It is notoriously easy to compose completely meaningless -- and meaningless in the sense that any world in which a given interpretation that the given thing under consideration makes sense would be one with sufficiently other rich pathological disabilities and instabilities that one would not be able to live long there without wondering why the first little autocatalytic thing didn't say "life, why bother, what's the point, we're all going to be attacked by random peroxide radicals this day or that" and then expired in the prebiotic melange -- arrangements of words to suit -- as in a hypothetical set of argumentum ad "this is meaningful to me" -- fallacies of significance, that is, things which seem at first to be important because they contains words or nouns or other fractured processes which are dear to our heart, but on further reflection, are not about anything at all. While I stridently enjoy this about-nothing character, I also find it particularly noisome, when it is used in lieu of a point. Beyond the point that the sand castles have no foundation and float in the air because someone is believing really hard that they float, I must scratch my head and say "um, okay." It is good to know that some people think this about art. But I have not spent enormous amounts of time considering art qua art. Most of my bugaboos concern irreplicable reasoning and such foibles a la Sokal. To wit: I'm concerned with generating random, meaningless argumentation for the hell of it, and because I think that it's useful to create sophisticated forgeries of good reasoning. The dihydrogen monoxide ballyhoo, the randomly generated paper made by some clever MIT folk, and so on: these sorts of snags wonderfully and delightfully illustrate where the argument to authority -- or at least to authoritative language -- crops up.

I find myself less and less convinced by long pages of incomprehensible mathematics -- I want to see pictures or movies which demonstrate the points which the text is making, rather than congealed masses of symbols -- those I don't trust, for example:

"In Theorem 3.4.1, we proved that a k-ary snark tree is only loosely inequivalent to a forked n-ary warthyff tree with 67 or less intrusions. Recently, Karmblen Nuychteff showed that a forked n-ary warthyff tree must have a prime number of intrusions if it loosely inequivalent to a k-ary snark tree if and only if the thneed signature of the forked n-ary warthyff tree is an odd multiple of seven or twelve less than a Mersenne prime. The proof is as follows: by Van Snordglington's lemma, there exists an exhaustive homomorphism from the space of forked n-ary warthyff trees that commutes with the extrusion codomain of the space of k-ary snark trees. Since Kan extensions are the most important concept, we take Kan extensions of both the exhaustive homomorphism, and the forestry service functor H7(p)(x), giving us a profinite module on the category of snark trees which resolves to the adjoint functor of the warthyff image tree. Then we take the combinatoric reduction of the forestry service functor and enumerate the correspondences between trees. By Van Kampen's theorem, the spaces are homogeneous and therefore we can fold-remove the forked trees, and that counts all of the nodes and branch-points up to the exhaustive homomorphism. Then we take cases: either the trees are Wilkes-Barre or the space isn't Hausdorff, and since there density extrusion matrix is singular only when the thneed signature is a multiple of seven or twelve less than a Mersenne prime, we're halfway there. Except that even multiples of seven don't work because of the unrenormalzed kappa expansion in the density extrusion matrix"

See? Completely and utterly meaningless. A better method might work by stitching five mathematics papers together, and changing them so their nouns and verbs are consistent with the nouns and verbs of the first. Oh well.

I find myself less and less convinced by long pages of incomprehensible mathematics -- I want to see pictures or movies which demonstrate the points which the text is making, rather than congealed masses of symbols -- those I don't trust, for example:

"In Theorem 3.4.1, we proved that a k-ary snark tree is only loosely inequivalent to a forked n-ary warthyff tree with 67 or less intrusions. Recently, Karmblen Nuychteff showed that a forked n-ary warthyff tree must have a prime number of intrusions if it loosely inequivalent to a k-ary snark tree if and only if the thneed signature of the forked n-ary warthyff tree is an odd multiple of seven or twelve less than a Mersenne prime. The proof is as follows: by Van Snordglington's lemma, there exists an exhaustive homomorphism from the space of forked n-ary warthyff trees that commutes with the extrusion codomain of the space of k-ary snark trees. Since Kan extensions are the most important concept, we take Kan extensions of both the exhaustive homomorphism, and the forestry service functor H7(p)(x), giving us a profinite module on the category of snark trees which resolves to the adjoint functor of the warthyff image tree. Then we take the combinatoric reduction of the forestry service functor and enumerate the correspondences between trees. By Van Kampen's theorem, the spaces are homogeneous and therefore we can fold-remove the forked trees, and that counts all of the nodes and branch-points up to the exhaustive homomorphism. Then we take cases: either the trees are Wilkes-Barre or the space isn't Hausdorff, and since there density extrusion matrix is singular only when the thneed signature is a multiple of seven or twelve less than a Mersenne prime, we're halfway there. Except that even multiples of seven don't work because of the unrenormalzed kappa expansion in the density extrusion matrix"

See? Completely and utterly meaningless. A better method might work by stitching five mathematics papers together, and changing them so their nouns and verbs are consistent with the nouns and verbs of the first. Oh well.