afterthought per Ray and Richard

[Ray Easton]

Mark Kohut wrote:
>    For example, is he (metaphorically) for or against imaginary numbers?. I think it is a real
> question. Maybe you do not?
>  
>   


To be either for or against imaginary numbers, or quaternions to stick 
to the text, is a category mistake.  It simply does not make sense. 


I prefer a proof of the prime number theorem that uses so called 
elementary methods, rather than the zeta function.  In AtD there are 
those who prefer to do their mathematics without quaternions, and others 
who prefer to do it with them.  Nothing odd so far.


But the characters in AtD go further.  I am not "against" the zeta 
function, even though I prefer not to use it.  I am not "for" elementary 
methods, even though I prefer to use them.  But in AtD there are 
characters who are quite literally "against" quaternions and others who 
are "for" them.  And this is one of the indications that they have 
become obsessed.  They are attributing some meaning to "quaternion" 
which a quaternion does not and cannot possibly have. 


I have no reason to believe our author himself makes this category 
mistake.  Quite the contrary, it seems to me that the author is 
completely aware of how deeply confused his characters are.


Ray