PARADOXISM, anti-literary journal, Vol. 6, 1-3, 2000


Essay by PI O (in another nomenclature)

The mad rush to move information from the margins (of society) to the
centers (of power) are predominantly done through numbers now. Once, we
how to manipulate most if not all the numbers we needed, cos they were
relatively small. We use functions like x, ÷, +, -, etc, then more
functions such as integration, logs, slide-rules, hand-calculators, and
finally computers. The end result seems to be that we have became
increasingly disenfranchised from the seats of power and influence. To
navigate our way through the complex labyrinth of numbers we mortals
sign-posts and monuments to help us recognize our location. Examples of
numbers are, "e", "i", and "pi". These "symbols" short-cut the
of all the digits in their proper order and allowed us to move and
manipulate them as units or aggregates of quanta. So what do we call a
number that is so large and complex it is impossible to find a formula
its sequence of digits? Writing out all the digits each time you want
refer to it seems inadequate and inefficient to us (if not to a
computer (or
another storage) technology). So do we let the number-crunching power
of the
computer do all the work, or do we invent our own strategies that can
us "own" those large numbers? If computers are good at holding-numbers,
we are good at being emotional then perhaps an ability to hold the
digits of
an array in an emotional complex that we (if not the computer) can
will hold us in good stead. Perhaps the rise of numerology in ancient
was directly related to a complex society that was an emotional
paralleling our own culture directly. Can the digits of a number be
held as
an emotional complex of sorts, and is thinking in itself an emotional
Can an emotion like a hologram regurgitate the sequence of digits in an
array or number, and if so how? A formalist would state unequivocally
"7" is neither luck nor unlucky, whist a sociologist could point out
that it
is the number "8" in many Asian cultures that is lucky not "7". Perhaps
is the exactitude of mathematics that will in time be under siege, and
the emotions.
What does it mean for Smarandache to draw an array in the shape of a
















It is a number to be sure, and perhaps the number "4" in the array is
significant cos a car has "4" wheels, and the "1" is a unit meaning
only "1"
car is involved whilst the "2" represents the number of headlights the
has, but what of the "noughts" INSIDE the car? Or for that matter
it. Smarandache tells us that the zeroes outside the car indicate that
number is "finite". Perhaps the zeroes in the car mean no-one can or is
driving it. If we presume that this "number" can be called "Car" then
does it mean to multiply it with a number called "Lattice"










What pattern does it assume? What happens if we subtract it, or divide
together? I don't know cos I haven't got a big enough calculator to do
with. Whatever the result the new number would assume a "complex", in
the same way as a vocabulary held together by a grammar results in a
number (or thought or word, to stay with the analogy). But is the
pattern significant (visually)?  Perhaps not. But what if (visually) it
turns out to look like a birthday cake (say), what then? Car x Lattice
Cake???? It may of course be irrelevant or unrelated to mathematics
but what is mathematics proper? Perhaps it is poetry only. This
"terribleness" as Smarandache would say is what attracts me, and like
"Working simultaneously with literature and mathematics, I feel like a
who knows two languages"