You do the Math

Because I only know Words; and

Only know numbers through words.

The Math and numbers may precede Word and words.

I do not recall which nor even whom could knowingly say either way.

What You call approximation (is still assumptive);

we in words call assumption (often purports as axiomatic);

those in logic call axiomatic (remains approximative).

To depower the danger of improper axioms and assumption:

Explicitly say It outloud in and with thoughtful dispassion,

then wait to feel any feedback of Its resonance with those able to hear.

Assumption then becomes mere assertion

-a simple contention made available for public consumption and comment.

Word Introduction

Here is citation info for my sources. We can try to work on our words, but the words work on us too, largely without our awareness. So, here are some words that intrigue me: these are words I want to let ‘work on me.’

Here is citation info for my sources.

We can try to work on our words, but the words work on us too, largely without our awareness.

So, here are some words that intrigue me: these are words I want to let ‘work on me.’

A Quote to Find the Rabbit Hole

“Zeno’s arguments, in some form, have afforded grounds for almost all theories of space and time and infinity which have been constructed from his time to our own.”

Recalled via Boyer, Carl B. The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1959. Previously published under the title, The Concepts of the Calculus

Complete & Consistent 

wp-1486294468194.jpgHow familiar are you with nostalpogy?

Not at all?  Yeah, me neither.

it does not exist (at least to my knowledge as of 10 FEB 2017).  So, whatever it is that nosalpogy represents, it is something of which I cannot conceptualize.  Moreover, I’m incapable of conceptualizing it.  If no person can elucidate what nosalpogy is , if no one can help me see ‘it’ against the setting of everything else, then nosalpogy is nothing.


Get thinking about Russell & Whitehead’s attempt to derive all of mathematics from purely logical axioms and remember how Godel’s Sentence G (just one example).

Russell & Whitehead wanted to irrefutably prove that a consistent system based on a few simple assumptions (aka axioms), whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm), is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers.

Well, they failed to achieve that goal, but that failure brought its own success and furthered theoretical mathematics. Godel demonstrated, for any such formal system, such as the proposed one of Russell & Whitehead,  there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. Godel then provided proof that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.


To give the gist without the jargon– I imagine a  tube with 3 tennis balls inside.  Now, imagine you have 3 box each filled with 10 of these tubes, each containing three balls.  Each tube contains a set of three balls.  Each box contains a set of 10 tubes; another way to say this is, each box contains a set of 30 balls.  So a set of 3 boxes is a set of 90 balls or a set of 30 tubes.

Imagine I am shipping out boxes of tennis balls.  On each shipping pallatte, a set of 4 boxes, each containing three boxes of tennis balls, can be packed  That means a pallatte contains a set of 360 tennis balls which is equal to a set of 90 tubes which is equal to a set of of 12 boxes.  The pallatte can also hold a set of 4 boxes each holding 3 boxes.

The point is, I can define a set of tennis balls many ways.  I can also imagine a set of sets of tennis balls (a box = 10 tubes and 10 tubes = 30 balls).  A box is a set of tubes and a set of tubes is a set of tennis balls.

So if I can imagine of box of tubes containing tennis balls; and, if I can imagine a box that contains several boxes of tubes of tennis balls, and so on…at what point do hit the top?  At what point do I reach the highest possible set?  Never.  I can always conceive of one more box around boxes just as I cannot name the highest number-I can always imagine one more.

Apologies-work in progress-researching underway.

Bertrand Russell






Science and religion are presented as two paradigms, as distinct and mutually exclusive worldviews. The general resonance of the debate between the two worldviews sounds aggressive and emotional.
These domains are not necessarily engaged in a binary opposition. They are, simply, two of innumerable types of social structures, existing presently. The ‘faith’ of individual members of society is differentially distributed between and amidst both the society’s social institutions as well as the sources of assumed authority.

Reconciliation of science and religion serves us all best and acknowledging that (1) science is a very useful way of talking and thinking about the world, that clearly delineates those things about which it is and is not capable of addressing, (2) as human beings, we are meaning making machines, but all beliefs require a leap of faith, and


(3) the purposes of science and those of religion differ-science seeks to serve the empirical while religion seeks to serve the incorporeal.
Currently, religion and science are locked in a struggle for social power; and by ‘social power,’ I specifically mean the authority and power to inform the public with ‘true’ explanations of the world. “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source or spirituality….The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” (Carl Sagan)