Team. Does this sound like your favorite in-line four cylinder? You know the one which helped you pay for college, when gasoline reached it's peak in the early millennium. Or, for some of us, it was a struggle paying the $1.63 at the Amoco on the corner of the loop which the "townies" would Scoupe in an early 1990s Hyundai bumping some West Coast rapper, while we all wasted more time than pursuing that costly education which we all still likely undervalue.
Does this sound like those coffee cans you found in your Depression-era grandparent's attic behind a steamer chest, boxes of rations, and old newspapers? You know the ones which had the wheat pennies, buffalo nickels, and other silver coins, plus the bills: ones, five, tens, and twenties from the nineteen thirties, forties, and fifties, and, let us not forget the certificates of stock for a fledgling American Telephone and Telegraph, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and, of course, Studebaker. You know the coffee cans that let you retire at twenty-one. Yeah, those swags.
Such is the nature of the very foundation of modern computing, It is the equivalent of a new roof-line on the top of a very old structure. A modern remodeling of a very old amphitheatre, one, in which many tragedies, comedies, dramas, plus skits: improvisational, experimental, and fondly-frenetic-frenzied-frantic, played out. Some in front of small intimate audiences, such as that given by a troupe of senior citizen's rendition of a Broadway classic, in the vein of those Grand Olde Players' community productions.
Others, such as the joint revelation of the aggregation of the infinitesimals, those infinitely small units within a space, of one of more dimensions, that produces a measure of the area under a curve or volume with a bounded region of a surface. That joint revelation accompanied the tangential grasp of curvature and its normal in perpendicular juxtaposition. Those incidental insights which left one of the inclination that either one or each of Newton and Liebnitz both absconded with an apple scone, a draught of tea, and a draft of some conceptualization or another, one likely as old as the sands of distant shores.
Dramatic enough. Over-blown. Can a frivolous flourish be added! Maybe, it might be accompanied by a silky "pocket-square" and embroidered, floral, paisley, regimental four-in-hand, half or full Windor, or natty, knotted bow, possibly one of Mo's.
Yea, a tenuous trumping of triteness upon tin tinseled trumpets! A clear clownish "cleek" of clarions! That "wordsmithed" high note that causes cat squalls! That is the nature of mathematics.
It is often clouded and cloaked, with so many Merlinish smokes, mists, mirrors, and thin fish-lines puppeteering the formal logical deductions, reductions, and simplification, that little of any meaningful value filters out which deducts, reduces, or simplifies the "over-weaning and overbearing" nature of the "spirit of intellectual egoism" plaguing "mathematics".
Is that a pompous paradoxical parody perfect per a presumed paradisaical plane of pondering called a pensive propositional philosophic perfectimum of Peano? Yeah, Porky sp..sp..sp..spit it out! That is all folks!
In short simplicity, mathematicians often confuse themselves. Shrouding simple concepts in strange notations and over-exacting vocabularies, those within the world of mathematics have on many occasions left themselves as confused as a freshman learning assembler during the earliest days of computing degree programs. That "froshmore", who revisited a "link-edited" programming assignment devoid of any comments during the doldrums of a drunken summer session and asked, "What purpose does the label "xajr" serves", he, was steeped in baffling befuddlement.
With this stream on meaningless vacuous statements presumed factual and supporting some "hand-waving" propositions and penetrative profound premises that common-sense obviates, one should say, "Yeah, sound like a typical proof in some math class or another. The one that caused swelling in your tear ducts." And, your instructor believed that you were moved by the depth and elegance of his didactic dialogue. Did someone say Tylenol 4 and might we use the door?
Truth being, as stated in the last web-post, computing is incredibly new. Those mind-expanding feats, which bewilder the majority of us in this age, are the most immediately apparent results in a fledgling field. This infuriates some who are amazed at Merlin's seeming levitation act in "pneumatic platform-boots", especially when explained by one of those "monkeys" for whom it is said that such will destroy the profitability of the industry, if it becomes possible that they might work among its "geniuses". Yet, it never crosses one mind that this definition of "Napier, Jacques" is an implicit description of all who are not "well-versed" in modern computing, albeit spoken by a characteristic group, whether spoken with a Francish flair or Southern slur.
And, it should be emphasized that the collection of fallen fruit, although gourd-sized, is not an phenomenal feat. It might require renting a crane for collecting the resulting haul, mostly financial, but it does not necessitate hiring NASA or Space X so one might snag the produce of the top of this tree of man's knowledge.
But, the primary concept and goal in this message of sandwiched ideas is that the very foundation of modern computational theories that support electronic computing, the eons of mathematical thought, some lost in antiquity and clay pots buried in numerous region this world that have been raided in attempts at erasing many countries histories and legacies, is flawed and fallible. It needs a complete re-engineering run, with a mixture of greenfield insights. Yet, modern egos, economic liabilities, the "unwise" exaltation of men of this and past eras, sensibilities is the spirit of haughty misplaced malapropisms such as, "rationalism hath destroyed more economies and wrought unchecked campaigns of genocide that halteth naught with the dawn of a new millennium!", these in the most unending and unwieldy of fragment phraseology stay the horse-sense that says, "review of past landscapes is prudent in the avoidance of future pitfalls" Dem gators bight!
Pardon the "aquamarine" colloquialism, Dora! Ain't a 'thang' wrong with a swamming swim, onceth and a while!
When one builds on a foundation of sand, one cannot expect that the structure will stand the test of eternity. With such said, placing an organization's long-term future stability and growth on such would be unwise. It does not matter how well-packed the sand might be. It can shift! In fact, it will liquefy with a sufficient influx of groundwater. So, we shall compute electronic internationale; Lord willing and the creek does not rise! Pardon the "gatorism" from an American peninsula.
No comments:
Post a Comment