In Mathematics,where we mostly prove statements of the form \(A \implies B\), we are establishing a relationship(or lack of one) between two (at times very random) looking statements,and that’s quite appealing to me.The treasure hunt, is in looking for the relationship,and how we do this,is to consider a plethora of examples,tweaking and turning around the statements,considering contradictions and contra-positives helps too. Bottom line is,we mess around a lot to get a sense of what the statement implies and then we use tools to prove that implication.Sometimes we will fail to prove the required implied statement,but prove an intermediary,and that sometimes is a great sub-goal to have achieved.
In proving,we often have to labor away looking for relationships,without the promise of even getting a relationship.Some problems, do not come with a lot of information with them,so it is on us to create the framework and then attack the problem.Whatever we do,we sure do labor away hours of our time in trying out examples,looking at smaller base cases.
The practice of Mathematics,does enable us to become somewhat good at looking for relations.
I spend a considerable amount of my time with Mathematics,so quite naturally I take a very axiomatic approach towards life, and sometimes logical(oftentimes not). One of the things I do,when I talk to someone is really focus on their answers. But what constitutes as an answer?If we are taking messaging apps into consideration, answers are exactly what they are, there is not much interesting to discuss about it. But in person conversations, that’s where all the fun is. The eye movements,the motion of hands,the body language,the highs and troughs of the voice everything,everything comes together to give you an answer, and mostly,we just take words that constitutes the answer and walk away with it. I guess,what I am trying to say is, just like you’re not your name,your name is just a context-aware reference to you,and you(the entity) have a lot of metadata,an answer also has a lot of metadata that we can learn more information from,and this metadata is not garbage,is not bloat from where we can just extract out exactly what we want to hear.It is sometimes nice to engage in the full spectrum of communication,and to me,it is more than just mere words.
Some people,exude an extraordinary amount of effort to be what appears normal to us.Sometimes,the literature at their disposal,is not enough to express how they feel. They use their eyes, fingers, hairs, eyebrows and even touch to properly communicate what they want. The metadata which we might consider bloated,is sometimes,put there quite intentionally just to communicate a shared experience that is beyond the prison of a language.For them,we have a duty,a collective one at that,to not be axiomatic in our understanding of others,to be considerate and above all,to be kind.