Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and
hamster-fanciers do not wonder how
to define their subject (not until they have tenure, at any event), but simply
roll up their sleeves and dig into it.
Later, in their rocker, on the front porch,
bourbon on the sideboard and surrounded by the admiring upturned faces
of their numerous grandchildren (always providing that such creatures shall
still exist in years to come, rather than being all solipsistically
oblivious as, fondling their
J-Pads or whatnot with downturned
personae and sightless eyes behind their encasing of Google-glass, they text
their various virtual-avatar BFFs in unbreakable code, never stirring from the
vat of amniotic fluid in which they float forever wihout sensation, all their
internal organs having long since been harvested by their Reptilian Overlords
for use in necromancy --
-- but I wander from my topic -- forgive it -- an effect of
age),
later, as I began
to say, when, fallen into the sere, the yellow leaf, and sicklied o’er with the
pale cast of philosophic doubt, exposed to the bitter winds of (and so forth),
some of them may
indeed eventually turn their minds, not to mah-jong, but toward certain
Questions which, while not in any easily specifiable sense more “fundamental”
than the deepest truths of their own chosen subject, are yet, in a precise
sense, “meta” to them: exempli gratiâ : What are we really about, when we
mathematize / botanize / admire our hamster?
Other than to those who have themselves delved deeply into
such matters -- in particular, to those actively engaged in clearing new
forests in their own fields, and with no time for such marginalia-- the answer
may strike one as purely post-hoc, decorative, suitable for framing, worthy of
being enshrined in a museum, but in no wise analogous to a fingerpost, or to
fuel in your tank.
Yet consider the following passage from a research
mathematician and (for my generation) prominent textbook writer:
The main problem of topology is to
decide when two spaces are homeomorphic.
From this point of view, the main problem of Operator Theory is to
decide when two operators are unitarily equivalent.
-- Paul Halmos, “A Glimpse into
Hilbert Space”, in: T. L. Saaty, ed.
Lectures on Modern Mathematics, vol. I (1963).
Here, the answer to “What is Topology?” is not simply knitted into a sampler
and tacked to the drawing-room wall, but used as an actual heuristic for
finding your way in a different field.
Soberingly, he adds (aye, and has the wounds to prove it):
“But usually this is
too hard.”
Still, that did not mean that the field of Operator Theory
was stymied; similar questions in the topology of low-dimensional manifolds were
“too hard” until the work of Thurston, Perelman, etc.
where these matters are discussed in greater depth and detail.
~
All of which is simply by way of invitation to our
essay on the subject,
where these matters are discussed in greater depth and detail.
[Note: The
quotation marks are largely ironic.]
.
~
Appendix:
“What is Chemistry?”
Walter White, in the pilot episode of Breaking Bad, introducing
the subject to his high school class:
Teacher: “Chemistry… is the study
of … what.”
Pupil: “Chemicals.”
Teacher: “ ‘Chemicals’ --
N-n-n-n-NO!
Chemistry is: technically, the
study of matter.
But I prefer to see it as the study
of: change.”
(That presages the very great change that he himself is about
to under go -- a veritable transition to a new phase-state.)
.
No comments:
Post a Comment