[Dean's World] Aziz P: a chat with Matoko-chan

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
a chat with Matoko-chan
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1151502504.shtml


   Matoko and I were chatting yesterday and it was an extremely
   interesting back and forth. I admit that I took a rather immodest Zen
   Master tone but that's just because I was trying to stay on topic -
   Matoko is like an intellectual hurricane, vey difficult to keep
   stationary :) I've got her okay to reprint the chat here (hidden text,
   just click "show" to reveal it)

   ([1]show)

   Matoko: here's the comment--well, since i am likely about to lose
   privs here, as i have on manymany blogs, i will take a stab at
   answering that, robert. science is not philosophy. science is neither
   a religious movement, nor an irreligious one. science is proveable,
   disproveable, science is truth. and i just use xian to demonstrate
   that you'all are just as touchy and hypersensitive about the trappings
   of your religion as muslims are about theirs.

   IMHO, all religions are badbadbad. they teach believing instead of
   thinking, and acceptance of horrible conditions here in hope of an
   afterlife, and cruelty and inhuman treatment of followers of other
   religions in belief of a reward in the afterlife. for me, the battle
   is between homo sapiens and homo demonicus, not between xianity and
   islam, or the west and the east, or civ and barbarity.

   do you think dean will ban me?

   me: why would he ban you? aside from pushing IQ too much which really
   shoudl be a matter of restraint on your part. dont try to fool me. i
   know you like pushing the edge of the boundary. ;)

   dean is not threatened by you :)

   Matoko: haha, all you supernaturalists should fear me. ;)

   me: youve got that backwards

   let me as you something. two things actually 1. whats the highest math
   course youve taken. did you get into cool shit like modern
   algebra/grou theory or topology? whats the highest math you took - did
   you evertake any group theory/topology

   Matoko: hmmm...lie algebras? non-parametrics? approxiamtion theory?

   me: does the statement "Completeness of the reals" mean anything to
   you

   Matoko: lol, real variables. ;)

   me: no i mean the mathematical property of "completeness", as applied
   to the real number line

   Matoko: yes, real variables..shall i look for my textbook?

   me: no no

   Matoko: that is the name of a course

   me: so - you know that the reason 2+2 = 4 is actually more profound
   than just addition because it represents a continuit - a completeness
   - of the real numbers themseves

   Matoko: ha ha, there is a book written on that!!

   me: the simple statement 2+2 = 4 is a profound meditation on reality
   in a sense, correct?

   Matoko: yes.

   me: and you are in the 1% of the world population to whom that
   meditation has depth beyond "learned it in grade school" right?

   Matoko: yup.

   me: okay... so what do you think when you hear someone, not in that
   1%, say "addition is so easy! its trivial." someone who took collegel
   calc or something but never got to the higher mathematics

   Matoko: i think they are un-initiate.

   me: do you have any scorn for them? I don't, mind you, but want to
   know what your feeling is.

   Matoko: no...i guess i feel sad for them...they will never "see the
   beauty".

   me: ok, lets postulate that no one on our math 1% feels scorn but let
   us postulate that there rae two groups, A, which feels pity as you do,
   and B. which doesnt really feel anything one way or another towards
   them, as I do fair enough?

   Matoko: ha ha, i don't feel ANY scorn! they are like lower animals
   that don't have speech!! they are not like you and me!!!!

   me: people who havent taken modern algebra are lower animals? (and I
   said group A feels pity, not scorn)

   Matoko: not exactly...they like single dimensional humans while you
   and i have access to multiple dimensions!

   me: ok, so you dont really feel superior to someone who hasnt taken as
   much math as you, but you think that they are limited in their
   understanding of math in a fundamental way which youll never be able
   to explain correct?

   Matoko: i cannot explain anything to them--they have no language--is
   that what you wan't me to see?

   me: no - bear with me dont anticipate :) now, i should point out

   Matoko: hai, sensei. ;)

   me: that in fact if they have taken college calc then yes you do share
   a language - 99% of the language - 99.9999% in fact but you have taken
   one course they havent so before i proceed i am going to be unyielding
   and force you to conceded that your superiority is a matter of degree,
   not an absolute conceded?

