a quasi-addendum, on science, and on dreams (ambitious!)

i should add that i think i'm the sort of older student who unconsciously spooks the younger grad students.

"spook" probably isn't the right word.

is there a better word for saying that i cause others to be more somber after talking to them? 'sobering' doesn't sound right, and i wouldn't call myself a 'killjoy' .. though i've always liked that word.

killjoy: it means what it sounds, like 'guttersnipe' or 'ne'er-do-well.' (:

i think i should steer clear of recruitment weekend this year, and henceforth. it's better to leave that sort of thing to more light-hearted people.

then again, i could become a better liar;
that always comes in handy. (;

---

i think i'm going a little crazy.

every day, up to permutation the same question or two come to mind: how does the weaver construction work? when is it nondegenerate and does it depend on geometry, or measure theory, or is it some hidden factor, a quality or quantity that we haven't noticed?

someone once said that insanity is repeating the same action and expecting different results, but i forgot whom.

so i'd run through a few arguments .. some which are the advisor's ideas and some mine, and they'll progress through their lifespan. but they never fully explain the situation.

i feel a little like a scientist, sometimes. instead of experiments i run examples, which is a sort of experiment; some call them 'thought experiments' after all.

on an unrelated note, i used to think that the scientific method was inherently illogical. one forms a hypothesis H, reasons a conclusion C, and supposes H → C. through experiment one demonstrates C, and somehow concludes H: the fallacy of the consequent.

a friend of mine corrected me, quite diplomatically: i forgot about control experiments. the goal is actually ~H → ~C, and hence H .. by some version of modus tollens.

he also explained to me why the rutherford experiment was really cool, and at the time i was convinced that it was actually really cool. but now i have forgotten ..

.. which means that, later in life, i'll get to rediscover how really cool it actually is .. again. (:

as for mathematics, i'm convinced that i'm not very good at it .. or maybe just at geometric function theory.

i must have made it this far because of my good looks and my charming, winsome personality! how unethical!

well, we all have egos. (:

it's not the lack of cleverness or skill which bothers me, but quite surprisingly, imagination. too many questions come to mind, and i can't answer them all .. or many, or even a few. i suspect too many things and make much of trifles, and i consider too many crackpot ideas.

as descartes writes in his discourse on (the) method ..:

After all, it is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a little copper and glass, perhaps, that I take for gold and diamonds. I know how very liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves, and also how much the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favor.

it can be a terrible thing to dream, to know what could be and to elude what is. \: