The ultimate nowhere-land. Whatever doesn't seem to fit in any of the other categories, post it in here. For example, discussions on Mahatma Gandhi and the latest news on CNN should go here.

Talasiga - Wed, 22 Sep 2004 10:59:35 +0530

QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 1 2004, 12:24 PM) |

(from this thread.) .........(Even a single 1 erases all zeros.) ........ |

There is only one zero and one cannot erase it .....

suryaz - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:51:39 +0530

Humm [chuckle]

The zero will never but have an "other" before it, if it is to be perceived as zero

The zero will never but have an "other" before it, if it is to be perceived as zero

Talasiga - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:40:33 +0530

QUOTE (suryaz @ Sep 28 2004, 12:21 AM) |

Humm [chuckle] The zero will never but have an "other" before it, if it is to be perceived as zero |

If you put the ONE after the ZERO nothing changes whereas the ZERO after the ONE changes much. Which is the greater then? Are they comparable?

Try to multiply 6520 by 67 using Roman numerals. Then do the same witth our modern Hindu-Arabic decimal system. Which is easier and more user friendly?

So it may be with Western and Eastern approaches to theism. In the East the "impersonal", abstract Brahman is not excluded from the Godhead just as the ZERO is necessary for a numeral construct of TEN and infinite multiplications thereof.

Even the essential differentiation of achintya-bhedabhed is bedded in unitarianism.

As such, it is all inclusive. Only a "western" slant on theism which excludes the unitarian Brahman from the Godhead raises the prospect of exclusive sectarianism.

Anand - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:19:16 +0530

Zero means pure love. I am nothing until I make myself one with my beloved.

Talasiga - Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:57:18 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM) |

Zero means pure love. I am nothing until I make myself one with my beloved. |

Pure love prior to God is meaningless. Like the zero before the one is meaningless.

Pure love after God's Grace is meaningful like the zero after the one:-

10, 100, 1000, 100000 ad infinitum .....

Anand - Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:12:27 +0530

QUOTE |

Pure love prior to God is meaningless. |

Not meaningless. It's a contradiction.

Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:48:26 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 29 2004, 02:42 PM) |

Not meaningless. It's a contradiction. |

A zero before the one as in "01" is a meaningless zero in as much as it does not have any effect on the numerable value which remains at "1". The "1" always has value, whether put before or after and all other numbers are based on "1".

However, the zero after the "1" increases the value.

That is to say that the "1" is the basis of meaning and the "0" is the basis of increased value. A zero prior to the "1" is meaningless BUT within the context of a relationship with one promotes value of the "1" and all identites dependent on it.

To experience Brahman within the context of Theism expands the breadth and scope of devotion. To experience Brahman outside the experience of Personality is meaningless or valueless. It is actually a contradiction.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:14:20 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 28 2004, 03:49 PM) |

Zero means pure love. |

Therefore since pure love is zero, pure love will never divide one as division by zero is a mathematical impossibility.

Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:26:33 +0530

QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 12:44 AM) | ||

Therefore since pure love is zero, pure love will never divide one as division by zero is a mathematical impossibility. |

Yes, basic maths. You cannot divide with it, multiply with it, add it or subtract it.

So the West, the Romans, did not include it as a number (because it technically isn't a number). And yet, if you give this non number a place, as in the East, it can turn the "1" into a "10", into a "100", a "1000" etc.

Likewise we can categorise two theologies:-

1. One that recognises Brahman as not being a person and therefore rejects it from its theistic paradigm

2. Another that recognises the non personal Brahman and assigns it a place in its theistic paradigm. The placement is not operational but experiential.

Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 07:47:04 +0530

QUOTE |

To experience Brahman outside the experience of Personality is meaningless or valueless. |

It is actually an impossibility.

Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1.

