Sunday, September 23, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Point, well, taken.
Assumptions, or postulates, are pretty much standard stuff
in many fields of knowledge, including mathematics. They are seldom made clear or
obvious and I feel that their importance is shoved to the back burner, when
they should not be.
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is impossibility. -Wikipedia
I often bore people with the personally startling story of
when I learned that these life assumptions were extremely important and that the
knowledge subsequently derived from such baseless but expedient assumptions
was knowledge not to be fully trusted as truth but more on an intuitional basis.
When just a young man, the significant moment occurred as I
was confronted with one of Zeno’s paradoxes. Zeno was a Greek philosopher from
the 5th century B.C. There was a grade school level cartoonish
article on the bulletin board in my elementary math class which I am fairly
certain did not mention Zeno by name. I did not know that there was a great
thinker behind the thing. I would love to have that little piece of paper now
because it began a lifelong healthy doubt in all established thought. Zeno
needs to be added to my list of heroes.
An adult version of his paradox is as follows:
The Dichotomy Paradox
“That which is in locomotion must
arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.”Aristotle, Phisics
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he
can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he
must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, he must travel
one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
The resulting sequence can be represented as:
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is impossibility. -Wikipedia
When I tell this story I often tell of how much it disturbed
me at the time. I was ever the worrier. Even without an impressive authority to
back it, this thing on the bulletin board was not striking me as particularly humorous
as intended, but was an attack on the “number line” itself which was posted
above the black board of every elementary math class I can remember. Its
importance was preeminent to the class. Do not attack my number line!
Further along in my education, with Zeno nagging me
constantly, I found that our numbering system, or rather numbers in and of
themselves, were derived from one important assumption or “postulate.” This was
the concept of the “spatial point.” Between the point marked “Zero” and the
point marked “One” is an infinite number of divisions. This is because, as I
learned later in geometry, each point on the number line is infinitely small.
Add these infinitely small points together and get an infinitely thin line. I
promise I am not making this up from whole cloth but you should be suspecting
me, because you should suspect everything you believe that you know. Zeno
should be sitting on your shoulder when making any decision.
My mind raced as a young man. If the points are infinitely
small, they cannot really connect together. I have fairly good “spatial
reasoning,” I think. So, from this hazy notion I concluded that the “number”
part of the number line was pretty much based on something called “the
point.” They actually tell you these
things in the beginning but you pass over them and go on to build huge
structures of elegant thought based upon them. It would be different if the
teacher came in every day and stated what needs to be said: “Accepting the
postulate that there is such a thing as a number, let us proceed with the
class.”
After further research to make sure once again that I was
not dreaming in elementary school when they told me that mathematics itself was
fairly a guess, it seems that this postulate has further degraded in its
ability to convince me.
In Wikipedia, the entry on “point”:
In geometry, topology and branches of mathematics, a spatial point is a primitive notion upon which other
concepts may be defined. In geometry, points are zero dimensional, they do not
have volume, area, length or any other higher-dimensional analogue. [emphasis
mine]
And the entry on
“primitive notion”:
In mathematics, logic and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In
particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined
concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition
and everyday experience.
If I were to start with a notion like “Let’s assume there is a
God…” or “Let’s assume no God…” well, you get the point, which is infinitely
large as well as infinitely small, being zero dimensional as it is, or was, or
whatever.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Cutting Edge Intelligence
By accident, Fox News (the channel which the TV set was left on by the previous occupant of the condo we are using for vacation) played for about 20 minutes and the two most air headed "contributors" from right and left traded commentaries about President Obama's convention speech of the previous night. At first I thought that the liberal lady (model type beauty) was chosen simply because she looked good and was air headed. She talked only in platitudes like "played to the base" that could have been said after any political speech ever given. But, then, just as I was about to change the channel thinking Fox News had obviously and intentionally provided a bad spokesperson for the left, a twin air headed person speaking for the right (same model type beauty) said things even more platitudinous and devoid of intelligent thought. It was worth about five more minutes before I turned the channel and landed on a local area public access channel. I watched two very youthful Orange Beach girls teach me how to make mini pizzas and how to slice various vegetables correctly and with safety. Hold the knife like this so that it doesn't slip; slice onions like this; slice bell peppers like this; and remove this funny looking piece and throw it away. These girls were brilliant. They made smiley faces out of the vegetables on the tomato sauce covered dough they had already taught me to roll out and stretch. As one dropped a pizza round after trying the on "top of the knuckle" method that professionals use to stretch the dough, she said, "It's okay if you drop it as long as it doesn't go on the floor. Obviously this method is not working out for me so I will use the rolling pin some more." It was quite enjoyable to see how well they had prepared for the show. "This is the part of the onion where the roots come out, and this is the part where the green growth comes out, because onions grow underground." Mom was called in to put the pizzas in the oven for safety. Really cute AND thoughtful stuff. I loved it! Oh yes, do not wash the mushrooms in water but use a dry paper towel to clean them. Mushrooms soak up water like a sponge. These budding TV personalities and intelligent girls were clearly not destined for the likes of Fox News.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Mitt's Flaws, Not Clint's
I have been kind of wondering why some people think
all of the jokes about "the chair" are somehow mean spirited and cruel. The
reason the speech seemed so odd was precisely the cruelty and
disrespect Clint Eastwood showed towards the President. There were
snarky remarks, remarks that blamed a war from President Bush on President
Obama, and worse, two remarks that basically said the President (with no
way to respond) had asked Romney and Clint to go F
themselves.
