What the hell does Clapton do?

I'm posting this to come back to the original question. I'm playing this lick (I don't quite master it yet) where I tap with a thimble on my right hand ring finger. The last high note is on the 36th virtual fret.
http://lalimace.free.fr/mp3/guitarsucks2.wmv
If you wonder how I came up with the technique, I didn't, it's the opening lick for 'guitars suck' Ron thal's tune...

lol.. I thought i was original, only to find i'm wrong again!! .. What i do is use glass slide to tap the string over the middle pickup (which gives a note, but you have to look for the one you need, just by kinda stumbling for it), and tap on the fret board, and you get a real increase in speed (because you dont tap once, you tap like 3 or 4 really quickly, like what drummers do, they dont hit the drum really fast, they hit it once and let the head "bounce")it sounds pretty cool too..
Ponyone: lol... I already pretty much said it woulnd't be infinite! I think you missed it cos it was one of the earlier ones :)..

PS: so far, as we now know, the universe is expanding and is ACELLERATING, which came as big big big shock.. cos very simple logic says other wise (when the big bang occured, a very large force pushed everything out, and everything has momentum, we have gravity, which acts to pull everything back in, and since force = change in momentum, you would expect to see a change in momentu, ie the expansion would decellerate)...
So they've ended up going back to one of einstines equations, where he "fixed" it (ie cheated, cos he believed the universe was static)... he then got rid of Lamda (the offending constant, where a force opposing gravity was acting to keep the universe unchanging), as hubble and co convinced him that the universe was indeed not static.. he called this his biggest blunder... Now they've had to go back to it, even though it's orignal intention was wrong.. This to me suggest that maybe we've got too ****y with our newtonain phsyics and maths, and there are other factors we need to acount for...

Originally posted by Lordathestrings
Neither. It is twice as big as it needs to be. :D

or you drank too much :D

Thinking is great, so lets do some more.
Bardsley, the paradox with alternating 1's and 2's is actually an (alternating) divergent row, meaning that whenthe variable tends to infinity,the row does not have an unique value( unlike 1/n or (n-1)/n).
A finite set of finite subsets being finite would be applicable if we were talking about combinations of defined, fretted notes but even then it would take a lot of people to work for all of their lives to work out all the combinations out (even if you leave out the impossible-to-fret ones).
when I bend to a 3rd, 5th, and in other occasions, I rarely bend dead-correct. I prefer trying to hit the in-between notes and make my guitar sound like a spoilt cat.
However, as I was told by a violin teacher once, although there are a lot of similarities between music and mathematics, there is one great difference : maths is exact (solve a problem as many times as you want and you should get the same result) and music is spiritual. Otherwise, we'd have a whole lot of math professors creating perfect songs. which contradicts human imperfection as opposed to nature's perfection.
Aaah I'm getting brain cramps from thinking too hard!

P.S. Linear Algebra, Mathematic Analysis, Numeric Algebra, Discrete and Concrete Math, Combinatorics, Set Theory, Regular Differential Equations and then some. And I'm still not completely crazy. At least my imaginary friend says so.

Originally posted by crazyguy
...And I'm still not completely crazy. At least my imaginary friend says so.

Of course not.. else you would not realise your friend is imaginary! :D

BTW, this thread might serve to calm those who think we're going to 'run out of notes to play'.

Ah! Crazyguy is a guy who knows what he talks about!
i forgot Combinatorics in the resume...
math isn't my field though it's background to computer eng. (that's why i didn't mention Digital Systems and the sort...)
but i believe you're wrong if you solve the same question in different way you might not get the same answer (if you're using boolean algebra or in finite fields like Z5 for example...)
actually if you combine these theories you get that:
1+1=2 (of course)
1+1=1 (Radiohead wrote on their OK computer that they hope you choked but its correct in switching algebra)
1+1=0 (using finite field Z2)
you can inductively prove that the natural numbers equal 0, and the integers, and the non-rational (of course you dont have rationals cause you cant divide by 0)
think about it...

Of course, crazyguy, music composition used to be seen simply as a mathematical field. When composers weren't seen in the way they are now, music production was put in the same category as maths, and was seen simply as a way of coming up with different combinations of correct notes that would sound good. It would have been blasphemous to suggest that the composer created anything, as that was God's realm.
Much classical music has been based very heavily on maths, even in contemporary times.

O.K. I know everyone wants to hear more about this so here it is: 1+1=2 works in Z
1+1=0 works in Z2
The difference is in the addition opperators (+) which are not the same, thus the problems differ.
However, this is all irrelevant for us, unlike the link im about to post in the Fastest guitarist... thread. I know he's probbably not the fastest, but do check it out.

Crazyguy: STOP IT! i had two years of that nasty crap... I didn't do "concrete maths" or "maths analysis", but we did ALOT of differentation and integration... which wasn't fun..
What's the name of the formula? where it is impossible for it to equal zero... but it does... It's like
1 + pi(to the power of i) = 0.
We did stuff like fermat's last theorem and crap like that... (I didn't do imaginary numbers tho, phew)
I'm not too worried about running out of chord progressions... I mean the combinations of ordering them (that's why it's permuations and not combinations), and then you've got rythem... and theyn FX, and then you got you'r acompneyment... and then lyrics... so really, even though the combinations might all get used up at some point... it's impossible to have some one who's heard them all in one life time... so it'll always be new to alot of poeple... :)

but still i ran out of new chords. whenever i try new ones they just dont sound right. and every time i play "regular" chords they just sound like (clearly or vaguely) a known song (that is known to me). even if i can innovate to others ears i cant innovate to myself and (not being egoistic) i'm more important when i play.
of course soloing is never a problem...

Originally posted by river
i read bout that somewhere. some ancient greek guy had
this paradox named after him. seems ya cant never
get anywhere because you must first go halfway, then
halfway, then halfway, and on and on ad infinitum.
guess we're stuck halfway there huh ?

Epimenides, lived in Crete during the sixth century BC. A statement made by him is believed to be the oldest of logical paradoxes. He is reputed to have said:

"All Cretans are liars."

since there are so many maths head here I thought you might benefit more from this link than I:
http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/ltindex.html

it's all about a different tuning system and the maths its based on. hope it makes more sense to you guys.

The Greek fellow who had the halfway paradox deal was named Xeno (or Zeno, depending on your dictionary).

And yeah, Clapton does it by asking Duane Allman to pay slide for him.