Zero does not mean non exitence, it means existence of emptiness and thus potential for value (meaningfulness, 1, 2, and so on)

The meaning of zero is in it being the base for one or more . Just like the example of Gadadhar Pandit being Radha empty of Her bhava; the meaning of Her existence is the perpetual potential for union.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:19:15 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 02:17 AM) |

Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1. |

But if you put another 1 in front of that zero, the value is increased 101 times.

Btw, what is the logic that a zero in front of a 1 decreases its value... especially in light of the fact that the earnings potential increases with zeros in front of the 1. The earning potential of the 1 with many zeros in front while having some risk as an investment, could provide for some handsome rewards if another 1 was to appear in front of all those zeros.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:32:24 +0530

QUOTE (Talasiga @ Oct 1 2004, 12:56 AM) | ||||

Yes, basic maths. You cannot divide with it, multiply with it, add it or subtract it. |

But you can multiply with zero. Zero times any number is zero. And too, you can add and subtract with zero. Its only division that is the mathematical impossibility.

Interesting note; the closer one gets to zero in one's division, the larger one's answer will be approaching - or + infinity. Could one therefore conclude that division by zero = infinity?

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna.

Did Kurt Godel have anything to say about division by zero?

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:41:54 +0530

QUOTE |

So it may be with Western and Eastern approaches to theism. In the East the "impersonal", abstract Brahman is not excluded from the Godhead just as the ZERO is necessary for a numeral construct of TEN and infinite multiplications thereof. |

Wow, Talasiga! You have such a good understanding of brahman! Wish I could figure it out.

QUOTE |

While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna. |

Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna? Come on! They are just *made of* Krishna's love.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:07:20 +0530

QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:11 PM) | ||

Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna? Come on! They are just *made of* Krishna's love. |

Good point... maybe then zero divided by One.

Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:08:17 +0530

QUOTE |

Are the gopis different than pure love of Krishna? Come on! They are just *made of* Krishna's love. |

Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna.

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:11:39 +0530

QUOTE |

Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna. |

I don't see any difference. When love becomes so intimate, it all gets mixed together.

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:18:01 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 01:38 PM) | ||

Not "Krsna's love". Love FOR Krsna. |

Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love.

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:21:01 +0530

QUOTE |

Its a two way street... Love for Krishna and Krishna's love. |

No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool!

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:34:31 +0530

QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:51 PM) | ||

No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool! |

Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:48:42 +0530

QUOTE |

I don't see any difference. When love becomes so intimate, it all gets mixed together. |

Not so much a matter of intimacy but identity. Distincition is there simultenously with sameness.

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:59:21 +0530

QUOTE |

Not so much a matter of intimacy but identity. Distincition is there simultenously with sameness. |

Geez people... you gotta have an intellectual analysis of a kiss?

Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:02:35 +0530

QUOTE |

Geez people... you gotta have an intellectual analysis of a kiss? |

You bet.

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:04:01 +0530

Ok! Krishna and the gopis are "separate" entities, but good luck splitting them when they have become a cohesive unit.

I liked this quote from manjari svarupa nirupana:**"If two mirrors are held face to face, as soon as some object falls between them, its reflection appears in both simultaneously; similarly the desires for conjugal union which appear in the gopis and Krsna are coinstantaneous. This is an eternal fact, nevertheless, it always increases with newer and newer freshness."**

In such a love as this, can we talk about "Krishna's love" and the "gopis' love"?

I liked this quote from manjari svarupa nirupana:

In such a love as this, can we talk about "Krishna's love" and the "gopis' love"?

Anand - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:13:07 +0530

QUOTE |

In such a love as this, can we talk about "Krishna's love" and the "gopis' love"? |

Yes, it can be talked about. That is precisely what MSN and many other literatures talk about. And will talk about, forever.

Satyabhama - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:14:50 +0530

And while we are all talking, They will be busy smooching... good!

Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:47:44 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 1 2004, 02:17 AM) |

...................... Zero before 1 has some effect, it decreases the value of 1. .............................. |

A zero before the 1 has absolutely no effect on the 1. You can have 20 zeros before a 1 as in 000000000000000000001. IT WILL STILL BE 1. No more and no less than if it had been written as

Both Eastern and Western maths are agreed on this.

Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:00:09 +0530

QUOTE (babu @ Oct 1 2004, 01:02 PM) |

But you can multiply with zero. Zero times any number is zero. And too, you can add and subtract with zero. Its only division that is the mathematical impossibility. Interesting note; the closer one gets to zero in one's division, the larger one's answer will be approaching - or + infinity. Could one therefore conclude that division by zero = infinity? Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila? While mathematics states that zero can't divide, the gopis seem quite divided at times by their pure love of Krishna. Did Kurt Godel have anything to say about division by zero? |

Interesting thoughts booboo.

QUOTE |

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila? |

Bhagavan divided by Brahman = Eternity

(a la babu's speculation:) 1 divided by 0 = infinity

Talasiga - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:06:47 +0530

QUOTE (Satyabhama @ Oct 1 2004, 01:51 PM) | ||

No! It's not a street! It's a whirlpool! |

Darling Children! It is a

babu - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:34:22 +0530

QUOTE (Talasiga @ Oct 2 2004, 03:30 AM) | ||||

Interesting thoughts booboo.
Bhagavan divided by Brahman = Eternity (a la babu's speculation:) 1 divided by 0 = infinity |

Or division by the zero the key to understanding Mahaprabhu's inundating the world with love of Krishna.

Divide 1 pizza pie (prasadam of course) by 1/4 and you have 4 slices for 4 people... by 1/8 and you have 8 slices for 8 people but divide by zero and you can feed the world with unlimited pizza.

And so divide Krishna by zero (previous proofs established zero as pure love) and the world is inundated with Krishna prema.

Satyabhama - Sat, 02 Oct 2004 20:58:46 +0530

QUOTE |

Darling Children! It is a stream called as Jamuna and one crosses it not to never return but simply to keep company! My best wishes and highest regards to you all |

To be frank, I am quite confused by all these aquatic metaphors...

QUOTE |

And so divide Krishna by zero (previous proofs established zero as pure love) and the world is inundated with Krishna prema. |

Will we still have to do math in Goloka Vrindavana? If so, I might have to start reading the Vaikuntha travel guide... Oh well, maybe if Krishna will help us with our homework?

Anand - Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:33:30 +0530

QUOTE |

A zero before the 1 has absolutely no effect on the 1. You can have 20 zeros before a 1 as in 000000000000000000001 |

It depends on your point (.) of vision.

Like this

.000000000000000000001

Talasiga - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:15:43 +0530

QUOTE (Anand @ Oct 3 2004, 04:03 PM) | ||

It depends on your point (.) of vision. Like this .000000000000000000001 |

..... in this example of yours it is not just zeros preceding the one. There is also a dot and that signifies placement.

babu - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:12:18 +0530

Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?

Anand - Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:52:34 +0530

So help me God that I never miss the point again.

babu - Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:25:34 +0530

Anand, Thank you.

Anand - Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:37:29 +0530

Babu, you are welcome.

Talasiga - Fri, 08 Oct 2004 06:41:35 +0530

QUOTE (babu @ Oct 6 2004, 01:42 PM) |

Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros? |

Babuloo,

When a devotee places a dot on hisorher forehead it signifies that after (ie in the presence of) One (or other Whole number) the devotee is decimally fractionised.

1 bindi 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008

Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:35:00 +0530

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Oct 8 2004, 01:11 AM)

QUOTE(babu @ Oct 6 2004, 01:42 PM)

Is this the significance of the dot on the forehead?... to put a dot in front of all of our zeros?

Babuloo,

When a devotee places a dot on hisorher forehead it signifies that after (ie in the presence of) One (or other Whole number) the devotee is decimally fractionised.

