Discussions, incl. FW Lawvere, G Khatcherian & M Wright (contd.)

0:00 I'm going to put, I'm going to make a little box that takes a piece of the wood, and I'm going to change the shape of the wood to the size of the area, and I'm going to cover it with a bunch of cracks down the edge, so it's cracks, so we can take a dowel, a dowel, you know, cut it at a certain angle, and put it back into those cracks. The length is based on how much dowel is in the crack. Now you still have to deal with everything but you still have to deal with corners. You still have to deal with the corners. You take a ball and you cut it in a certain way and you precisely fill up this hole and another piece and you precisely fill up that hole and you need to do this one ball to fill up all of these corners. However, if the thing is not right, the thing is not at the right angle. The bigger fraction of the ball, the smaller fraction of the ball, the total fraction of the ball, the total fraction of the ball, the total fraction of the ball, the total fraction of the ball The angle of the human underpinning shouldn't be thought of as a multiple of pi, but as a multiple of fractions of 1. What part of it can be turned? What part of it? Well, I'll tell you all the characteristics. But the concentration of its support is just the furnace. The support of the things is just the edges of the area. It's amazing that all that, that's all true.

2:30 Yes? Yes, sorry, I was actually reading, I was actually thinking about something Jerry was saying earlier, you know, about the, sorry, say again, what's this? Yeah. No, no, no, it was about the identical quantum. Yes. It's actually each term is distributed in the body. It's always the volume that's distributed. Yes, yes. And the area. Yes. Yes, of course. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Now, the sort of thing is that when you use a parallel bifred, the length is, because you have this sharp linear term, it's not as good as there, and if you have a wall, a huge wall, then there still is a length. Yes, it's going to be uniformly all over the surface. Oh, this is Schanuel's paper about the length of a potato, yeah.

5:00 There's a certain total value in that, and it's also a measure of the length. If there's some sharp pieces in your potato, there's a lot more there. The funny thing is, if you just give this explanation, that given, it sounds like an incredibly complicated construction if you have some crazy person... All of these are actually big enough to do an endowment. I mean, it couldn't possibly be a consistent mathematical theory. That'd be sad. Well, all right. Let's be a glitch. But in fact, this is indeed a problem that has a very simple relation. The size of the characteristic product is a problem. It's a beautiful theory. But in particular, it contains angular information. Because if you know these, it contains angular information. What part of the model do you consider a part of? But also how much, how much turning if there is an edge, but what fraction of the disk is involved in the continuous phase of the curvature. Yeah. Sharp edges, sharp edges, except there's a flat line. Because of course, starting with the big measure, you never get to this. It takes all of your data to find the big measure. Mmm, mmm. How was the big measure done? Well, the vague thought of it is... Well, it made sense of the partition. As you were saying this afternoon, I mean, it was really...

7:30 It was really a monster-barring exercise, to use Lackadosh's terminology, because they were so hung up on one and zero, and the point of... Yeah? Reading this journal here, I think... Yeah, for which you now think... You now know why. Well, I hope you didn't think Mabry's paper was as bad as that. No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, okay. Never got me. No, I thought it was interesting. Yeah, yeah. It's wrong, but it's interesting. Lackadosh's book. Oh, not the one by Quine. Oh, yes, I have read this review. It's an extraordinarily challenging matter of years. Knowing what's in that book, there's nothing but precisely this thing Chanuel has refuted. Really? Chanuel has, in fact, refuted the whole thesis that includes meditation. Yeah. Because, you see, I haven't read it. Oh, you haven't read it? Yeah, yeah. The mindset is that the whole book is starring the boiler characters. That's exactly right. Yes, and you find what was wrong with the earlier definition and stretch the concepts, find a new counterexample, stretch, find a guilty... Oh, of course not. This is just taking Popperianism and... Oh, yes, but in fact it's well known that Lakatos utterly falsified... And in fact, one should have, because it's just an impotent part of the Burnside theory of the category of polyhedra. Yeah, it could be more. You know, there's a conceptual explanation. Yes. That's the true dialectic of it. Yes, but you see the whole point is that Lakatosch didn't believe in some true explanations. Exactly. He thought, you know, he thought there would always be a change of dominant theory. Of course, yes. I mean, it's all pragmatism. Yes, yes. Well, it's more than that. Well, it is pragmatism. It's also profound historical pragmatism. Pragmatism disguised as dialectics. I mean, it's called dialectics. Oh, yes, well, of course, he always claimed that he'd been heavily influenced by Hegel because he had been a Marxist before he became a Reagan anti-comicist. I was probably looking again at his paper on Cauchy and convergence.

10:00 Well, I don't know how well he had read Hegel. He certainly wrote Hegel in the period when he was a master's student. The category of the polytheism has a very slight negative effect. I mean, the negative part of that is the characteristic for arbitrary polytheism. Well, it wouldn't be a bad project. I mean, you've got more important things to do, but to write a short polemic against him, gosh, pointing out this very point. This was quite illuminating. I never, I never, I never realized that. Oh, yes, and he only takes that as far as, well, very early on. He's relying on, he's relying on the fact that he has a lot of other characters, who he is. He has a very big human problem, and he has to evaluate recent science. He cares for his program. He's mystified by recent science. He cares for his problem. Well, in... Lactosh's case, I mean, that really was so nakedly, you know, the open aim of the program. It wasn't disguised in any form in the way that it usually is. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I do, by all means. I think it was an extraordinary exercise. You really should read some of his stuff. And Quine, incidentally, has the most extraordinarily mystical paper about set theory in the volume of the tributes to his lack of a primordial monologue. The most extraordinary. It's really just like Dawling and everything, you know, there is no physical world at all. It's all set theory. I met Locke at the same time when I met the Market Woman and Mario Booker. I met Jim Lombrecht when he introduced me to the Market Woman and then Mario Booker when he introduced me to his friend Emery Leckertwatch. I remember we were walking down the road into the starry sky of misery. Well, he was incredibly early in his career then. That was when Popper had taken him out under his wing at the LSE and was grooming him with his cell phone.

12:30 You should read some of his anti-populist ballets, which are actually published in the book of his clinical essays. They really have their place in the book. There's one in which he writes denunciations of scientists and socialists. He writes a furious denunciation of these, not as a woe, as a dietician pointing out the shell, but as a convincing old warrior saying that the wicked would be men and possibly diverting all their energies to build a destructive war, a deadlier, more effective warhead, and other weapons for freedom rather than offenses against the evil empire. Which I know all about because I was one of the servants and I've talked about all of that tradition of renegade. I think whoever saw through him in 1949. That's strange. He was this, that's right. I do not know the circumstances. He had some very strange opinions. Of course he liked to give it out because he was Jewish. He was a very astute falsifier of history. In fact, he was quite naked about this. He said that he was not concerned with the history of rational reconstruction of the history was not rational reconstruction of history in this case, spiritualistic.

15:00 So shall we shall we discuss yeah shall we discuss the absolutely here it is this is the this is the paper that's we talked about the other day this is this is what you wrote so let's um let's go through this now I think it would help me yeah it would help me Thank you for your attention. Seriously, all this bullshit is fine. I thought you were younger than me. It's been 20 years since I was here. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. There it is. Thank you for watching.

17:30 My coldest math is just an excuse to smoke. Look at you, who's talking? I know, I know, that's why. It's just to keep you busy while I smoke. Was this a disappointment to you? That you can't... Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for your attention. I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

20:00 There is another one here from the woods, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative, non-negative.