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.