> You can see it is R/r local revolutions of the small circle. Then you need to add one global revolution from going around the large circle. So R/r + 1.
I understand the article, but I don't I think I quite get or buy your explanation.
I'm curious about your linguistic separation of "local" and "global". What is local and what is global in this situation? I wonder if you are the frame of reference concept? Could you unpack what you mean?
I don't think the terms quite fit. You did when you wrote it; do you still? By this I mean: do you think the way you're using the terms local and global would be intuitive to, say, an audience with a high-school level background in geometry? This is an empirical question, but my inclination would be to say 'probably not'.
I find the article's emphasis on decomposing sliding (i.e. translation) from rotating to be much more intuitive. (Of course people will vary.)
Still, I'm curious. I'm searching for a sense in which this linguistic global/local distinction adds explanatory power. Care to elaborate?
I understand the article, but I don't I think I quite get or buy your explanation.
I'm curious about your linguistic separation of "local" and "global". What is local and what is global in this situation? I wonder if you are the frame of reference concept? Could you unpack what you mean?
I don't think the terms quite fit. You did when you wrote it; do you still? By this I mean: do you think the way you're using the terms local and global would be intuitive to, say, an audience with a high-school level background in geometry? This is an empirical question, but my inclination would be to say 'probably not'.
I find the article's emphasis on decomposing sliding (i.e. translation) from rotating to be much more intuitive. (Of course people will vary.)
Still, I'm curious. I'm searching for a sense in which this linguistic global/local distinction adds explanatory power. Care to elaborate?