sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-26 10:59 AM: > Actually I can follow Glen's line of reasoning (I think). > > For example, the way Maths works is that a "theorem" is "proved" by > trying to prove a "conjecture". When that approach fails you end up > proving a "special case" of the conjecture - which in turn gets elevated > to its own status as a "theorem". "Proving" Fermat's Last Theorem took > 3 centuries and generated an equal number of theorems for mathematicians > to solve/prove. The ultimate perpetual machine to keep mathematicians > employed till either the existence of "God" (the grand unified theorem > of everything) is proved or we have 33 billion gods (theorems) as we do > in India.
Yes, exactly. Thanks, Sarbajit. The structure exposed (if you're platonic about it) by the theorems is there because the mathematicians were trying to do something. In this case, prove FLT. As we've said multiple times in this thread, some structure is always there, even as a consequence of the simplest systems. What makes the exposure in one domain greater than that of another domain is the amount and purpose of the people working in that domain. Why is there "hidden" structure? All structure is hidden until it's exposed. Once it's exposed, it's not hidden. What exposes the previously hidden? Attention! Focus! So, again, the answer to your question is to follow the purpose and motivation of the author's(s') rhetoric. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