   Matoko: what calc? multivariate or advanced calc?

   me: the highest calc you can take without knowing what completeness
   ofthe reals is

   aside: "multivariate". who was the marketing reject who came up with
   that term? its just more integrals.

   Matoko: advanced...but that is theoretical...if they can pass advanced
   calc, they can "see the beauty".

   me: no they cant you need to have gone to group theory to really grok
   completeness as it appplies to the reals because you never think about
   groups in that context until then

   Matoko: see. two different things--innate ability to understand is
   different. some, even if they took group theory could not....grasp the
   concept.

   me: wrong

   i never met a single personn who took the class who didnt grok it

   Matoko: wrong?

   me: understanding math is not about innate IQ.

   Matoko: but they couldn't get into the class without prereqs. ;)

   me: its about training. YES. exactly. the prereqs. just like I am
   forever barred from Mr Universe competition at present, but had I
   started at age 14 with steroids, I'd a been a contendah

   Matoko: ok...mathability is archaelogical--it builds on what came
   before.

   me: but you cant look at me next to Schwarz and say "scrawny over
   there doesnt have the genes for muscle" nor can you drop me into a
   Universe competition and draw any conclusions about my genetic fitness
   from the FACT that I will not win

   same applies to math - we are wired for it deeply. anyone can do it
   with the right training. so just because someone doesnt rgrok
   Completeness of the reals - or can't define what an "integral domain"
   is - doesnt mean that they arent capable of understanding it.

   Matoko: mathability, like IQ and g, partly genetically determined.
   there is a window of hysteresis you cannot overcome with environment.

   me: we are getting off track my point. let us return to the guy and
   the groups A and B with me?

   Matoko: direct my sail, then. ;)

   me: ok, so - this fellow, who hasnt taken the math course you took.
   suppose he says the following:

   "Completeness of the reals is a crutch. it's a useless abstraction
   that doesnt have any direct application to the real world. People who
   believe in Integral Domains are just entranced with a fiction, an
   illusion"

   whats your response?

   Matoko: you are a frog, i'm bird, we cannot communicte. ;)

   me: try harder

   Matoko: err...aristotelians and platonists?

   me: how do you reply to him address is criotique explain it to him and
   saying "take the course" is cheating

   Matoko: this is hard...it is so obvious to me.

   me: try.

   Matoko: how much math has he had, advanced calc?

   me: irrelevant. he is talking abouyt math at the 2+2 level as being
   more real than abtractions about the real number line

   Matoko: how can i explain without referencing theorems?

   me: if you introduce more abstractions he will call you on it you cant
   because you accept those theorems and he does not

   Matoko: but theorems and postulates are structure.

   me: so what? thats strucure beyond where he has seen math go. i'm
   posing you a challenge here that high IQ doesnt help you solve :) but
   high g does.

   you cant teach him group theory. he is challenging the VALIDITY of
   group theory and all math beyond 2+2 is based on theorems, themselves
   grounded oin postulates

   ALL he has to do is say "I deny the postulate" and youre stuck group
   theory is based on axioms tat you MUSt acccept first. all teh theorems
   etc are after that point

   Matoko: hmmm...i gotta go out to lunch...so i flunk here too...i can't
   think of a shared language i can communicate with him.

   me: you dont need a shared language you need to explain why higher
   math is important and what makles it useful even though it is
   abstraction

   Matoko: but how can i explain that? it is like explaining higher math
   to a dog!

   me: no it isnt. hes a huiman being not a dog. and someone had to one
   day say, hey lets take math beyond 2+2 what was their rationale?

   ([2]hide)

   unfortunately that's as far as we had time for. However, I think that
   the conversation illustrates the difference between high IQ and high
   g. Herein I challenge Matoko to break out of her strict box of high-IQ
   thinking and embrace the pathway beyond - and tap into her impressive
   reserves of g. And she responds to the challenge, with spirit. I hope
   she and all of you will continue the experiment in the comment thread
   below.

References

   1. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/deanesmay/posts/1151502504.html
   2. file://localhost/var/www/powerblogs/deanesmay/posts/1151502504.html