How Would This Be Different If I Were Catholic?

 

I think the answer is, not much at all.  This situation that I'm in is based on the fact that I am *very good at math*, and there are people who don't like mentally ill mathematicians, or, for that matter, any mathematicians at all...especially not applied mathematicians.  There are people who want to be and feel very powerful in this country, and they want it to rely on *connections* and *charisma*.  They want a *social hierarchy* of power, and they detest and fear mathematicians and scientists, who can do big things outside of political office.  A mentally ill mathematician is someone that they see as perfect for exploitation.


The end date is not really being communicated to me the way that I thought.  The best thing I can do is wait for July 30.  Dr. Glasser is firmly committed to science, and although she's not a "military power" science person, she is a good person with good values who has surely been spied on herself by whoever these bad guy idiots are, and I think she is sharing the date.  I'm not going to email her.


In general, the actors and politicians of the world sort of understand this, but they also sort of don't.  I sort of don't, too.  People who are good at math are often mentally ill, and they get preyed on relentlessly by people who do not wish them well and do not appreciate their ability to become powerful.  Einstein seems to have not been all that mentally ill, perhaps along with von Neumann.  But the list of mentally ill mathematicians goes on:  Godel, Turing, Nash, me.  Society has not learned to stop repeating the mistakes of history, so the mistakes are being made again, and people are hurting because of it.  I deserve more attention and prioritization than I have gotten.  I deserve respect, not to be preyed on.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more