A harmless mathematician

 So, I have recently learned that as a mathematician I have no weapons, of course somewhere in the arsenal , which I guess you can imagine that like Plato's Cave, there is.   Anyway, I always thought that my main weapon was the Classification Theorem, but apparently not.   

So apparently it's a theory.  So that means that a mathematicians weapon is a theory, which I do not know if that theory is provable but ,,,,, I do know that classification is connected to symmetry, but the issue of structure, seems a bit obscure, and so .. as far as I know a theory based on an obscure probably undefinable whatever it might mean, does seem both clever and well, maybe confusing.

So what is my point here ?  Well if a theory based on structure is a weapon, it vaguely seems to me that , it's some kind of loop hole , which is probably definable.  Of course I know almost nothing about it, and I am therefore --- quite harmless --- .  But I do have a large number of pencils.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Synchronicity

 So, this strange, word, which suggests something like, two things happening at the same time, which are seemingly disconnected.  So, that may appear first mostly in the works of Carl Jung, and the formulations of many of his concepts related to applications of phycology.   Now, to the best of my understanding, Irwin Schrodinger, in the late 40's and early 50's kind of latched onto this " concept ", in relation to describing the " kind of " physics, connected to biologicals processes.  So maybe this is funny or not, but during this same time Schrodinger was supposed to be working with Einstein on the >>> Unified Field Theorem <<< , I guess, the " Theorem " gives it all away.  At some point , Schrodinger may have given a >>> press conference <<<  in which he announced that " they ", had been successful.  Well, he had not previously consulted Einstein, and apparently Einstein response was, okay we are don...
Read more

Perplexity, absurdity, and power

 So, when you consider or imagine " absolute " power, you must also consider the issue of " infinite " work.  In other words, without the results or effects of power, you really don't know anything about it. Nevertheless, throughout most of human history, we have labored under this concept of " absolute " power, which in and of itself produces very difficult logical or mental conundrums.  Of course, Dr. Einstein was fairly successful in dispelling some of these odd conundrums in particularly as regards some of our notions related to the physical world and our " environment " so to speak, however, that required a life time of work, and the help of many colleagues over the years. But simply, even if you do consider the >>>> universe <<<<< to be an infinite amount of work and therefore requiring an infinite/absolute amount of power, well, if you're going to try and rustle up numbers that actually make sense, you ar...
Read more

Something, something, reality

 Now, when we reflect back on " reality ", most people will agree, >>> it's hard to do without it <<< Now, we might be able to figure out how Godel's Proof , ties back to all this stuff, but it seems to me that if you want to describe some kind of reality, then you pretty much have to talk about diversity, and so probably, possibly what you are really talking about is the " ability " to sort out, elements of diversity as being a substantive process which it kind of seems like is persistently .occurring.   This might occur through action like --->  back actions <--- of some different processes or  even ---> front action <----, which might be easier to comprehend. So , if you are an automobile, and you can travel to pretty much anyplace in the world within 1 hour, then, things might look a bit different, particularly if you are into variation and transformation.  So, for example, Ralphy will rarely go to Africa, unless, it's l...
Read more