Well-known member
Yes I don;t want mastery to go understated in this project. Like you I assume, I'd prefer to place a high premium on mastery, which warrants quite the substantiation.

In light of that, this project is quixotic at best, insane at worst.

Then why do it? At a deeper level, it is really a field-testing of a philosophy, which was largely the intellectual point of departure:

Progress as an end in itself, which makes the actual feasibility of the goal a secondary concern. In fact, the goal becomes mutable when progress itself is really the aim. In this framework, otherwise unviable goals, in terms of sustainable motivation, become viable, as mere occasions to make progress.



I have a loose untested theory that a human life is just long enough to master a field - can often be done by middle age. I think of some mates who know everything about a certain genre of music - they achieved a near complete understanding of that genre and it's history and any new discoveries will just be slotted in alongside that.
Life is short, art is long


θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Something like this could work in cases where I am trying to make maximally random associations between topics that may not have gone logically connected.


θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
vitae brevis, ars aeternae? The grammer stumps me, something about how the tenses of the words suffice in establishing syntax, so the order doesn;t matter?


θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
On the cusp of a significant conceptual breakthrough in my understanding of physics. Was perusing Physics Forums and started on a wikipedia chain leading to "Jerk" which is the change of acceleration in respect to time, or m/s^3 (acceleration itself (m/s^2) being change of velocity in respect to time, and velocity (m/s) being the change of position in respect to time).

I have been struggling with trying to understand acceleration as m/s^2, in the most general way I possible can. I have been more easily able to understand velocity as m/s, but when the denominator gets exponentiated my intuition drops off accordingly.

Just now, between the wikipedia pages and the wording employed by some members at Physics Forums, I managed to get a better comprehension of the concepts at hand. If acceleration is the change of velocity over time, it can be considered as (m/s) x (1/s), which comes out to the same thing as m/s^2.

(edit: for the record, the following wording is my own)

The change of the change of position in respect to time, in respect to time.

(m/s) x



@luka this is a major thing in calculus, I'm learning. Attributing a value to something, in relation to something else. The distance of the runner from the starting line, in relation to time. 3 meters at 1 second, 6 meters at 2 seconds, 11 meters at 3 seconds, etc.

Unless the runner is moving at a perfectly constant speed, there will be changes in how the distance correlates with time. Changes in the proportion.

(edit: averaging it out, the velocity at 1 second is 3m/s, at 2 seconds it is 3m/s, at 3 seconds it is 3.6m/s, etc so the proportion itself is changing over time.)

And these changes can themselves be measured in relation to time, which would display the change of the change, hence the squared denominator. And unless the runner is accelerating at a constant rate, these changes will themselves have changes in how they relate to time, ad infinitum.

Beyond calculus, this is the generic sort of conceptually fundamental breakthrough that can let one make major strides in understanding the topic at hand.

A farming of aha moments.

(edit: adding the purple text)
Last edited: