Proofs *shudders*
"...as women wore cologne, men wore proofs: to secure their own sense of themselves, and thus to be attractive" -Wicked (yes, i'm still reading it)
I'm not going to touch on the gender binaries in this statement, i don't wear cologne and well I hate proofs but only because they're obnoxious in the testing format you become ever so familiar with in those intro mathematics classes for engineers.
That being said, I found this statement very interesting (read: true) as far as describing the nature of proofs.
People (maybe insecure people? maybe not) tend to secure a sense of themselves in relation to others. He is cool, therefore Im not, he's wrong, I'm right, they are different, etc. Creating truths about the world allow people to fit themselves into it. Proofs make "truths" seem right.
In your first algebra class our teacher goes to the board and begins writing a slew of unfamiliar signs, random numbers, etc. on the board until she arrives at the conclusion that 42 = 0, or some other such obviously faulty statement. You sit there trying to makeout some error in her ways because your language of logic and everything that is holy (read: true) can't lead you astray like that...or can it?
Anything can be proven. Just because statments have a slew of complex numbers and signs above them doesn't make then more right (but they are oh so much more impressive, so next time you're picking me up with math equations...size matters...jk).
But besides the attractiveness of complex equations (*shudders*) there is something to be said about the attractiveness of people who are secure with themselves/their world. I'm not sure I understand how cologne makes people feel more secure (they know they don't smell horrid unless they put on waaaay too much?) but I do find people (well, person) that are (is) more confident, not constantly looking for praise, and extremely good at proofs (or just math/sciene (read: engineer)) attractive...

3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hmm. Proofs. Interesting thought. The thing is, with a self consistent system like mathematics, you should NOT be able to prove something like 42 == 0 (sorry, there isn't a triple equals on my keyboard, so you're stuck with computer logic). That's the real beauty of logical systems that don't have the subtleties of language... they give clear answers.
Even so-called mathematical conundrums (ie, you can add/subtract alternating series to prove stuff like 3==2) are really not proving a fault in the system, but merely exposing another layer of complexity/subtlety (such as unconsidered requirements of order for alternating series). And things that *seems* counterintuitive (Gabriel's Horn, perhaps?) really are quite sound. True, even math has odd behavior near singularities, but there are even logical and well-reasoned explanations for these.
Unfortunately, virtually everything *else* that attempts to exploit logic is not quite as pat. Trying to make quantitative 'sciences' out of language, or politics, or thought structures... this all fails because there are no absolutes in non-mathematical disciplines. A seven is a seven no matter who you ask... but does 'red' mean the same thing to everyone? Even if it can be quantified as visible light of a specific wavelength range, it also has a whole slew of other connotations in our minds that are variable and highly complex.
Thus, proofs in non-mathematical disciplines can be twisted in any manner. This ambiguity inherent in non-mathematical disciplines is one of the reasons I'm an engineer (and have *loved* every math class I've taken)... you can model a system mathematically and exactly solve for its behavior (or, if analytical solutions are impossible, you can at least approximate the behavior within a known error range). Maybe the model is not correctly set up to match the real world, but it *does* follow its own assumptions and boundary/initial conditions exactly, and can be rigorously developed.
The world of numbers is *beautiful*, and you *know* that something that's been rigorously proven mathematically is true - at least in the mathematical system. So I guess you're right - it does provide one with a firm knowledge upon which to base one's way of looking at the world. Interesting.
I wonder who this 'person' who's so 'confident' and 'not looking for praise' is. I don't know anyone like that. Does he end sentences with prepositions?
(a) "is" isn't a preposition
(b) he does end sentences with "prepositions?"
Post a Comment
<< Home