in gambling, there is always a risk.

i've been writing.

there's one section left of the preprint that's not been fleshed out, but we have the theorem in mind. as for a proof,

1. there's a standard technique that works. it involves a cοvering theorem.


2. another, less standard technique, involves rescalιngs of space, which seems more intuitive to me.

excited by this, i read through a paper or two. for about a week, i thought that i was able to adapt that existing technique to our new-ish setting .. but i can't get the damned constants to work.

i can't see a way around it,
not without an additional, artifical hypothesis ..

.. so i'm letting it go.

---

it's another one of my attempts at "originality" which has fallen flat and won't ever get up. somehow i thought it could work, that i could do it, and that the time i invested wasn't really a risk.

well, i should have known better;
i should have played it safe.

[sighs]
it could be worse, i guess.

at least i found out only after a week;
at least there is something else to try.