The Logic Off Topic list

Hi Kool,

>  >Why do you always have to write complete lectures in
>>response to some posting?
>To be perfectly honest, I thought I was perfectly clear the first time
>around. When I in fact said absolutely nothing at all personally and just
>sent in a couple of quotes.

OK then.  But apparently there _was_ room for misunderstanding. 
(isn't there always? :-)

>  >I'm very well (and more than just intuitively) aware of the
>>differences between pure and applied mathematics, both in education
>>and in formal research.
>Then you should have got my point the first time around.

Well, I failed to see the relevance of the quotes in relation to the 
statement by GA.  My fault maybe, or not.  But this isn't about "what 
is who's fault" now, is it?  At least, I do hope it isn't...

>  >Again I fail to see what this has to do with the observation GA made.
>>Every mathematician of whom we know anything at all (i.e. excluding
>>Euclid and the likes) has been able to recognize the beauty of pure
>>abstraction.
>If one wants to exclude Euclid and the likes then that's quite fine. I did
>not realize, because it was not immediately apparent to me, that they were
>indeed to be excluded. I thought of them immediately. As also of all
>mathematicians up until about the time of Gauss. Simple. That's all. I just
>did not understand at the time that they were being excluded. That's all.
>Again simple.

No, no, you get me wrong, sorry.  I didn't mean that Euclid et al 
need to be excluded because this-or-that doesn't hold for them, or 
because GA's remark somehow magically "clearly" suggested they be 
left out.
I meant to say (and thought I said) that we simply don't know enough 
about the ancient Greek mathematicians to be able to judge how 
exactly they viewed mathematics, beauty of abstraction and such. 
There's simply not enough reliable written history on that subject, 
as far as I know.  About people like Gauss and such we _do_ know 
quite a lot, including sometimes how they thought about maths, 
abstraction, beauty, etc.

>As you have suggested above, maybe I should have realized sooner 
>that we were ignoring Euclid and post-Euclideans. This was entirely 
>my error. I am sorry.

You don't have to be sorry for anything.  First of all, GA never said 
anything about excluding or including whomever --- that was me, 
interpreting GA's statement.  Second, as I explained above, the 
exclusion was meant to limit the scope to those mathmaticians we know 
enough about to be able to say anything sensible about their 
conception of abstract beauty.  Third, even if you had not understood 
something properly in whatever previous post, there's still no reason 
to "be sorry".  Not getting some point is not someone's fault.  Like 
I said earlier: I do hope this entire discussion is not about who's 
to blame, who's fault is what, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just an exchange of thoughts.  And it 
was my impression that you took GA's remark to mean something else 
than what he intended to say.  I simply tried to correct that, that's 
all.
And about my somewhat irritated tone yesterday: I'm sorry, I should 
have been more friendly.  But I felt a lot of "sorry"s and "I'm 
humble" stuff in your previous letter, and that somewhat got to me. 
To me it felt as if you were somewhat 'humiliating' yourself, while 
at the same time quite strongly trying to make a point.  To me these 
didn't match -- cognitive dissonance or whatever.  If you want to 
make a point, make it.  If you want to say "sorry, I didn't get it", 
then say so.  But mixing the two is just ... confusing or so... 
(rather struggling at the moment with the fact that I'm no native 
speaker, so please bear with me).

Maybe I got your intention all wrong. I.e. the "bow my head" stuff 
was (of course!) not meant as an insult to your culture or heritage 
or mother.  Of course!  You should know me well enough.  To me it 
sounded simply like a kind of "overdone modesty" or what do you call 
it.  If I understood you wrong, then I hereby apologize.  Sincerely.

>  >No, not at all.  Either _you_ missed the point completely, or I did...
>Then let us say that it was me.

Why you?

>  >Let me quote the first 3 lines of your reply to GA:
>>  >  >Actually most mathematicians believe the beauty of mathematics in and of
>>  >  >itself without any regard to real world applications.
>>  >???? !!!! ****
>
>I see a 'most mathematicians there'. Like I said, my mind went immediately
>to Babylonians, Ancient Greeks, Euclid, Diophantes ... and all those other
>people who worked before Gauss.

OK.  My mind didn't.  Just as with the butcher example.  Or "most 
teachers think they're underpaid" -- which to me clearly means 
"teachers in this day and age".  Different interpretation.  No 
problem.

>I am sorry about that. Next time I see most mathematicians I will 
>try to remember that it means 'most of the mathematicians who have 
>ever lived' rather than 'most of the historical period in which 
>mathematics has been done'.

Now, this is the kind of stuff that I find ... annoying, if I may say 
so, or puzzling.  As if an incidental meaning of some words in one 
particular context would define them for all eternity.  And as if you 
have to humbly bow to adjust yourself to the incidental 
interpretation two other guys give to a bunch of words in some 
particular context.  I find such an attitude truly incomprehensible. 
Maybe it's a cultural difference, but then it's one I very much don't 
understand.  To me it feels as if it leaves no room for anything 
else.  It feels like "ok, you have won, I humbly admit it", in which 
the other apparently is the "winner", and yet your "modesty" in fact 
makes you the _true_ "winner".  Not unlike Socrates did when talking 
to pupils: "Ah, so you understand the nature of <big concept>.  Well, 
then please tell me, an old man, all about it so that I may learn 
from you".  And then in the end crush the poor kid completely with 
his unequalled mastery of dialectic argument.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say?  I don't say your 
intentions are like Socrates'.  I just say that to me it sometimes 
feels that way, leaving completely and honestly open the option that 
I may completely misunderstand your intentions.