1 bindi 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008

Yes, the zero cannot be divided, cannot be shared. Every occurrence of the zero is a complete occurrence. Though the zero is not a number, the value of all numbers rests on it. This is "sunyata".

The zero is "bheda" and the dot is "abheda".

The one is "advaita". There is no number in which the one does not inhere. The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two. Not two twos but ONE two. Eternity itself is a coception of one proceeding infinitely, not only externally by accretion but internally within the one by infinite division.

"Dvaita" is the perpetual distinction between the one and the zero .......

and so it goes

braja - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:01:51 +0530

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 10:05 PM)

The one is "advaita"...The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two. Not two twos but ONE two.

Hmm. That is actually quite good. But the adduction is surely acintya? Or does it hint at the fallibility of #1? Surely #1 couldn't stand seeing itself adduced by a second #1? Think of the ego battle!

I can recommend a good math teacher.

[attachmentid=1303]

babu - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:08:18 +0530

Kurt Godel

Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:21:28 +0530

QUOTE(braja @ Feb 11 2005, 03:31 AM)

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 10:05 PM)

The one is "advaita"...The notion of two is the notion of a one and a one adduced to make a two. Not two twos but ONE two.

Hmm. That is actually quite good. But the adduction is surely acintya? Or does it hint at the fallibility of #1? Surely #1 couldn't stand seeing itself adduced by a second #1? Think of the ego battle!

.....

The one is not diminished by any number of ones. The one remains always one. Infinite accretion does not diminish one. Infinite divisions do not obliterate one.

There is no battle in adduction! If there were, one one would supplant another one and

1 + 1 would = 1 but, in fact, 1 +1 = 2.

Talasiga - Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:30:20 +0530

QUOTE(babu @ Feb 11 2005, 03:38 AM)

QUOTE

In 1931 the mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved that within a formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.

In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.

In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.

angrezi - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:59:37 +0530

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Feb 10 2005, 11:00 PM)

QUOTE

In 1931 the mathematician and logician Kurt Godel proved that within a formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.

In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.

In establishing these theorems Godel showed that there are problems that cannot be solved by any set of rules or procedures; instead for these problems one must always extend the set of axioms. This disproved a common belief at the time that the different branches of mathematics could be integrated and placed on a single logical foundation.

So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist ?

DharmaChakra - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:03:24 +0530

QUOTE(angrezi @ Feb 11 2005, 03:29 PM)

So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist ?

One thing he did was take a lot of steam out of Russel's attempts to provide logical foundations for basic mathematics. Godel has also suffered from the great void of popularism, with his works often being applied to anything and everything under the sun. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, anyone?) His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems. Applying it to the 'real world' is a little more difficult.

Mina - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:12:27 +0530

What I have always found mysterious is the description in Brahma Samhita of the six sided area. One would expect an eight sided area, considering the yoga pitha is an octagon and not a hexagon.

The geometric forms of triangles, nested trianges (six pointed star), pentagrams, circles, squares, hexagons and octagons all have mystical significance. Zero and one are interesting, but there are all of those other numbers such as three, eight, sixty four and one hundred eight as well. The sequence laid out by Fibonacci has such a hypnotic spell over the financial markets that people will invariably cause prices to conform to that sequence out of all possible sequences.

Any kabbalists in the crowd?

The geometric forms of triangles, nested trianges (six pointed star), pentagrams, circles, squares, hexagons and octagons all have mystical significance. Zero and one are interesting, but there are all of those other numbers such as three, eight, sixty four and one hundred eight as well. The sequence laid out by Fibonacci has such a hypnotic spell over the financial markets that people will invariably cause prices to conform to that sequence out of all possible sequences.

Any kabbalists in the crowd?

Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:34:59 +0530

QUOTE(Mina @ Feb 11 2005, 05:42 PM)

The sequence laid out by Fibonacci has such a hypnotic spell over the financial markets that people will invariably cause prices to conform to that sequence out of all possible sequences.

