afterthought per Ray and Richard

[Mark Kohut]

OK......maybe we agree at base.............\

But I do think our author has perspectives on mathematics that matter to his vision. 

He is fictionally 'against' some.....category mistake or not, irrelevant for the fictional vision.  

--- On Wed, 11/25/09, Ray Easton <kraimie at kraimie.net> wrote:

> From: Ray Easton <kraimie at kraimie.net>
> Subject: Re: afterthought per Ray and Richard
> To: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2009, 3:24 PM
> 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
> 
> 
>