It is not uncommon for a mob to create an effigy of a hated figure and do terrible things to it. It is not so common at a convention. The Romney, or GOP people, responsible did not vet the speech, trusting Clint Eastwood for some reason, to ad lib without teleprompters. The jokes about "the chair" are mostly not pointed at Clint Eastwood's personal character but at the incompetence of the Romney "kiss my a**" people who all let Clint Eastwood twist in the wind.
Not unlike every other touchy situation, they found other people to blame and swallow what should have been their responsibility. For those who have made this some kind of mean spirited attack on Clint Eastwood, I even hesitate to criticize them. Clint Eastwood burned an effigy of Obama in one of the most public of places and, despite what some people think about some imagined infirmity on his part, he is a highly intelligent man capable of writing, directing, and acting. His weakness is in having the ego of a man who believes he knows better than those around him and overestimates his own ability to create a spontaneous stage presence.
Comedy aside, the whole affair was such an accurate metaphor for the GOP, it is hard to overstate it. In attacking people with meanness, making untrue accusations, creating an evil Obama out of thin air, and treating those of us who respect the President to a sorry display of utter hatred, THEY cross the line. The Democrats have, for all too long, rolled over in the face of things like this, the dehumanizing of us all. In general liberal folks do not display the type of hatred that, say, the tea party folks, display without reserve. Liberals generally do not even do this in response to the hatred they receive. But times have changed as hatred has piled upon hatred, often by those who act morally superior, and now the liberal side is actually fighting back. And enough IS enough. Eventually you punch the boy in the nose who constantly steals your lunch money.
For further reading on the "chair" incident and the flaws it illustrates:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/08/clint_eastwood_gop_convention_the_romney_campaign_sells_out_its_surprise_speaker_.html
It is not uncommon for a mob to create an effigy of a hated figure and do terrible things to it. It is not so common at a convention. The Romney, or GOP people, responsible did not vet the speech, trusting Clint Eastwood for some reason, to ad lib without teleprompters. The jokes about "the chair" are mostly not pointed at Clint Eastwood's personal character but at the incompetence of the Romney "kiss my a**" people who all let Clint Eastwood twist in the wind.
Not unlike every other touchy situation, they found other people to blame and swallow what should have been their responsibility. For those who have made this some kind of mean spirited attack on Clint Eastwood, I even hesitate to criticize them. Clint Eastwood burned an effigy of Obama in one of the most public of places and, despite what some people think about some imagined infirmity on his part, he is a highly intelligent man capable of writing, directing, and acting. His weakness is in having the ego of a man who believes he knows better than those around him and overestimates his own ability to create a spontaneous stage presence.
Comedy aside, the whole affair was such an accurate metaphor for the GOP, it is hard to overstate it. In attacking people with meanness, making untrue accusations, creating an evil Obama out of thin air, and treating those of us who respect the President to a sorry display of utter hatred, THEY cross the line. The Democrats have, for all too long, rolled over in the face of things like this, the dehumanizing of us all. In general liberal folks do not display the type of hatred that, say, the tea party folks, display without reserve. Liberals generally do not even do this in response to the hatred they receive. But times have changed as hatred has piled upon hatred, often by those who act morally superior, and now the liberal side is actually fighting back. And enough IS enough. Eventually you punch the boy in the nose who constantly steals your lunch money.
For further reading on the "chair" incident and the flaws it illustrates:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/08/clint_eastwood_gop_convention_the_romney_campaign_sells_out_its_surprise_speaker_.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)