Difference between revisions of "Lesson of quantum topology"
Latest revision as of 07:02, 1 December 2018
Lesson of quantum topology
Star, a vigorous old man.
Guest, arrogant young man.
Participants, who can easy distinguish integral from logarithm.
Guest (writes strange symbols on board): In such a way, we come to Theorem 5: In the asymptotic representation, the group of pre-rotation of the poly-Grassmann isomorphic to a proper subgroup of the Poincare group. .. COROLLARY 5: the zeroth term of the expansion has sense of the metrics. Its average value can be interpreted as curvature. Se see, in the classical limit we get the conventional four-dimensional space-time. (Clears quadrant of the board to make room.)
Star (interrupts): Stop !! Why did you erase? I did not have enough time to write ... What was it, the definition? I forbid you to erase! So I did not erase from my notebook ..
Guest: Book you have endless, and board my end.
Star: Okay, but do not wash until you explain all. Where have you defined your poly-Grassmann?
Guest (found on the board): Here.
Star: You did not define it, you only gave the name … Do not go forward until you define all the objects that you already have been smuggled…
Guest (writing on the blackboard the word "definition" and flourishes).
Star (stares, as a guest restores calculations and then turns to the audience): When a qualified physicist suddenly starts talking, you know, full nonsense, it usually means that he uses formalism, which is not yet built-up.. . When Galileo and Newton were carrying nonsense about the infinitely small quantities, it was nonsense; mathematical analysis has not been developed and the derivative had not been defined that time ... (Looks at the board, sees that Guest is still busy, and continues). While there is no definition, it is not clear ... (to audience) And you can say that's right or not?
Partidipant: It may be true ...
Star I do not say, that this is wrong; but where is the definition? (Looks at the board) What?? Look, he again introduced a new object! .. Stop! What a hooliganism, I asked to determine what is already written, but not to introduce new objects ... All the definitions, please. In one column ... I see that you are using some new formalism, but it is not yet constructed. Build it up, and then you can use it as you like … (to audience) I think it's hopeless … Hor to explain physicist that all the objects should be defined?.. We must recognize this non-existent formalism and build it. Physicists re so ignorant.. They are badly educated, and begin to use the formalism before it is built. And they us eidetic notations..
Guest produces a gurgling sound.
Star (up to the board and pokes in the tangle of characters): Well, here, look here! That's what is this? .. Who can insert a new object into the equation, and only then begin to analyse, from what set is it? (Turns to the audience, contemptuously) Well, only Pffisicist! (Clap hands) Absolutely shameless people ... And then negative review is returned, and the result vaves between the author and reviewers, as a flower in a ice-hole.. And all this just because you did not give the definition!.. (Pointing to the formula) You may keep all these speculations for a popular magazine!.. Here, or you either give the definition, or you prove a theorem, or you building a construction. That's what you're doing now?
Guest: I want to … define the construction!
Star: Well, define define your construction.. How do you call it?
Guest: The set of polynomials of form (1) with the class of equivalence (7).
Star: What for do you define it the general case, if you need only the unitary group?
Guest: We'll see what for..
Star: There was one old monk called Dave ..
- - - - - -
Here is good moment to stop this scene and turn the action to the next episode, diving the Star no time to say, what did Dave keep in a cave...
- http://budclub.ru/k/kuznecow_d_j/lessontopo.shtml Урок квантовой топологии