La fibre intuitive: vers une mathematique de l'evenement (contd. 2)

0:00 Well, the fact that I'm interested in info and all of this together, this theory and all of this structure, but it's not exactly anecdotal in relation to what you mathematically need to know. Even so, I think it's quite possible. The thing is that, indeed, it is possible to validate by saying, yes, but we are not sure. I don't know if it's true or not, but I didn't know how to do the same thing. I imagined doing a use of... But I don't think it's the type in which the class itself is placed. And there, he expresses to me the requirement of a figure in relation to his development of knowledge to the state. On the other hand, it also seems to me a bit like a fascism in nature. If, by chance, at some point, it may be that there is still a new frontier, I mean, when you take a segment, for example, when you take a segment, is it well treated mathematically?

2:30 After that, there are some people who say, in the end, I'm not anymore. After that, there are some people who say, in the end, I'm not anymore. They start to do the philosophy of mathematics instead of trying to do it. Well, it's at that level that, if you will, it's quite strange. The question is, that's the first one, of course, but... You can object, but you may not be able to keep up with the mathematics. Why do we have to do that?

5:00 All of this is to give the feeling that he denounces the interest of mathematics. It's not the way to go about it. It's still a matter of demonstrating the interest of mathematics. But that's not the point. Because that's where there is a lack.

7:30 You approach this level as if it were a level of philosophy, as if... No, but the philosophical challenges you have to approach, necessarily, are those of mathematics. You don't say anything about it. You don't understand anything. So, I'm not going to talk a little bit about the logic behind them. It's in this context that you can understand why, even though it may sound a little theatrical, why it's a matter of theory that is addressed to the end of the subject matter, to build a theory that will become a good official, that will be incorporated into mathematics, and so on. That's what will philosophically give reason, and not mathematically give philosophically reason. And if you want, you won't be able to... You still have to keep that, because there are still several regions of astronomy that you won't be able to... Well, I'm a mathematician, I'm a mathematician, it's the same thing if you... That is, as I said earlier, we work in mathematics, we always arrive at a conclusion. There are areas where it's not the case. In the field of art, for example, you have to work. There are things that, if you're not good at it, you can't do it. Wait, but why? Because in mathematics there is still a particular region, a region of a particular continent, which is not the same in philosophy, which is not the same in music. No, no, yes, but it's a matter of speed. It's not the same thing. It's a matter of speed. If you're not fast, if you're not fast, you're going to lose. It's not the same obstacles as in the art. So that's what I mean. Otherwise, you have to go back to 1903, 1903. Why? Because it's there that we have to concentrate our energy. It's quite clear why there is this kind of operator. So, it opens up a question that is the status of mathematics in the world. It's the same thing, the status of the poem.

10:00 Objects are objects. Objections are objects. But, after, the question is the same. Even this one, we will discuss it. I think there is a lot of meaning in it. If you want to continue with me, I have a few objections to what has been said at the end of the music. It's the first time that I'm talking about the physics of the United States. It had never been done. In the century, it was supposed to be done. Because the physics of the United States doesn't work. The question is not about the physics of the United States. There, he does it. But paradoxically, when he does it, it's not there that I find the method. The most famous example was in the opera Parveuqueux. It's easy to explain why the two characters are so similar. In Parveuqueux, it's the fourth and the fifth, between the fifth and the sixth. Basically, in the opera Parveuqueux, the last one is quite big, so it's a bit monotonous. But I don't find him at all musically in there. Then, why did he rent the music in Chez Le Dove? I agree with the mathematician, but that's not what I'm talking about. He doesn't study mathematics, he doesn't study when he's doing the graph of the two tables, In the same way, I can say that, for example, this book, from a physical point of view, it is not his references that make up the mechanism that he is. It's not... It's not for mathematics.

12:30 And that's what I'm trying to say. The same thing that I think that mathematics is trying to explain to people. To believe that you are a mathematician, you must more easily enter mathematics by these parts of mathematics. In the same way that it would be to write or write a musician, to believe that I better understand the philosophy of the arts by looking at what Paul Picard says. I'll tell you the rest too. The way I set it up is to be able to take the attention, the mathematics on the physics, to always react and put it in place during the lecture. If I don't do the same thing, why do I have a relationship? So I think that what's happening is an absolute example of how to take mathematics.

15:00 The relationship is still very different. Yes, of course, it's not just about the book or the TV, or the mathematics, it's complicated. It's an ambition of...