There are different
approaches to the subject of mathematics, and it is possible to posit a number of wholly consistent alternative systems which produce some results which everyday
life might consider to be more than a little strange. Back in my sixth form
days, I was somewhat taken by the hyperbolic form of non-Euclidean
geometry, in which the sum of the angles in a triangle varies according to
the size of the triangle – with the extremes ranging from zero for an infinitely large
triangle to 180 degrees for an infinitely small one. It’s of limited practical use in
daily life (where we are, in cosmological terms, close to being infinitely small), but none the less fascinating for that.
It’s not uncommon
for me to be more than a little harsh on the extent to which Sunak and his
not-so-merry men are mathematically challenged, as a result of watching them
struggle with some very basic arithmetic. Perhaps I’m being unfair; perhaps
they’ve just developed a hitherto unknown version of mathematics, in which
things which make little sense to most of us are actually part of an internally
consistent system of logic which the rest of us are just too stupid to
comprehend. This was reinforced today by the sight of some Tory spokesmen apparently
trying to tell the world that yesterday’s round of elections was, in fact, a huge
success for the party. The fringe elements have gone further: the falling
number of votes ‘proves’ that the public at large has an appetite for even more
extreme policies. It’s a strange equation they’ve developed in which people who refuse to vote for increasingly extreme policies can somehow be brought back
into the fold by adopting even more extreme policies. Absolute success is thus
equivalent to an absolute lack of votes; only when no-one at all votes for them
will they feel fully vindicated. They might even have once possessed a
mathematical proof of their theorem, which they’ve emulated Fermat
by losing after scribbling something in the margin.
It's an interesting
conjecture although, like non-Euclidean geometry, it’s of rather limited
practical use to anyone else. On the other hand, my old favourite, Occam, might suggest
that the simpler solution might be a more appropriate conclusion to draw. They really
are just not very good at maths.
No comments:
Post a Comment