the nature of ideas, and their difficulties.

i think it is very hard to have good and original ideas, or even just good ideas. for instance, the last two ideas i had which looked any good at all -- they were already thought up and formulated by others, and in a more powerful, elegant way, too.

strangely enough, both ideas can be traced to those same 'others' and in the same paper. it's good reading and i highly recommend it:

"Structure of Null Sets in the Plane and Applications"
by Alberti, Csörnyei, and Preiss.

good and bad, i suppose: good that these nascent ideas would have been worth something, but bad because someone else was quicker and cleverer. now i have to work harder to contribute something of value, which is fine.

had i been quicker, i'd have done it to someone else.
fair's fair, either way.

---

on an unrelated note, i don't know if my student analysis seminar talk will be any good. every time i sit and choose what to discuss and how to elaborate upon it, i can't find a central, meaningful theme.

the accessible ideas which come to mind seem boring and without spirit. the really interesting ideas which come to mind are quickly complicated and their motivations take too long to explain.

it's a frustrating paradox, much like how 'you can't please everyone all of the time.'