ecargo13 Mar 2006

My ex is a mathematician, and though I didn't come away from our relationship with much real knowledge or understanding of mathematics, I did come away with some appreciation of mathematical aesthetics (in part from long hours spent struggling with _Godel, Escher, Bach_ and the like). He had a knack for making me understand, if only superficially and mostly by analogy (not being math brained), why he saw such beauty in numbers (even if, as Erdos said, ". . . you don't see why [numbers are beautiful], someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is.")

Your treatments, frankly, don't make me see that beauty. I'm not saying that to be a jerk. Maybe it's that you don't give enough information or make the necessary connections. Or maybe it's that your observations seem, I don't know, somewhat contradictory or superficial. For example--what's the significance of 183? It's not a prime (though you go on to extol primes). It's odd, true, but so? Maybe the problem is that I just don't bring the necessary math chops to the table, but I don't think it's that alone.

You tap into a long tradition of seeing numbers as divinely inspired (I think that's part of what you're saying), from Gallileo to Erdos (not a believer, but he liked the divine analogy well enough) and beyond. And the reference to the the Platonic--abstract, unchanging truths--gives this some context it might otherwise lack. But some of it doesn't seem to hang together or perhaps just isn't fleshed out enough.

I do think your subject choices are often unusual and ambitious, which is commendable. And you do have a knack for inspiring reaction!