My thinking here is that although transcendental equations don’t have algebraic answers are there still links between them? That theory is supported by the contour lines in the following  So I wasn’t going to look into this but sometimes I just get captured by the mathematics. I have known for a while that most equations can’t be solved. The unsolvability of most equations leads to transcendental numbers. Numbers which aren’t the result of a solvable algebraic equation like 5x+1=7 or 2x^2=3 but can be computed, at least approximately. These numbers include pi and e. There isn’t a formula for pi or e, we can define them, we can even define them without the use of geometry. As I have found out in my curious investigations both numbers seem to crop up only when calculus is involved. e is the solution to the problem of The functions that produce these two have always seemed arbitrary to me. Why is it the case that when we don’t know the answer to we just say, the answer is the answer? We

DRY - Don't repeat yourself One of the things I did wrong when I started to write software for a career is to try and optimise before I had a chance to understand. Having worked a little longer I feel I have a better appreciation for what should be automated and when.  There are a lot of things that I felt I was repeatedly doing that according to my understanding of the DRY principles at the time, I thought I should be abstracted away, so as not to have to repeat myself. I kept telling myself that if I was finding a project boring that the boredom was a notification from my mind that there is unnecessary repetition. I still feel that there is a level of truth in the idea of boredom being the mind picking up on repetition however I now realise that is that there is a level of repetitiveness that is inherent in working as a software developer. That is not to say that we shouldn’t strive to remove the repetitiveness but that the job of a developer when working on a project must be fir

Moving into a new flat I have ended up with a lot of cardboard and have actually struggled to get it to all be taken away. I then saw this Kickstarter on hacker news which introduced me to the idea that I could perhaps use the cardboard I had been throwing away the whole time. I have been toying with some ideas for building myself a robot, or at least a robot arm but they seem to be just ludicrously expensive and still not able to lift much weight. One of the problems with the advancement of robotics is that although processing power has come down in price at a rate that no other product ever has, the cost of actuators (The motion inducing components like motors) has remained largely the same. I want to explore an idea I have for using cheaper motors in a robotic arm in another post though. The problem I want to look at here is the possibility of being able to use cardboard, a material which can almost be considered to have a negative price, as the structure to the robot. I love the