanka, as well as European Turkey. But is there anything else the term is sometimes defined as excluding for reasons paralleling Scandinavia not being considered part of continental Europe?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason the term is used at all? The full list of Asian island nations includes Maldives, Cyprus, Singapore, East Timor, Brunei, and possibly Bahrain, although that is joined to the mainland by an artificial causeway, as well as those you list. Rojomoke (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Bahrain thing: If they built a bridge connecting Tasmania to mainland Australia, or Sri Lanka to India, would that mean that Tassy and SL are no longer islands? I very much doubt it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Rojomoke is right. While continental Asia is a concept which I guess could exist, it doesn't seem particularly common. And the somewhat funny thing about this in reference to what Jack said is a search finds mosts references to continental Asia seem to be to Pulau Palawan and the somewhat weird claim to be the southernmost point of continental Asia despite being on an island off another island.

It's perhaps worth considering why the concept of continental Europe is so common, it's surely at least partly because we're speaking English and the inventors of that language came from an island which isn't part of continental Europe. So continental Europe referred to those other guys. While there are some fairly universal differences between continental Europe and the British Isles as mentioned in our article (most only about 1 century old), some of the distinctions/asumptions made of what things are like in the continental Europe are I would suggest not as clearcut as continental Europe may imply since even ignoring Scandinavia. Continental Europe is a big area, much more than France and Germany. The Scandinavia issue likewise seems to be at least partly due to historical local separation.

For Asia, I don't think you have anything that similar, there's far less of a view of the rest of Asia as "one place". Afterall Asia itself as a concept originated probably mostly because of the European view of it as "that other place". And even in modern times, although there's some degree of a shared Asian identity e.g. with things like the Asian Games and other such groupings (often sporting ones) or stuff like Asian values, there's still much less of a continent wide view. (Consider also the related question of who's "Asian" which as hopefully people know can vary quite a bit from country to country. Notable even in a place like Singapore or Malaysia where the definition would often include those from SEA, East Asia and South Asia, the definition still may not always include those from West Asia or Central Asia.)

On the flip side, Maritime Southeast Asia and Mainland Southeast Asia is a thing. And you also have stuff like mainland China.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's important to note is these are really political definitions. There's no universal agreement on what falls under "Continental Asia" and the like because these definitions aren't based on objective facts that anyone can examine for themselves. They're based on squishy human ideas. So one person can think Country X belongs to Continental Asia, another can not, and neither can really be said to be wrong. Here's a video discussing this. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz:, see Rama's Bridge. I read a while back it is or was still passable on occasion, depending on the currents and tides. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A fascinating article. I had heard that there was a land bridge there in historical times, but didn't know what it was called. --- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profound question[edit]

Is the university basically one big calculator. So say for instance, an apple drops off a tree. What happens to the apple is governed by maths, speed it falls, density as are the effects of gravity on it. Essentially number crunching is going on here but obviously on a fu**ing MASSIVE scale (look at the whole universe) surely something *or some one* god you may say has created a massive calculator, that's created us. Just like I struggle with the concept of infiniy I struggle to imagine all this stuff is hapening on the fly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.233.213.17 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I take it you mean the universe, not the university, although a big calculator may help you out there, too.) You might be interested in the watchmaker analogy view of God. StuRat (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is clearly overwhelmed. He should consult his local Lost and Profound. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is properly whelmed. :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The universe is governed by the laws of physics, and math is used to describe those laws (or what we know of them). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Physics describes the known universe, it does not govern it; and as new discoveries are made, physics needs to play catch-up. If a group of scientists observed some event that was unexplainable by the laws of physics, they would need to rethink those laws and come up with an explanation. (Or put it down to some sort of collective hallucination, on the basis that "such a phenomenon does not exist; physics tells us so", but that would be somewhat unwise imo.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The universe obeys the laws of physics. That doesn't mean we know what all those laws are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the physics practised by Earthlings will ever explain how either (a) the universe has always been there, or (b) it was created out of nothing, by definition by a force that was separate from the universe. There will always be things that can never be within the reach of rational science. The spiritual dimension, for example. Some scientists may deny there is any such thing. That just shows how little they know, and how arrogant they can be in their know-all self-importance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asks us to consider the universe as a deterministic system which is a philosophical position, see the article Determinism. The view is tenable in Classical physics if one sets no limit on complex details, it is fundamental to computer science, it dismisses the notion of Free will by asserting Behaviorism, but it meets objections in Quantum physics that holds that fine-grain events such as Radioactive decay and movement of particles have randomness that cannot be predicted. AllBestFaith (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may not be able to predict radioactive decay, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a deterministic formula thatcan predict (define) that decay. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the macroscopic scale, but not the micro, where the universe does not act like any calculator I know of. That really freaked Einstein out. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the universe can do computations on a scale much larger than the computers that we've built so far. It's not clear what that means, if anything. It's probably a cognitive error to think that the large amount of computation demands an explanation. Competition for limited resources is an important driver of biological evolution, so it may be that human-level intelligence can only arise in limited-resource environments. It doesn't follow that resource limits are a property of Existence Itself, or, if there are limits, that they'd be small enough to be comprehensible to humans. -- BenRG (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster seems to be asking about the mathematical universe hypothesis. This is an idea that has been seriously propounded, though there's hardly universal acceptance of it. Philosophy of mathematics might also be of interest. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, unamnbiguously is yes. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meeces rule, OK?--178.103.190.96 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? No link to Simulation hypothesis? Seems like that's the closest thing to what our OP is imagining. SteveBaker (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK motorway slip road: solid white line across road?[edit]

