Breakfast & afterwards conversations: C McLarty, A MacIntyre, JL Bell (contd.)

0:00 He's leaving after he's back to the private afternoon to drive down. He's going to be here probably about, I would think, through about 6 o'clock, which means there isn't a problem. I'll stay on the bed. The problem, Janine, the lady in the corner bar, has got somebody coming this afternoon for three days to stay in the room. She says she'd prefer the hotel early after. Okay. Okay. So shall I sort that out? Absolutely. It's going to make life a lot easier if I get them. It's going to make life a lot easier if I get them. Not really monocartia, which is actually good, because that has synchronised them. But I do need to sort out the hotel community and also get current one on the driving bucket for the car. So if I can take about an hour to sort that out then, and then if we can't either, we can meet upstairs.

2:30 Actually, we can meet upstairs then. But I'll quickly type out the notes for the suggestions and agenda that we need. And then we could meet, what's the time now? It's just about 11. I think we should add, as I said, just now, Tito's rules. It's true, though. Very, very true. Oh, Garmeson. Oh, Garmeson. Good riddance. No gossip. We'll have that noise whenever we get anywhere. Well, I'm with you, aren't I? No gossip. No rhetoric. Thank you. John and... John and Angus are chatting right now. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, There are three hotels, but they're not as within, ask the guy in the Britannia over there, he said they were 150 meters. They're not, they're about 800 meters. So we'll jump in the car and go down. But it looks like they'd all be, you know, reasonably, one of them in fact is this formula. So, let's jump in the car and go down and look at the hotel. I wouldn't mind joining you in a Perrier please. Bonjour madame, un autre Perrier s'il vous plaît? Oui. Merci, merci. Thank you for your attention.

5:00 In other words, you put simple algebra, there's no way that you can describe it as some kind of external negation to the composition of calculus, so that's your problem, but actually I think that's just simple algebra, that's the way it is. And the hard part is learning all the members' names over here. Oh, I know, I know. It's a classical syllogism. Oh, right, is that what you were talking about? I was just wondering. Yeah, I didn't get it. I'm just saying it's really just a simple, very simple algebra. It's got hair more complicated than Boolean algebra. Yeah. And do you think this is the algebraic structure that's there in the old theory of syllogistic in some way? I don't know. I think he did. I hope he did something. He did some work. I can't remember now whether it was a listener about 30 years ago now who published a couple of books looking at the syllogistic logic of an algebraic point.

7:30 It wasn't, of course, you know, the specific of the tools of category theory, but he's definitely from, you know, he's an algebraic standpoint. He's accomplished a couple of books, I think, too. He's probably reviewed in the, to some, I don't know, antiquarian who was trying to derive an impossible... Yeah, well, I mean, lots of sort of... As part of the, you know, the trivium, it sort of languished as a subject for a very, very long time, I mean, and so I, it's true that probably a lot of the, you know, the early grads, particularly the classical ones, were simply, well, I don't, I don't know whether Boo actually thought, I mean, he... You know, he knew, of course, the classical logic, the traditional logic, and didn't make, I mean, didn't, but I don't think he considered, I mean, the kind of syllogisms he considered were really very, all of that, and then, of course, like all the 19th century, I mean, I think it was studied much more in Poland, of course, because of the Catholic tradition there, and I remember all these logicians. I met them in Poland 30 years ago. Many of them knew, they knew the names of these ways they had it because it was kind of scholastic tradition that was still present, although they, on the other hand, they of course haven't really considered, they haven't thought very much about the algebraic structure of these things because it's regarded as just extremely old-fashioned for them. Some of them really know that their job is to prove the existence of God.

10:00 That's why you have the three-side structure on two generators. The typical sort of thing you want to say, right, is all A's are B's, and no A's are B's, and what's the other two, right? No A's, sir. No, some. Some, of course. Sure, sure. Right, right. Right, right. So you have the two quantifiers coming down. I said you could, in the third or the ninth, you know, and both could be without this, you know, the two large structures or anything. No, I don't think he was bad. No, I think he really was part of the school of the, you know, British algebraic. I mean, he and De Morgan and others. I mean, he really sort of taught it as a kind of symbolic algebra. I don't really, I don't, that's not my impression. I don't think so. I mean, they didn't, I don't think they really made any connection, as far as I know. I don't know, maybe. Well, I mean, what about the opposite? I don't know. Like Schroeder. Did they do anything in that direction? Schroeder was much later. Yeah, he was much later. I don't know. I don't know. You might have thought Hamilton would have done it, because he was also somewhat... All of these are associated with Atlas' school course, although he was much more geometrical. Yes, exactly. Much more geometrical intuition. That's where a lot of his ideas come from. I don't think that's true. He doesn't seem to be particularly interested in logic.

12:30 No, that's right. He had been. Possibly because another guy called Hamilton has already written a book on logic that he didn't want to get into. No, that's not true. Okay, well sure, let's finish these and go and find you a hotel. We'll have a further car from this evening. I can't, I don't think Pierre Cartier would regard it as a great imposition if we asked him to drive down to pick you up this morning. I don't think he would. Then I'll sort something out. Well, let's see how far it is. It's a nuisance there isn't one on this square. I thought there would be. Yes, there are. There are two up there on the hill. No, no, I just wanted to listen to what you were saying. I was just running around with a curiosity. If anybody wants to use the machine, just cancel this. Well, I need to type out the agenda that we discussed online. I agree with other people. Let's say it's the case I am using the crucial step in everything, because the concept of retrovaluable function, the fact that it's in a category which is not available... Well, we're going to have to visit a meeting in about 10 minutes or so, just to find my vision, if that's okay with you guys. Exactly. Well, it's now just gone 12.30. If we can just put up lunch until about a quarter past one, we could just take care of that, and then we can actually start meeting in about 12. We're going to have a business meeting, John, in about 15 minutes, as long as it takes me just to type out the notes that we made yesterday in discussion, and then we're going to go for lunch.

15:00 It seems you could, you know, discuss them in the aisle about McLean across the agenda. I don't want to have too much of his foot, Alash's foot, Anglican's foot. John very often talks about something that we do and Bill about something else. It's something you can see that everybody remains kind of confident about. Okay, um... No, there's only 37 points left, isn't there? Of course, yes, absolutely. Thank you for your attention.

17:30 The more complicated the site is, the more it's under product. You see, then the representables are tiny. You have this fractional locomotive, and you kind of need that in a way, because, you see, what is a map of your space X? Not a map. It's a shape, depending on the end. It's a power box, and then you look at the mass of that. It should be in the topology. Natural math is a type of math shrugged next to the power box melted into, if they are equal fishes, by some kind of equalizing, with cycles and bundles, such as in the plate, in the shape of an object, which is a good way to think of it as a type of math.

20:00 Excellent spelling. You just take R and R and 1 over a box and then literally collapse from X into that, like a coaching. I think that's cool. I've told many people that you can do it superficially also, but not in such a quick, spectacular way after you have done it in some cases. They're doing it simply because you, I don't know, for example, I can't explain the construction. I don't know it. It worked out for me. But this little switch involving the fractional exponent just makes it all very, very clear, I think. I'm still trying to look at it in terms of examples. I think just a circle is a Z1, right? Yeah, with one, as we were saying. So I got a picture of myself more exactly how that works. So when you think of the actual math, the code chains, and the logic itself, you have to identify things somehow. And there is a two different idea that you have to identify and in fact to agree. Are there other K-1 manifolds? There are usually not. I take my hands off. I'm going to be trying to keep up with this now.

22:30 Only until I understand K-9-1-3-5-2. I'm sure. Yeah. But I'll work from x to the delta-1 to r. And don't worry about x itself. Just r to the 1 over n. Except there is no 1 over celsius. You have to do, you know, some extra thing then. Yeah, yeah. You can get any kind of model, kind of thing. I just wish that models are going to come in product. I have circles in it. If you have a circle, it goes further up in space, and it adds a line to it. So I think of a cosine of the torus. The torus is something around some circle drawn in there. But what that's saying is there really was just one projection of the whole torus onto that circle. Around that circle become winding numbers in the projection. How many classes of this surface onto that other circle should be the cohomology classes? Correct. And that does make sense, but yes, because you can just use the weight of the projector to do that. Well, I mean, it's all on its own.

25:00 But of course, there aren't just the generators. There's a lot of information that's already been closed-cycled to the definition of extracurricular mathematics, which is really a case where the primitive definition is about functions and changing the functions of them. This is an accomplishment of about three different things. One is to actually represent the robotic reactions that are out there. You've got to put it up to a moment to achieve this actually right there. The effect of things that were originally defined as functional effects to the power up here in the model space.

27:30 I don't know whether they were thinking of it or not. Yeah, no, I'd rather use Samy's original idea, which was close in the middle. Singular rather. Singular rather. Singular rather. But wasn't the singular more... I mean, I mean, I got perverted, because, well, a singular simply... You don't sit in the mass to figure people out more than you do. Whereas the type of figures could be anything. But somehow people have fixed... fixed the plot of the expression. They, whatever they do, they write the simple s. You know, that's the special sense, you know, the right sense to the power of delta, with several practices. Well, if you just calculate enough things the way I did, and you have a mystical experience, you can realize that this is the best thing. You know, it's completely anti-matronymical, you know, saying, well, this has many properties, and I can't, you know. You can use that same argument to prove that the Mac is better than the PC. Unfortunately, you can also use it to prove that the PC is better than the Mac.

30:00 That's right. Exactly. If you've done things the way I did, why you'd have done them my way?