I don’t think ‘design space’ is a well defined concept since one could think of several realisations. Dissident seems to adhere to what I think is more general design concepts.

One start with customer requirements (‘achieve curved back by foot wear’) and somehow (it is apparently still an art) translates it to functional requirements (‘high heels’). These are satisfied by design variables (heel length + sole thickness) which are further broken down in meaningful variables (heel and sole cast form depths + heel and sole cast material shrinkage) ad nauseam.

Incidentally there is a theory called Axiomatic design that tells you that designs should be broken down so that orthogonality is strived for. (But rarely achieved.) Dissident gives an example of why interdependence is bad.

If women has more requirements perhaps these types of design spaces are higher dimensional?

My thinking was more of the naive type. One has a basic shoe design with parts whose xyz lengths can go from 0 upwards. (For example a top part may be 0 area or larger.) Choose materials for each part. Add on an RGB color space and percieved colors (like brown). Add paraphernalia.

That type of space does not seem to be of different dimensions for men and women.

But note that I meant larger in volume and not dimension. Women may choose more forms (high heels), materials, color or paraphernalia without getting odd looks. Please explain how there could be anything remotely trivial about these design spaces.

What is the topology of mixed metric (physical and color spaces) and (perhaps) discrete (material and paraphernalia) dimensions?

My reference (Simmons ‘Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis’) insists that metric spaces have the ‘usual’ topology; the class of all open subsets. It also defines the class of all subsets of any non-empty set as the discrete topology, and of course any space with discrete topology as a discrete space. But ‘trivial’ topolgy is apparently too trivial to discuss.

I find ‘trivial’ topology in Wikipedia instead, as a space where the only open sets are the empty set and the whole space. It seems it is not Kolmogorov nor discrete, so naively neither of the two types of design spaces should be trivial.

-cvj

*****************************************************

Quantoken, what makes you think that Condi is a virgin who is anxious about her attractiveness? It is sad to see even the calibre of person who comes to this forum indulge in diminishing a woman through her presumed sexuality. And the “I’m kidding” smiley face doesn’t excuse a sexist, demaning and baseless personal remark whatever you think of her politics.

-cvj

We all know every girl needs a pair of Manolo Blahnik’s or Jimmy Choo’s!!!

You especially completely distorted me and insert your own judgements into my words. And I reject that attempt:

1) You explicitly say “any woman”: why is a woman’s sexuality more note-worthy than a man’s?

I never made any reference to sexuality whatsoever. So it must be your own illusion that I made that implication. I could care less what a woman wears and I do NOT think a pair of shoes has any effect on a woman’s sexuality whatsoever, positive or negative.

2) Why does her appearance matter so much in this? She is a very successful woman, yet still you judge her according to what she looks like.

I could care less what she wears and could even care less what I wear myself. I do not judge people by clothes at all. But it is a fact that this society do pay more attention to those trivial things than I do, whether you are a man or woman, especially when you are a diplomat. But looks like Condi herself cares, by the virtue of spending $2000 on a pair of shoes.

3) The presumption that she ought to be wanting a man, and doing her best *to look good* to attract one, is sickening.

No, I did NOT make that presumption. I did NOT assume anything at all. This is a free country and I could care less how any one lives his/her life. I have not, and will NOT impose any particular value judgement. And you, by making the presumption that when a woman improves her looking, she necessarily wants a man, instead of otherwise, I am sorry to say, you have imposed your own value judgement. I do NOT impose any value judgement, period.

But of course, you won’t. Sigh.

-cvj

I never meant no disrespect to any women and certainly not to Condi. I regret that too bad you take it personally. I am merely making an observation, on facts that I know:

1.Condi went to buy a pair of shoes. That is a fact that happened, and there is nothing unusual or insultive for pointing out that fact.

2.The shoes she bought was worth $2000. That’s a material fact, not an opinion.

3.It is unusual for any one to buy a pair of $2000 shoes. That’s a factual observation. Because most people do not buy things so expensive, men or women.

4.Condi has her own reason to spend that money and buy that shoes. And she is entitled to that. I am just trying to rationalize it, and try to give a good reason why some one needs a $2000 shoes, WITHOUT imposing any particular value judgement.

Quantoken

Citrine, I’ve got nothing against our government officials taking a little personal time off now and then – we all need some time off to relieve stress. The point here is that these very high ranking officials were on vacation when the worst disaster to ever hit the US struck, and then *they stayed on vacation*. That was completely irresponsible, and in my view, they should be called on it.

Erc, you go girl! Thank you.

-cvj

1553-1558
Mary Tudor (“Bloody Mary”), another vertically challenged monarch, wears heels as high as possible. From this period until the early 19th century, high heels are frequently in vogue for both sexes.
Mid-1500s
An extreme shoe style called chopines, popular among women in Italy, Spain and France, had pedestals of cork or wood as tall as 24 inches. A Venetian lady wearing chopines needed two servants to help her in and out of a gondola.
1628
Pilgrims arrive in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A law is passed prohibiting “excess in bootes.”
1660
French shoemaker Nicholas Lestage, so clever at his trade that some accuse him of sorcery, becomes shoemaker to Louis XIV. The heels of Louis’s shoes, some decorated with miniature battle scenes, are as tall as five inches. High “Louis” heels are also fashionable for ladies.
1745
Madame de Pompadour, tiny-footed favorite of Louis XV, popularizes high, narrow “Pompadour” heels. Ladies tape their feet to reduce their apparent size and faint at court.
1793
Marie Antoinette ascends the scaffold to be executed wearing two-inch heels. However, in the wake of the French Revolution heels become lower than at any time in the 18th century.

Quantoken, I realise you like to post inflammatory remarks whenever the opportunity arises, but I find this truly offensive, and putting a little smiley face after it does not excuse your comment one iota. There are a number of reasons for my offense, primary among them being (these are in no particular order):

1) You explicitly say “any woman”: why is a woman’s sexuality more note-worthy than a man’s?
2) Why does her appearance matter so much in this? She is a very successful woman, yet still you judge her according to what she looks like.
3) The presumption that she ought to be wanting a man, and doing her best *to look good* to attract one, is sickening.

This sort of misogyny abounds in all areas of life, being so prevalent that it goes almost unnoticed much of the time. I find it utterly appalling that you think these sort of comments are acceptable, and would appreciate it if you tried to treat women with a little more respect. They are people, not objects.

But on second thought, I can understand. Condi was spending her own dimes and nichols, so what’s wrong with that? She is now the top diplomat of this country, not a presidential security advisor any more, so it’s not her job to deal with natural disaster emergencies. Being a top diplomat it may be important for her to pay a little bit attention to her appearals so you really can’t blame her for spending her own money on a pair of expensive shoes. Besides, with the kind of salary she is paid, and she doesn’t need to support a family, doesn’t need to go grocery shopping, and doesn’t need to worry about paying expensive gas prices to commute to work every day, like most of us do. I am really worried for her how she can spend that extra money, other than buying expensive shoes and clothes. Besides, I guess any women being a virgin at that age has got to be a little bit more anxious about her attractiveness, and wants to spend some money on it. So of course that’s understandable

As for the vice president Dick Cheney. We know all the time that he is just a back up, a stove-away, you may want to say. Whenever anything happens, they put him away in hiding first, so god forbid if anything happens, we have a backup. So fishing in Wyoming may be just part of his job as a stove-away

Quantoken