There can never be suprises in logic.
In logic process and result are equivalent.
Buggrit. It appears that I can only say what I want to say if I allow transmission codes of ever increasing length, which I definitely don't want to do, or assume some kind of space-homogeneity of a mapping that I was trying to keep as general as possible, which would make it almost linear, which is not nice either, but would probably be the lesser of two evils. I'm now questioning whether this stuff should be submitted to the Tromsø meeting at all, or if I should make a significant retreat to humbler and much less interesting territory. In summary, I present the following emoticon :-(
Of course the post title is quoted ironically - It is strangely difficult, having proven something is impossible, having run up against a wall, to simply take note of it and change direction, and keep moving. Maybe that's one of the skills a theorist needs to develop?
For those who don't care about such problems, I present the following enoyable snippet from serial ghost-reader, occasional unwitting contributor, and generous and always charming host to London's beurocratically downtrodden, Jo H.
Of course the post title is quoted ironically - It is strangely difficult, having proven something is impossible, having run up against a wall, to simply take note of it and change direction, and keep moving. Maybe that's one of the skills a theorist needs to develop?
For those who don't care about such problems, I present the following enoyable snippet from serial ghost-reader, occasional unwitting contributor, and generous and always charming host to London's beurocratically downtrodden, Jo H.
posted by I-Rock at 8:02 PM
11 Comments:
I think that there can be surprises in logic; you just have to throw in some surprising processes! Surely?
Like randomness? You're hardly surprised when you roll a dice and a 4 turns up. So, you pack up all your surprises and describe it statistically.
In a lot of cases, you can't just logically step forward through a problem. You need a hunch as to where to jump next. When you come to a conclusion, it reads logically only backwards and in hindsight.
Also, big gay alf.
Hmmm. I don't think randomness is surprising... but I do think that sneaking up on an answer and pulling its pants down would add some much needed colour to your paper, Ian. That is my advice. Pants. As KT's friendly Dutch friend would have it, "Keep it stupid, simple".
While I can promise surprises, discussion and ambiguous conclusions, I am not able to guarantee due process and logic. I can, however, provide random women (for a reasonable fee).
If this is all that you need for a good time in NYC then you need to get the airtrain to the New Jersey "Newark Airport Station" and get a train to Penn Station, New York from there.
Obviously this an invitation for all blog perusers. Ian, this includes you.
lb, thanx for tha info. I was actually gonna just get in a cab and say "Phoenix, and step on it!", but your way might involve less cost, both monetary, and to a certain commodity that can only be lost once.
chia: you'd be suprised what you can find in the pants of an answer. I'm speaking from experience.
Of course, everybody knows from experience that the results of logic can be surprising. And it is because of just the same hunch that Mat mentions, which makes mathematical investigation possible, but which is also a prejudice of likely outcomes, which must sometimes be abandoned (as happened with my problem recently).
All the same, a surprise in logic is different from, say, when you mix two clear liquids, and a coloured liquid appears. In the latter case, it's impossible to say "I should have known".
I read this analogy somewhere.
If someone is flying to the moon, another man with a telescope can see what he must find when he gets there.
In maths, we often feel that we can see in advance where an investigation will take us (the hunch), but in reality, only performing the investigation itself can show us that.
Pants.
Sorry. That may sound rude. I have a hangover on top of a hangover today (tis the seasoon). Maybe it should be "pants ; )" Or some such thing. No that just looks perverse. Even emoticons are failing me!!!
My secretary yells 'Oh pants!' when something goes wrong.
Hope that helps.
it doesn't hurt...
Oh god... more maths. I just dont do maths. Cant we talk about something that i can comprehend????
Post a Comment
<< Home