This is one of the many recommendations that one of these two authors has been giving, for almost seven years, to his students of Differential and Integral Calculus, from the Senai Mechatronic Technology Course in São Caetano do Sul, if they wish to research the objective truth of the facts. Today, in the middle of the 21st Century, the greatest danger for an individual specimen of Homo sapiens (Hoss) is to receive false information. Worst of all is believing in it, using it to harm others, or destroying oneself through it like poison drinkers.
We live the great age of lies. It is not that the lie has emerged now, quite the opposite, but now it spreads across the globe like viruses at the speed of light through rumors, optical fibers, satellite and computer transmission, and permeates all, without exception, relationships. among individuals in the Hoss network.
The raw material of everyday life in the Hoss network is information. In addition to the frantic and universal production of lies, there is still the fact that information that has not yet become a lie is continually distorted, falsified, and manipulated to serve the minor interests of certain specimens, or groups organized for the usurpation of office, advantages. , goods and riches for themselves, from Hoss not at all interested in positively interfering with the evolution of their species so that it is a little less aggressive and dangerous. It is chilling that human evil will spread through the Milky Way. Perhaps, wisely, the universe has produced deadly cosmic radiation as a preventive and aseptic measure.
It is a great difficulty for a Hoss specimen to consider information and to verify whether it is true or false, or to determine its fuzzy degree of truth (in Fuzzy Mathematics the truth value is not restricted to 0 or 1, it can assume any value between 0 and 1). It is a continuous and arduous struggle to deal with information and separate information that is not a lie, that is, it is not simply a malicious virus.
Storytellers, even those who are interested in positively interfering with the evolution of their species, may inadvertently aggravate this picture by introducing stories that are difficult to understand, even more difficult to prove, unlikely, and probably false, if well. that without malice.
Students (from one of us) of Differential and Integral Calculus are encouraged to read the excellent Brazilian Scientific American (Sciam). However, we know that one must always be alert and relentlessly verify the likelihood of the tasty information contained therein. This is very difficult, and we usually don't do anything with most of them, but every now and then some students approach us with tough questions like the ones we come to report.
Articles about mathematics in the mass media such as newspapers and magazines are rare. Perhaps this is due to the deep and widespread mathematical ignorance of the average Brazilian citizen. Paradoxically, this feature of the Brazilian social network may favor the sporadic appearance of fanciful articles on mathematics because the likelihood of verifying its likelihood will be very small.
A February 2008 Sciam article spawned the following dialogue between one of us and a student.
- Student (A): What does “some more equal than othersDidn't you teach that equality is transitive?
- Teacher (P): Yes, equality is transitive by definition and will remain forever. You will find in this article statements of the most difficult to decipher and some fanciful, even hilarious, but fortunately meaningless. The relationship of equality between two objects, whether mathematical or not, is exempt from “dosing,” meaning that there is no point to clear and distinct thinking that The is more equal to B than the ç. Unless we introduce a fuzzy version of the equality relationship, it seems that has not yet been explored by researchers in Fuzzy Mathematics. In principle, “easing” the notion of equality can cause great confusion in the clear and distinct thinking of Hoss's specimens, nullifying the basic condition of objectivity (even understood as intersubjectivity) of the scientific method, because the first immediate consequence will be the dangerous situation. "No one knows who is who or what is what anymore." For example, if we are passing an open gate and a pit bull approaching, we won't know if it has the same killer trait as the past killers, because our concept of equality has been “relaxed,” and the delay in hitting Quick withdrawal may cost us a very painful, useless death or, worse, condemn us to a life-time known as "Frankstein's reincarnation."
- THE. Would you say it is pointless to ask questions like “Could I be more or less like myself?” “Or could number 1 be more or less equal to 2 divided by 2?”
- P. I think it is not interesting for the Hoss species to go back several centuries and to give up the basic notion of 'clarity and distinction of a thing'. It has been so hard for some specimens of Hoss to discover, understand, and incorporate this notion (it seems the vast majority of the 6 billion have not yet incorporated this notion) that it has borne so much fruit in science, and I find it a great waste to abandon it now just because someone , it is not known why, is striving to make it confusing. The transitivity of equality (if The = B and B = ç, then The = ç) has to be maintained and, fortunately, mathematicians have not even considered or considered changing that. Nor does it cross their minds any fantasy in that line.
- THE. So what does the title of this article mean?
- P. This is not to say that, as we have already mentioned, no new mathematical structures (fuzzy, for example) are possible to model new physical phenomena. However, if this happens, no mathematical structure will have to be destroyed because of it. All will continue to exist, although some may no longer be used in modeling the world. This is how it has been a long time since several centuries.
- THE. You did not answer my question.
- P. The very title of Sciam's article no longer makes sense.
- THE. I have no idea what the subtitle means.
- P. The subtitle of the article seems to suffer from the same fantasy as the title:
“In the quantum world, the idea that objects are individuals is fallacious.”
Ideas seem not to be in the quantum world but in the mind of Hoss's specimens. By the way, what is a "quantum world"? Who defined this object with clarity and distinction, received the unanimous prize from scientists, and was kind enough to bring it to the level of the lay reader? I don't know either.
- THE. Have you been talking in your classes that Hoss specimens have a biological quantum computer (QB) portable inside the cranial box. Is the mind not quantum?
- P. Well, if we accept that the mind of Hoss specimens is quantum, then the ideas are in the quantum world, but then what of Hoss would not belong in the quantum world? The quantum world could not be all that exists as it would be perceived by a quantum mind produced by a QB? What would be the “non-quantum world”? It's because?
- THE. But what is written there seems to have nothing to do with what you just said.
- P. Introducing the phrase “quantum world” into a short story is the same as resorting to the entity “Holy Spirit”: it will certainly make it difficult to understand clearly and rationally. What's more, idea cannot be fallacious, just as green cannot be salty. An argument can be fallacious. Ideas are thought of and no matter whether they correspond to real objects or not, in any sense given to the term "reality." This simple confusion, unfortunately, leads me to fear deeper, broader, more subtle confusions of the storyteller. The article no longer appeals to me, but repels me, sadly.
To be continued…
Back to columns<