4 ms·

But isn't a tower characterised by its straight construct as compared to a mountain (or say, castle)? Although, I guess you could describe a mountain as 'tower

by Svip 12y ago

But isn't a tower characterised by its straight construct as compared to a mountain (or say, castle)? Although, I guess you could describe a mountain as 'towering'. Of course, you are right, if they built a LEGO mountain, they might pull it off; but that wasn't what they was asking for.

jobigoud 12y ago
According to Wikipedia a tower is just a tall, free standing structure, meant for regular access by humans, but not for living in or office work. Whereas a mast can have guy-wires (like in the article picture). The constraint of having a constant cross section is not part of the definition of a tower, I really don't understand why they make that assumption in the article. It was really an awkward read, thinking "just build from a larger base" at each paragraph. If we look at Burj Khalifa or the Eiffel Tower, they certainly have large bases. edit: actually the debate on the definition of tower vs mast vs tall building, habitable, free-standing, and the discussion pages on various articles (Tower, List of tallest towers, etc.) were a more interesting read than the article :-)
- Svip 12y ago
  True. But maybe it is the definition of a LEGO tower? It seems like this is a form of competition. The same is true for this tower in Budapest: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/may/26/lego-tower-hungary-world-record-video http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/may/26/le...
  - Retric 12y ago
    If hust the outer dimentions need to be constant you could presumably make it more hollow as you go up. Or just use lighter 2x16 blocks at the top moving down to a mix of 2x4 and 2x2 at the bottom. Still wind is probably the largest issue.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Because this is an argument in semantics. Sometimes it's ok to let it go and just read about a subject in the way the author intends. This is hard for me too sometims!

by Svip 12y ago

jobigoud 12y ago

According to Wikipedia a tower is just a tall, free standing structure, meant for regular access by humans, but not for living in or office work. Whereas a mast can have guy-wires (like in the article picture). The constraint of having a constant cross section is not part of the definition of a tower, I really don't understand why they make that assumption in the article. It was really an awkward read, thinking "just build from a larger base" at each paragraph. If we look at Burj Khalifa or the Eiffel Tower, they certainly have large bases. edit: actually the debate on the definition of tower vs mast vs tall building, habitable, free-standing, and the discussion pages on various articles (Tower, List of tallest towers, etc.) were a more interesting read than the article :-)

Svip 12y ago
True. But maybe it is the definition of a LEGO tower? It seems like this is a form of competition. The same is true for this tower in Budapest: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/may/26/lego-tower-hungary-world-record-video http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2014/may/26/le...
- Retric 12y ago
  If hust the outer dimentions need to be constant you could presumably make it more hollow as you go up. Or just use lighter 2x16 blocks at the top moving down to a mix of 2x4 and 2x2 at the bottom. Still wind is probably the largest issue.
bitJericho 12y ago
Because this is an argument in semantics. Sometimes it's ok to let it go and just read about a subject in the way the author intends. This is hard for me too sometims!