Ross Finlayson, a known crank of sci.math and sci.physics, in one of his articles decides to use one of my signatures as a quote (obviously oblivious to its real meaning), along with a quote from Archimedes Plutonium, a famous kook:
>"The moment you think it's x, it changes to not x"
> -- Ioannis Galidakis
>"And thus, all of mathematics is destroyed."
> -- Archimedes Plutonium
I immediately object to him grouping me in the same league with AP, so he posts:
>I'll admit that I found your quote somewhat more illuminating than AP's,
>I hope you would explain it here to these people, about x and not x,
>and their oscillation (in vacillation), who are otherwise probably
> ignorant of its meaning.
>[...] Ioannis, it was a sign of respect, that's a good quote.
>It has good meaning, it came from an interesting essay.
So I oblige him and post an extended explanation:
'I don't know where you picked my quote up (I had been using it in the past but now it's certainly over 4-5 years old), but its meaning is very deep and has to do with the whys and hows Murphy's Law works in our universe.
It's the gist and epitome of why nothing gets ever done on this planet. Because nature has put this axiom in effect, so pinpointing a solution down is virtually impossible.
If I recall well, I picked it up from Schrodinger's cat and the collapse of the Wave Function. Murphy's Law would state that when you open the box containing the cat, the outcome would be precisely the opposite of what you'd expect. If you think the cat is dead, it would end up alive and vice versa. Same thing with the collapse of the wave function.
Something similar happens when you are wondering whether you have forgotten your house keys after you left your house. The moment you are sure you haven't and you make the move to search your pants, the keys instantly materialize behind your house door. If you wonder whether their position is such as to allow a locksmith to unlock your door, the keys will instantly assume the most difficult position behind the lock. That is, they will be within epsilon of Pi/2 radians from the position required for the locksmith to push them out easily.
Something similar happens when Murphy's Law strikes on bank and supermarket queues. You THINK you have just arrived at the queue which moves the fastest and you will be served really quick. The axiom activates and your queue ends up being the slowest. If you change lines, the same thing will happen to the line you have just gotten into.
If you drive home thinking you will find a place to park, the axiom activates and you will end up spending 1 hour driving around your block in search of a parking space. Whereas, if you think that you will NOT find a parking space near your home, a parking space will be waiting for you exactly outside your house.
When you argue with friend or foe and claim x, your opponent will always use not x as their argument. If you decide to agree with them and claim not x, they will then change their claim to x.
If you THINK you've got a mathematical proof x right, and are ready to post it to usenet, the MOMENT you post it you will find that not x is certainly a possibility. Before you even have a chance to correct your mistake, someone else will correct it, making you look like a fool. If you post a retraction and say "I agree to the correction of not x", then someone else will PROVE that x was correct to begin with, so the retraction was unnecessary so you will look like a double fool.
It's like the ultimate axiomatic conspiracy: The Universe conspires against all of us simultaneously: If you discover a new theory or mathematical model x, the universe will go to work CREATING the model not x in some obscure corner of somebody's mind, so you can be proved a fool.
If you eliminate all the minds who will try to oppose x in advance, the universe will create a sub-universe where not x will be true empirically. So if you think that 1+1=2 for example, you can be SURE that a sub-universe exists, where 1+1=2 is false.
If you think the world should have peace, there will be at least one place on Earth where there will be war. If you think the world should have war, the world will be peaceful.
If you think your cat doesn't understand you, it will suddenly engage in the most intelligent behavior, resembling a 180 IQ human. If you think your cat is intelligent and you try to communicate with it, it will look at you as if you are an idiot, not understanding anything.
If you think your hard disk will fail, it will last a lifetime with no problems. If you are in virtual terror every day dreading you don't lose your documents, your hard disk will crash and you will lose everything. If you THINK you can recover your documents by going and paying a sizeable lump of bucks to a respectable recovery company, they'll recover all your porno .jpg's, but not those important .pdf files you need for your research.
If you THINK there is no God, think again: There will not only be a God, but the God will be a vicious motherfucker, opposing you and cursing you in every step. If you THINK there is a God, God will disappear and everyone will become atheists.
I hope I have given you a few illustrative examples of the powerful axiom:
"The moment you think it's x, it changes to not x"
To finish the illustration, note finally that this axiom can also be made self-referential, (since x is a variable), so it contains its own annihilator:
"The moment you think it's "The moment you think it's x, it changes to not x", it changes to not "The moment you think it's x, it changes to not x"".
I am afraid I don't have the details of WHEN it stops working, like above. This seems to be the core of Murphy's Law and anyone trying to investigate the above is making the road to the loonybin shorter.
You see thus, that my axiom is quite deep and has nothing to do with Plutonium's
"Thus all mathematics is destroyed",
which is sheer shallow nonsense.'
Apparently he didn't like my humorous explanation. He writes in response:
>[...]That implies it is not a mathematical fact and to promote the other
>view as gospel, immutable, written in stone, etcetera, would thus be
>deceitful. I'm rather angered that you would suggest the acceptance of
>a mathematical falsehood as mathematical fact. Wouldn't you be?
>Reexamine the claim about there being only one or none proper classes.
>Consider why that demands dual representation of the ur-element as both
>zero and Ord, regardless of whether Ord is N. (Steve, infinite sets
>are equivalent.)
>Unitize the analog! It's better to have a tool, even a primitive tool,
>to measure sparse points of the continuum, than none, and bar further
>consideration of the matter by fiat.
>Why don't you consider that the direct sum of infinitely many copies of
>N is zero? [...]
I haven't had THIS much fun trolling someone for a LONG time...