A Coy Pond


Deritive is an infinite difference.


Integral is an infinite sum.

That’s why they are

Inverse operations.

The difference between contrived and derived

can be found in the [con] of poor artistry.

Decoy or coy?

I am not unlike a koi pond: he responds.

What, swimming in your own shit under bridges you may not cross?: I challenge.

Everytime with this one: we both think

but, we do not say.

Can you cross the zigzag bridge over my fish head: he koi-ly bubbles.

Oh howl you want to know if I am a demon, hum huh?: I think.

Yeah, I can. Many times have I crossed the eight branches of an iris-strewn river. You are merely a pond, doll. Turning left, turning right? Not problematic to a whirling dervish. A modern ballerina. Do you, sweet koi, have the tenacity of a salmon?: I say.

Can you cross my moonbridge?: I ask

Do you have the potential energy required to achieve the kinetic momentum required to overcome the archway: I wonder.


An enlivening of a skin abrasion.

A salmon swimming upstream.

Bears with fish scales stuck between incisors.


Rub it til it bleeds, said PJ Harvey.

Clears my crown and your heads.

You wait seven days.

It keeps you, freshly.

It keeps you integral and not derivative.

This is Numberwang?

This is Numberwang?

(Kindly let me know if my math does not tally below. I tried to check and recheck it, but…)


Q: When was 120 minutes ago from now?

A: It was two hours ago.


When was one hundred and sixty four billion (164,000,000,000) minutes ago?

Hum, huh?


My illiteracy with numbers occurs at a certain threshold.

Numerical literacy*? Not my strong suit. So, I play with numbers, with what I can imagine.

For example, I can imagine a triangle, a square, a pentagram, a hexagon, a septagon, an octagon. But, I cannot imagine, or see in my mind’s eye what a 25 sided polygon would look like. I would have to try to draw it.

There is a 10,000 sided polygon, called a myriagon, according to geometry.

I will take their word for it because I cannot imagine being able to imagine what that would actually like.


I am not monied. The difference between one million dollars and one billion dollars? Well, sure, ‘orders of magnitude’, but I only understand that in the abstracted sense. The practical difference between such huge numbers is not immediately obvious to me. But, the news, scientific research, and governments, regularly inundate us with such large numbers.


Do a thought experiment with me? I wanna know:

Q1. How far could the millions of dollars, comprising a billion dollars, go?

Q2. If I had one hundred and sixty four billion dollars (as I hear someone in America truly does) and I gave away one million dollars per day, how many days before I am broke? Let’s pretend I keep my $164,000,000,000.00 in cash in a safe. That means my money is not making more money via interest, returns, dividends.

If I have one billion dollars in cash, let’s imagine it’s kept in one million dollar bills. I would have one thousand of these million dollar bills.

I could give one of the $1,000,000 bills everyday for 1,000 days before running out of money.

If there are 365 days a year, 1,000 days is about 2.75 years.

The difference between a million and a billion, practically speaking?

A1. You can give away $1,000,000.00 everyday for almost three years before exhausting $1,000,000,000.00

So, how much more than 1 billion dollars is 164 billion dollars, practically speaking?

Well, if it takes 1,000 days, of giving away 1 million dollars each day, to get rid of a billion dollars;

It would take 164 times longer to give away $164,000,000,000.00 than it would take to give away $1,000,000,000.00

1,000 x 164 = 164,000 days

164,000 days = 449 years and a few months.

If I had $164,000,000,000 ($164 billion), I could give away $1,000,000 ($1 million) everyday for 449 years.?


Now that I see it this way it only raises more, honest questions from an ignorant me.

How much money do people need?

And why? To what end and what do they intend?


*My own numerical illiteracy was introduced to me by a slim, charming book called Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos which I found tucked away in the statistician’s, my father, bookcase.

The idea is wittily conveyed in the sixth chapter of the second section of Douglas R. Hofstader’s book Meta Magical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern.

The chapter is called Number Numbness.

Both are written for non-math-savvy folks and both pieces manage to entertain with humor.

Watch “Joe Rogan – Mathematician on Trying to Measure Consciousness” on YouTube

I fell down the rabbit hole of Roger Penrose (along with Douglas Hofstadter) during my mid-twenties. I became quite intrigued by Gödel’s sentence G (Nagel has a great book for arm chair thinkers like me).



Computational capacity.

Just watch it, ok?


Disambiguation through x is to y




Apposite: adj. Fitting ; Suitable ; Pat ; to the point

Opposite: adj. placed or set over, against, or in front of ; adverse ; contrary ; in marked contrast to something else

MacMillan’s Modern Dictionary (print 1945)


n. A situation, fact, or statement that is the opposite of another. > mathematics a theorem whose hypothesis and conclusion are the hypothesis and conclusion of another.

adj. opposite


adj. opposite in position, direction, order, or effect.

n. 1) a thing that is the opposite or reverse of another; 2) mathematics a reciprocal quantity.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (print 2008)

Correlate: v. Have a relationship in which one thing affects or depends on another > establish a correlation between; n. Each of two or more related or complementary things.

Correlation: n. a mutual relationship of interdependence between two or more things > the process of correlating > statistics interdependence of variable quantities

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (print 2008)

Attempt @ Recap of Gödel & Formal Systems

Trying to learn mathematics. Comments and corrections welcome. Piece of a work in progress.

All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecideable propositions.

The single, circular ‘loop’ of the statement above is the assertion that, although the statement is true, it cannot be proven to be true. This parallels the way Principia Mathematica contained mathematical statements of truth that could not be proven through the text itself.

Gödel showed that probability is a weaker notion than truth. His sentence G showed that no fixed system could adequately represent the complexity of whole numbers-no matter how complicated or elegant. No connective set of principles could explain ‘a whole’. ‘A whole’ is a sum greater than its constituent parts.

See Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians which makes the point that although sun, water, and soil are required and can explain growth, they are not growth itself. Growth results in death (sic. cell senescence) which returns as birth/reproduction.

The main paradox in math is trying to enliven our intuitive realizations with formalized, axiomatic explanations?

It does seems delightfully inane

It does not make sense, giggle.

As much as it does not make sense to…

…ask if the metric is true & the imperial system/s fake.

If the Cartesian (Descartes had strange experiences with letters on a train) coordinates are true and the polar coordinate systems of geometry that are non-Cartesian are false.

One geometry can not be truer than another geometry.

It (one over the other) can only be more convenient.


There is nothing wrong with a bit of convenience.