A: Hey, you over there, the one walking! You're doing it
wrong.
B: Excuse me?
A: You're only using two feet! You should
keep at least three of your six in contact with the ground at all times.
B: ...
A: Look, it's easily proved that's the optimal way to walk.
Otherwise you'd be
unstable, and
if you were
walking past a Dutchman he could kick one of your legs with his clogs and knock
you over and then lecture you on how to make pancakes.
B: What? Why a Dutchman?
A: You can't trust the Dutch, they're everywhere! Besides,
every time you walk it's really just like running the gauntlet
at Schiphol.
B: It is?
A: Don't change the subject! Walking like that you're
actually sessile!
B: I don't seem to be rooted in place...
A: It's a technical term. Look, it's very simple, these
are all implications of the axioms of the theory of optimal walking and you're
breaking them all. I can't get over how immobile you are, walking like that.
B: "Immobile"?
A: Well, you're not walking properly, are you?
B: Your theory seems to assume I have six legs.
A: Yes, exactly!
B: I only have two legs. It doesn't describe what I do
at all.
A: It's a normative theory.
B: For something with six legs.
A: Yes.
B: I have two legs. Does your theory have any advice about how to walk on two legs?
A: Could you try crawling on your hands and knees?
Disclaimer: A is the one with the weird Batavophobia, not me.
Manual trackback: Vukutu; MetaFilter; nostalgebraist; Meaningness
Bayes, anti-Bayes; Learned Folly; Enigmas of Chance; Dialogues
Posted at April 11, 2008 20:11 | permanent link