As far as I'm concerned, I have a problem with people adjusting 
themselves to me "in modesty".  I prefer the opposite: I like people 
to have their own opinions.  Strong opinions, preferably.  And not 
shy away from defending them when needed.  Things like "I'm sorry, 
I'll use those words the way you want me to in the future" is 
perpendicular to that.
Again this is not meant in any offensive way.  Remember, this stuff 
is quite subtle and requires accurate phrasing, and I'm still no 
native English speaker (yes, despite my command of the English 
language, that _does_ play a role at times).  I'm just genuinely 
puzzled.  I know you're a person "of good intent", and yet I feel a 
certain irritation or annoyance at the "humble" tone you sometimes 
use.  That could entirely be me, so please don't start apologizing 
again.

>  >And as for bowing one's head: bollocks.  No-one has to bow
>>for anyone.  Ever.
>Where I come from, that is what we do. It is as natural to me to bow my
>head on arrival and departure as it is to you to shake a hand. When, for
>example, I greet my mother, I bow my head. When I leave her, I bow my head.
>Thank you but I have absolutely no intention of stopping the habit. My
>mother is dear to me and it is my way of showing her so. I am entitled to
>it. You are free to interpret my actions how you wish. If you feel that it
>makes me subservient, then so be it. I repeat that I have no intention of
>stopping the habit.

OK, OK, chill out...  As I explained above, this might be a cultural 
difference.  To me (and probably to many westerners) "bowing one's 
head" has a ring of subservience, and that's what I reacted to.  Not 
to any other meaning of the phrase, like "showing someone's dear to 
you" and such.

>  >If you fuck up, you just say "sorry" and that's it.
>And ... if I choose to bow my head at the same time, I shall do so. If I
>change my mind I'll let you know. I will try to remember, however, never --
>ever -- to do it to you because it clearly deeply offends you. Will that do?

Ahw, come on, this is driving matters way to far...

>  >For all we know, Euclid or Phythagoras may well have been smitten
>>with the beauty of abstractions.
>Possibly so. But ... they wrote precious little about it.

That's why I suggested to leave them out of the discussion.

>  > >I thank you most sincerely for your kindness.
>>Oh, come on, cut the crap...
>Sorry you felt it was. It was not. I have come to have the greatest respect
>for you, and although you quite obviously do not remember, you helped me an
>awful lot when I had some problems with sysex, as also with key commands.

Why the "quite obviously"?

As for respect: I've come to respect you at least as much as you've 
come to respect me.  That's precisely the reason I take the effort to 
write about the things that annoy or puzzle me.  If I didn't respect 
you, I would have better things to do with my time than try to 
communicate with you about non-trivial matters.
Maybe the problem indeed is one of culture.  Your background is 
probably totaly different than my "say what you mean straight out, 
without fuzziness" Dutch background.

>Out of all the people in the Logic Users Group you were not only the only
>person who had a solution, you were also patient with me when I did not at
>first understand your solution.

I get paid to be patient with students ;-).

>So ... I was thanking you sincerely for your kindness because I did 
>appreciate those things.

Uhm... in your last letter, on beauty & abstraction, you thanked me 
for things I did for you way back in the past...?  No, indeed, I 
hadn't understood it that way. Mainly because there was no reference 
to what you thanked me for, so naturally I assumed it was for 
something recent, like something I did or said in my last letter on 
this same subject.

>  You may have forgotten ... indeed you obviously have.

I never forget my own kindness :-)).

>  >Seriously, I know I probably sound a bit "irked" in this letter.
>Not really.

I do think I did.  I _was_ a bit irked, at least.

>  >That's not meant that personally -- I hope you know me well enough by
>>now.
>I'm beginning to wonder, actually. When I thank you, you attack me. When I
>am respectful to you, you treat me as a hypocrite. What should I do?

It felt as if you thanked me for something you shouldn't thank me 
for.  And as for the respectful/hypocrite thing: I tried to explain 
that in the bit about Socrates.  I hope you understood what I tried 
to say there.
I don't want to offend you, much as you don't want to offend me (I 
suppose).  However, I did feel a bit offended at your tone of 
humility and modesty.  I may have misinterpreted that tone, and if 
that's the case I apologize, truly.

>I have quite given up trying to work out how any of my remarks will be
>received by you, to be honest. You may take it as you wish. It's up to you.

No, it's not up to me.  It's up to us.  Communication is a two-way 
street.  That's probably why you take the effort to write back.  It 
certainly is the reason why _I_ take the effort to write back.

>  >keep cool ;),
>
>That I always work on. It is hard some times.

"Life is suffering", Buddha, 2600 BC.  Oh well, the consolation is 
that we _all_ suffer equally in the end...


be well,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html