中文收听|Listen English

  
Taking a page out of the books describing how imaginary number was introduced into mathematics, and consider how scientific community being shy away from any number divided by zero, what if we say n/0 is an "illusionary number" h and n/0 = h, 2n/0=2h, and so on, with 'h' standing for 'history'?  Then we get a new set of numbers explaining many social phenomenon that we see today and such new algebra and new branch of mathematics would simplify the process of studying our universe.  For things are almost never how they appear to be and famous Napoleon Bonaparte seems always got it right: 'history is a set of lies agreed upon' and 'imagination rules the world'.   
  
For instance, historians can now write John F. Kennedy was killed by 1+0i+0h gun man, or Nostradamus once predicted the world would come to an end in the year 2000 + 9i + 11h, when you considered this other kind of 'very complex number' with a little bit of 'imaginary' ingredient and 'illusionary' ingredients in it.  All of the illusions owe their thanks to the theory of relativity.  The grand master number 'zero' now is a number that is a 'real number', an 'imaginary number' and also an 'illusionary number', 'zero' or 'emptiness' is coroneted as the king of all numbers and all things.  Many often heard proverbs in the East and West suddenly started to make more sense in light of theory of relativity: 万事皆空; 大像无形，大音熄声，大智若愚; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.  And it seemed that the ultimate task of science is to prove that the universe came out of something empty as in the 'big bang' theory, and that is the same task as proving that the absolute emptiness contains everything." 
  
Wise Guy seemed starting to get interested in the nonsense coming out of the mouth of his old friend, and started a semi-serious debate: "Well, that's a good start.  Expanding the numbers into the realm of 'very complex numbers' or 'illusionary numbers' whatever you call it will lay a good foundation for your new physics.  Do you also need to expand the 'points', 'lines' and 'plains' out of the traditional geometry of 'Euclidian geometry' to make another foundation for your new physics?" 
  
"You betcha!" David again admired how "wise" this Wise Guy was, and he was understanding his new physics already.  Then he recounted what they learned in their freshman year together.  "Well, I failed the exam of Modern Mechanics because the text book was not very well written, hah, just kidding.  The author of the book was that Professor Fang (方厉之). We first read that text book three years before he became famous for seeking refuge in the American Embassy building in Beijing after 1989 Tian An Men incident.  In 1986, he was still talking about how much greater Soviet Communist party was comparing to Chinese Communist party, an argument later proved to be an illusion of his.  One of the opening questions in the text book from the physics professor was also confusing, ambiguous, or probably too profound for me to understand at the time:  
  
how big is the universe?   
  
Then he started introducing different theories in physics, from those of Galilei, Newton, all the way up to the theory of relativity.  Looking back now, the text book was actually a very well written book if people like concise writing.  But I have never been a very smart student, wasn't interested in physics as much as interested in girls, friendship or sports, because of different kinds of hormone in the 80's comparing to now. 
  
As I aged in I found that opening question was my foundation for understanding what is the real concept of a 'line' in geometry. 
  


previous
next


Beta