Have you seen the movie "Pi," directed by Darren Aronofsky?

Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:04:23 +0530

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 04:33 PM)

Godel has also suffered from the great void of popularism, with his works often being applied to anything and everything under the sun. (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, anyone?)

Gödel's results are very interesting, but, as you point out, also misunderstood. When I was an undergraduate, I took all the courses I could in mathematical logic and axiomatic set theory. I even wrote a bachelor thesis on the topic. My plan was to write a master's thesis on the possible role of mathematical logic in consciousness studies, but despite the fact that I found an enthusiastic supervisor at the Niels Bohr Institute, the project was too exotic for my department (mathematics), unfortunately.

QUOTE

His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems.

Actually, two-dimensional geometry is not a formal system, but a

Elpis - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:47:52 +0530

There is an amusing story about Gödel getting American citizenship, from here:

QUOTE

Gödel and the Constitution of the United States

The following is quoted from Hao Wang, Reflections on Kurt Gödel, p. 115f:

In connection with the interview for his US citizenship, he once told me that for this occasion he had studied how the Indians had come to America. Einstein and O.Morgenstern were his witnesses, and Morgenstern has told different people about aspects of the event. The following account is given by H-Zemanek and E.Köhler (see Zemanek's report, Elektronische Rechenanlagen, vol. 5, 1978, pp. 209-211). Even though the routine examination G was to take was an easy matter, G prepared seriously for it and studied the US Constitution carefully. On the day before the interview G told Morgenstern that he had discovered a logical-legal possibility of transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Morgenstern saw that the hypothetical possibility and its likely remedy involved a complex chain of reasoning and was clearly not suitable for consideration at the interview. He urged G to keep quiet about his discovery.

The next morning Morgenstern drove Einstein and G from Princeton to Trenton. Einstein was informed; on the way he told one tale after another, to divert G from his Constitution-theoretical explanations, apparently with success. At the office in Trenton, the official in charge was Judge Philip Forman, who had inducted Einstein in 1940 and struck up a friendship with him. He greeted them warmly and invited all three to attend the (normally private) examination of G.

The judge began, 'You have German citizenship up to now.' G interrupted him, 'Excuse me sir, Austrian.' 'Anyhow, the wicked dictator! but fortunately that is not possible in America.' 'On the contrary,' G interjected, 'I know how that can happen.' All three joined forces to restrain G so as to turn to the routine examination.

The following is quoted from Hao Wang, Reflections on Kurt Gödel, p. 115f:

In connection with the interview for his US citizenship, he once told me that for this occasion he had studied how the Indians had come to America. Einstein and O.Morgenstern were his witnesses, and Morgenstern has told different people about aspects of the event. The following account is given by H-Zemanek and E.Köhler (see Zemanek's report, Elektronische Rechenanlagen, vol. 5, 1978, pp. 209-211). Even though the routine examination G was to take was an easy matter, G prepared seriously for it and studied the US Constitution carefully. On the day before the interview G told Morgenstern that he had discovered a logical-legal possibility of transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Morgenstern saw that the hypothetical possibility and its likely remedy involved a complex chain of reasoning and was clearly not suitable for consideration at the interview. He urged G to keep quiet about his discovery.

The next morning Morgenstern drove Einstein and G from Princeton to Trenton. Einstein was informed; on the way he told one tale after another, to divert G from his Constitution-theoretical explanations, apparently with success. At the office in Trenton, the official in charge was Judge Philip Forman, who had inducted Einstein in 1940 and struck up a friendship with him. He greeted them warmly and invited all three to attend the (normally private) examination of G.

The judge began, 'You have German citizenship up to now.' G interrupted him, 'Excuse me sir, Austrian.' 'Anyhow, the wicked dictator! but fortunately that is not possible in America.' 'On the contrary,' G interjected, 'I know how that can happen.' All three joined forces to restrain G so as to turn to the routine examination.

