Hello expensive customer to our community We will proffer you an answer to this query arthur c clarke – In the newfangled 2001: An area odyssey, is there an inconsistency relating to the monolith’s measurements? ,and the respond will breathe typical by documented info sources, We welcome you and proffer you fresh questions and solutions, Many customer are questioning concerning the respond to this query.
arthur c clarke – In the newfangled 2001: An area odyssey, is there an inconsistency relating to the monolith’s measurements?
I’ve requested about it repeatedly on Wikipedia’s discuss web page for the article about Arthur C. Clarke’s newfangled 2001: An area odyssey, however had no retort (I’ve too talked about it on the discuss web page for the french article, the place no less than somebody chimed in, however it’s plane much less more likely to get a conclusive respond there). Is there a recognized inconsistency within the authentic textual content relating to the monolith’s measurements, and the unusual 1 : 4 : 9 ratio that they’re conjectural to match completely ?
I’m french, I haven’t got entry to the precise bespeak in authentic english, however in all of the digital variations of the unique I may discover there’s this sentence : “The monolith was 11 feet high, and 11/4 by 5 feet in cross-section.” Then it goes : “When its dimensions were checked with great care, they were found to be in the exact ratio 1 to 4 to 9.” And but these measurements don’t confirm the 1 : 4 : 9 ratio in any respect ! They would roughly confirm it with 11/9 as an alternative of 11/4. The french translation is nearer, surprisingly, though not almost immediate sufficient, particularly because it mistakenly provides that the measurements given in that sentence are “exact”, whereas solely the ratio is claimed to breathe require within the subsequent sentence from the unique (which is smart, because the unit used for measuring lengths is capricious, based mostly on historic selections which may have been totally different and could not have been anticipated plane by the almighty extraterrestrial tidings that designed the monolith — particularly these eerie items utilized in english talking international locations ! :^p —, whereas the ratio between dimensions is a purely mathematical understanding which may certainly have some systematize of common signification).
The french textual content goes : “The monolith was indeed exactly 3 meters high, by 1.50 meters wide and 35 centimeters of thickness.” That’s a ratio of 1.05 : 4.50 : 9.
So, is that this a factual mistake within the newfangled, or an OCR / transcript mistake ?
As a facet point to, the english Wikipedia article mentions one other inconsistency relating to the monolith(s), however between the newfangled and the film : “While it is stated in the book that the ratio of the dimensions of the monolith are supposed to be 1 : 4 : 9 (1² : 2² : 3²), the shape of the actual monolith seen in the movie does not conform to this ratio. A ratio of 1 : 4 : 9 would produce an object that appears thick, wide, and squat. Kubrick wanted something taller and thinner, which he felt would be more imposing. Measurements taken from movie frames show that the movie monolith has dimensions approximately in the ratio 0.65 : 4 : 9 or 1 : 6 : 14.”
That paragraph was flagged as “original research” ; is there a consensus on that signify, and are there property sources which may correctly advocate up that assertion ?
we are going to proffer you the answer to arthur c clarke – In the newfangled 2001: An area odyssey, is there an inconsistency relating to the monolith’s measurements? query through our community which brings all of the solutions from a number of dependable sources.