Sorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea.
However for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable.
We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
The strange thing about mathematics is just how much that appears to be useless turns out to be useful at a later date.
Additionally, a mathematician is typically an individual who values truth above utility. Mathematicians, like good philosophers, sit outside the world of politics, of usefulness, and discover hidden beauty that has yet to illuminate our lives.
Mathematicians have the good fortune to stumble upon useful mathematics often enough to earn a salary from the state, but that isn't the why of mathematics. Mathematics is noble because the motivation for doing mathematics is very pure, and the product is so very beautiful.
The Poincaré conjecture is a beautiful guess, now a beautiful result concerning topological forms in four (or more) dimensions. It is hard for a non-mathematician to see its use, but that does not mean that it has no use; as an example, some problem in applied mathematics could come down to performing an integral, which could perhaps be transformed into another equivalent one, and demonstrated to be different from another integral over another surface, since the surfaces cannot be equivalent, thanks to this result.
Lastly, politicians and economists degrade us all with their conceptions of utility that pointedly ignore the noble (it has to, since the purpose of applying utilitarian judgement is to reject considerations of intrinsic value). If we reintroduce the noble, we find that utilitarianism doesn't change our choices so very much, meaning that it no longer provides a strongly distinct political choice, making it less of a tool for political leverage.
If we are to apply "lesser utility", I would say that it doesn't matter if the Poincaré conjecture doesn't achieve anything in that realm. To choose to pursue or interest oneself in these matters regardless is a manifestation of choosing the higher over the lower.
Will you explain this to me ? So I will understand . Thank you .
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I also wonder why he said that. After all, it has been proved already
ReplyDeleteSorry but I like someone who thinks it's useless to prove Poincaré conjecture cannot explain this from my standpoint. It is morally wrong, and it is even more useless to explain this useless idea.
ReplyDeleteHowever for you it must be interesting, so let me explain by using parable.
We can replace his conjuncture into other expression like ' If someone is over eighty, we can say as a whole that someone is an old person.' His conjuncture merely tells the overall conclusion followed by a condition clause, but says anything related to truth. His conjuncture was a game, so I said it's useless.
He is believed to prove that the shape of universe is not 7 other types but 1 globe shape if one can tag the rope. This is a conclusion drawn negatively from negative deletion, and this does not necessarily prove the correctness of conjuncture. I am expecting to solve the conjecture in E= mc 2 type formula.
ReplyDeleteThe strange thing about mathematics is just how much that appears to be useless turns out to be useful at a later date.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, a mathematician is typically an individual who values truth above utility. Mathematicians, like good philosophers, sit outside the world of politics, of usefulness, and discover hidden beauty that has yet to illuminate our lives.
Mathematicians have the good fortune to stumble upon useful mathematics often enough to earn a salary from the state, but that isn't the why of mathematics. Mathematics is noble because the motivation for doing mathematics is very pure, and the product is so very beautiful.
The Poincaré conjecture is a beautiful guess, now a beautiful result concerning topological forms in four (or more) dimensions. It is hard for a non-mathematician to see its use, but that does not mean that it has no use; as an example, some problem in applied mathematics could come down to performing an integral, which could perhaps be transformed into another equivalent one, and demonstrated to be different from another integral over another surface, since the surfaces cannot be equivalent, thanks to this result.
Lastly, politicians and economists degrade us all with their conceptions of utility that pointedly ignore the noble (it has to, since the purpose of applying utilitarian judgement is to reject considerations of intrinsic value). If we reintroduce the noble, we find that utilitarianism doesn't change our choices so very much, meaning that it no longer provides a strongly distinct political choice, making it less of a tool for political leverage.
If we are to apply "lesser utility", I would say that it doesn't matter if the Poincaré conjecture doesn't achieve anything in that realm. To choose to pursue or interest oneself in these matters regardless is a manifestation of choosing the higher over the lower.
I was not good at math.
ReplyDeleteI was unable to be good at math how many hours I spent for it.
Only my philosophical power increased a lot instead.
This journal entry is probably and partly out of my jealousy.
You are math majored.