Talasiga - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:58:13 +0530

QUOTE(angrezi @ Feb 11 2005, 07:29 PM)

So does that make Godel a dvaitist or advaitist ?

If he disproved the belief in quintessential integration, we would need to put him in the Shunyavadi basket for the time being.

Talasiga - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:05:03 +0530

BTW, I have noticed the topic has attracted some mathematical types . I just need to point out to you all that the topic title is "Mathematicism with Theology" and not "Mathematics with Theology". There is a difference between mathematics and mathematicism similar to the difference between scholastics and scholasticism. Of course, I am happy to have mathematicians on board but don't complain if you start sinking in the sand. You have been warned.

DharmaChakra - Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:28:37 +0530

QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 11 2005, 07:34 PM)

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 04:33 PM)

]His works apply to the formal structures of mathematics, so when there is talk of 'formal systems', these are mathematical systems like 'two dimensional geometry'. His theorum then applies to the axioms of 2D geometrical systems.

Actually, two-dimensional geometry is not a formal system, but a

I stand corrected. I only minored in Applied Mathematics

Elpis, sounds like you have done some very interesting work in this area. Care to potificate a little more, esp. on the topic of your (almost) Master's thesis?

Dhyana - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:04:29 +0530

Just discovered this fascinating thread and couldn't resist dropping in my three öre...

Black Hole: Where God divided by zero. (Steven Wright)

(babu)

This must be babumatics of the higher realms In the mundane maths, if you divide 1 pizza pie by 1/4 you get**four pizzas,**, not four slices...

Four pizzas ki jaya!

QUOTE

Could division by pure love or zero then be the mathematical key to understanding Brindaban lila?

Black Hole: Where God divided by zero. (Steven Wright)

(babu)

QUOTE

Divide 1 pizza pie (prasadam of course) by 1/4 and you have 4 slices for 4 people... by 1/8 and you have 8 slices for 8 people but divide by zero and you can feed the world with unlimited pizza.

This must be babumatics of the higher realms In the mundane maths, if you divide 1 pizza pie by 1/4 you get

Four pizzas ki jaya!

Elpis - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:10:16 +0530

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Feb 11 2005, 07:58 PM)

I stand corrected. I only minored in Applied Mathematics

No problem. It is important, though, that there can be many models for each set of axioms expressed in a formal system. Take ZF, the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory. Gödel showed that one can construct a model of ZF in which the Axiom of Choice is true. However, later Paul Cohen constructed a model in which it is false. The point is that the Axiom of Choice is independent of ZF, i.e. it is impossible to derive it or its negation from the axioms, but it could very well be true in a given model of ZF, or it could be false. If the Axiom of Choice is added to ZF, the resulting system is called ZFC.

QUOTE

Elpis, sounds like you have done some very interesting work in this area. Care to potificate a little more, esp. on the topic of your (almost) Master's thesis?

Well, since the project never got off the ground and I never ended up doing more work in that field, there is not all that much to say about it.

At one point in my education, I became tired of pure mathematics, formulas for the sake of more formulas. I wanted to branch out, use my mathematical knowledge in some other field. I was interested in spirituality and was reading various books, the

Elpis - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:14:55 +0530

Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.

Dhyana - Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:02:23 +0530

QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 01:44 PM)

Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.

Wow. Then maybe they knew something about the nature of Black Holes that we do not know...

..."dry"? Didn't you once confess to bangli (or was it babu?) that you delighted in Dionysos' gifts from an early age?

Elpis - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:59:59 +0530

QUOTE(Dhyana @ Feb 13 2005, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 01:44 PM)

Just a dry note: the Indian mathematicians of old talked about and defined division by zero.

Wow. Then maybe they knew something about the nature of Black Holes that we do not know...

According to Indian cosmology, the sun's rays extend only so many

QUOTE

..."dry"? Didn't you once confess to bangli (or was it babu?) that you delighted in Dionysos' gifts from an early age?

I did?

