Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>         I think it's a cool result - shows that probability theory is at
> least consistent.

I don't know if it's just me, but I find certain areas of mathematics 
fascinating, and others utterly boring.

For example, take DSP. You've got impulse responses and convolution. 
You've got correlation, the Fourier transform, and related transforms. 
You've got Fourier duals, trigonometric identities, IIR filters, the 
Laplace transform, the Z-transform, transfer functions, the fast Fourier 
transform, filter kernel windows, autocorrelation...

Then you have set theory. The entire theory seems to be about nitpicking 
and pointless questions such as "are there more rational than irrational 
algebraic numbers?" I mean, like, *who cares*?

...and then I spend 2 hours drawing squares and cubes, and shifting 
algebra around to painstakingly derive [a special case of] the binomial 
theorum from first principles. The euphoria of finally figuring out the 
hidden pattern is topped only by the frustration at discovering that 
somebody else already figured this out - several thousand years ago.

I guess some questions are just more interesting than others. Certain 
areas of mathematics seem to abound with interesting concepts and 
beautiful ideas. And other areas seem to involve only splitting hairs 
and irritating technicalities.

Post a reply to this message