It has an excepted quote from Wright that blew my mind:
> So we decided to invent a notation for juggling. Now this didn’t happen overnight—this took some considerable time—and our early attempts were very poor. They were inadequate to describe many of the tricks we thought a notation should be able to describe. And eventually we hit on a scheme that seemed to work. And we used it to write down loads of different juggling tricks that we knew.
> We discovered that if we arranged those tricks in just the right way, they fell into a pattern. There was an underlying, unsuspected structure. As long as you had the courage to leave gaps. And this goes back to things like the Periodic Table, when Mendeley was writing down all the elements—he realized that if you arranged them all according to function, then there were gaps, and that then predicted the existence of chemical elements.
> Well, we were predicting the existence of juggling tricks. And it worked! We actually found juggling tricks that no one had ever done before.
What's so cool is that you can predict gaps in knowledge by developing a notation to (honestly) describe what you do know.
Edit: basically, communication from the programmer to the compiler is a lossy channel, and needs error-detection, but human brains don't do parity codes well, so syntactic redundancy is the way to go.
(from https://grantland.com/features/anthony-gatto-juggling-cirque..., which is the best read you're likely to find on juggling and juggling culture)
Original video of that session at https://youtube.com/watch?v=gtsaTMdKVTM.
Here's me doing it, twice in a row, a long time ago: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/schani/jugglevids/97531twic...
The number of people who genuinely have talent in this sort of thing is very, very small. For the vast majority it's a willingness to work on it, and a good teacher. You can be an auto-didact, but that's then an additional skill.
Almost anyone can learn 3, can learn Mills Mess, can learn the basics of 4, and get learn a few dozen 3 ball tricks and patterns.
Getting to 5 requires significant dedication, but the reason most people don't do it is because they don't invest the time required.
Talent isn't a myth, but it's seriously over-rated, and usually just an excuse for not putting in the work. It doesn't need an excuse -- if you don't want to put in the work then don't.
But it's almost invariably not a lack of talent.
(Note: If you're wondering why I make this apparently content-free comment, check the article and my username)
My favourite SiteSwap is 5551, because (a) it's one of the very first ones we found using the not-yet-fully-developed notation, (b) it's superb practice for 5 (if done starting with either hand), and (c) the pattern it fits into is very satisfying.
Here's that pattern, and here's how we found it:
5 5 2
. . . .
5 5 5 5 0
4 4 1
5 5 5 1
6 6 6 6 1
7 7 7 7 7 1
I also envy jugglers for this simple notation. I am into flow arts, in particular Poi, and would love to have a simple notation like this.
I believe this juggle-dance routine https://vimeo.com/23958929 was put together using this tool. Neat use of prolog.
Now, here's a web-based visualizer for different patterns: http://ydgunz.github.io/gunswap/
Looks like one of the sources in that article was written by him and his wife (another math professor who I have also happened to have taken a course from): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X96...
The Neverthriving is proud to support and help run Mondo Juggling Festival.
I remember having this realization randomly while doing a standard 3-plait braid (I don't even remember what I was braiding) and realizing I was doing the exact same motion as juggling. Super weird