Dhyana - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:31:57 +0530

QUOTE

I did?

No energy to go dig in that old thread... Okay, my memory is good but short. Sorry.

Elpis - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:17:36 +0530

QUOTE(Dhyana @ Feb 13 2005, 03:01 PM)

QUOTE

I did?

No energy to go dig in that old thread... Okay, my memory is good but short. Sorry.

I think the closest I came to that was citing Bachelard here

One probably has to be careful about talking about such things here, a place where one is prohibited from mentioning wine in connection with one's guilty pleasures (see here)

angrezi - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:24:27 +0530

I have not progressed very far in acedemic mathmatics. Indeed I'm a bit of a mathematical moron, but the subject is still fascinating to me. When I was younger I had some psychedelic experiences that led me to believe that the external world, and maybe conciousness itself to some extent, was composed of geometric shapes and held together by a mathematical type of logic that was the product of some supreme, ultimate presence.

I concluded that these shapes and divine symmetry seen in nature and the creations of man, as well as the logical processes of creation and destruction, were somehow also exisistent in both the primordial subconscious and the superconscious. At one point I thought the circle to be the paramount spiritually important shape in psycho-geometry, and tried to convince my best friend's mother of this in a long rambling discourse when I was 15 . Reading Elpis' posts I am reminded of the spiritual-mathematic connections I used to wonder about. I somehow moved away from my mathematical intrest as I got older and into institutional religion, but it makes me wonder still ...

I concluded that these shapes and divine symmetry seen in nature and the creations of man, as well as the logical processes of creation and destruction, were somehow also exisistent in both the primordial subconscious and the superconscious. At one point I thought the circle to be the paramount spiritually important shape in psycho-geometry, and tried to convince my best friend's mother of this in a long rambling discourse when I was 15 . Reading Elpis' posts I am reminded of the spiritual-mathematic connections I used to wonder about. I somehow moved away from my mathematical intrest as I got older and into institutional religion, but it makes me wonder still ...

evakurvan - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:42:58 +0530

If you are into these things like you are describing you would enjoy Aldous Huxley the Doors of Perception, though there is not really a mathematical aspect explored in the book. Though you probably already know this book I am typing anyway because you are mocking my other thread! That said, -for the record,- I am 100 percent against all drugs even though as an apparent buddhist I apparently should believe everything is empty so might as well eat anything since it is all just combinations of molecules anyway with no essential substance!

Wack me on the head while you're at it too like Prabhupada suggested, I won't feel it anyway everything is empty air to me like ghosts.

Wack me on the head while you're at it too like Prabhupada suggested, I won't feel it anyway everything is empty air to me like ghosts.

Dhyana - Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:49:54 +0530

A book you would enjoy, angrezi:

Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? by Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky. Penguin Books, 1992

Both authors are mathematics professors, but the book is easy to read and the ideas fascinating!

Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? by Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky. Penguin Books, 1992

Both authors are mathematics professors, but the book is easy to read and the ideas fascinating!

DharmaChakra - Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:16:40 +0530

QUOTE(Elpis @ Feb 13 2005, 09:40 AM)

At one point in my education, I became tired of pure mathematics, formulas for the sake of more formulas. I wanted to branch out...

Not on topic, but I wanted to thank Elpis for shedding a little more light on his past. I really enjoyed the little bio Your profile is a little slim

Elpis - Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:22:49 +0530

QUOTE(evakurvan @ Feb 14 2005, 12:12 PM)

If you are into these things like you are describing you would enjoy Aldous Huxley the Doors of Perception, though there is not really a mathematical aspect explored in the book.

Huxley's book is definitely interesting. However, Huxley took a small amount of mescaline once, and based on that he writes a book. He has many insights to offer, true, but it would be much interesting to see what happens when mescaline is ingested regularly for years and years. What kind of a reality will a person who does that experience? Did people experience a different reality before it became common to drink tea? Or before people began to eat carrots?