What does this mean eg [1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.200.104 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious reference would be the Road Markings section of the UK's Highway Code. But the only solid white lines across the road it shows are the one at a stop sign, and one at "signals or police control"; and there don't seem to be any signals or police in the picture. I post this negative answer only to save others from doing it. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edcon)It is, by its nature (solid, across carriageway), a stop line. Ive never seen one in that position though. Maybe you stop here if you cant safely merge into the mway traffic? --178.103.190.96 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Ramp meter, although the OP's photograph doesn't have any traffic signals. One explanation is that this site is intended for ramp metering and the line has been put on the slip road before the signals have been installed. However, it looks very much like a piece of tape across the road, rather than being painted - it's possible that it may have been the site of temporary signals for road works, or, indeed, that it's just a piece of tape that's fallen off a lorry and ended up in a distracting position. Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something similar across the northbound slip road on the M6 at junction 2, but in that instance there are part-time traffic lights, and when they show red you are expected to stop and wait at that line. I'm wondering if there will be signals installed at this point in the near future. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be one of those thingies that counts cars? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are card games ever fake? (geographically)[edit]

Is North ever at a lower latitude than one of the other 3 players? In Manhattan you'd probably face the wall (30° clockwise, no problem). But do they ever not give a fuck and have South face Queens or something? What happens if the walls are 45° off and even the streets say Northeast, Southeast, Northwest or Southwest not N, S, E or W? (Like central Atlanta) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a little context for what this question is about for those of us playing at home? Dismas|^(talk) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate contract bridge is often played in a hall which is not N/S aligned. And even when it is, the players called "North" are often not geographically "North". -- SGBailey (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"And even when it is, the players called "North" are often not geographically "North"." Why not? That is so wrong. If your corners are right angles and not 45° off you should have no excuse. Is East at least to your right when you enter when it's geographically S/W/N? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know fine well that NESW in bridge is a local convention with no requirement for alignment to any wider geographic coordinate system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In every game I have ever played of any card game with four players, the player is South, and the rest are where you'd expect, to their right, left, and opposite. Is this a joke? μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 4 players, which one is the "player"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think Medeis must mean Declarer, but that really applies only to bridge, not any four-hand game. It's traditional, in newspaper bridge columns, to pretend that Declarer is always South, but in an actual tournament, the NESW positions are known before the hand, and any player might declare. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am just thinking that S is at the bottom of most maps I read, as well as advice books. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese maps have South at the top of the map. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Law 3 states:

Four players play at each table, and tables are numbered in a sequence established by the Director. He designates one direction as North; other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North.

So North is whichever way the director (referee) says it is. In my experience as a duplicate bridge player, directors typically make North the direction toward the wall where their own station is (typically with the supplies, scoring computer, etc.)—I've seen it stated that this is normal practice, but I can't remember where, to provide a citation. This may vary in large tournaments where there are multiple directors in the same room. I'm sure any other games where compass directions are used would follow similar practice. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge columns of newspapers provide a diagram of the hands - North is at the top, East on her left, South opposite and West on her right. So it's orientated the same way as a map. But of course, you can hold a map (or a newspaper come to that) any way you want. 109.146.238.101 (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]