It’s odd that all it takes is to stop watching movies for say 4-5 years of watching mainstream cinema (or for that matter random TV songs and channels) and come back to them to realize
how silly the idea of someone stalking the woman.. and then the woman falling in love with them and then singing, running around trees is..
And yet, that’s exactly what the teenagers grow up learning is love. May be i’ve become too old, but I really wonder what so-called “market forces” led us to here.
I have trouble comprehending the market forces (well atleast if i assume less power for the parents to control which movies their kids see*).
So anyone connected to any of the movie-making industries in India, please enlighten me.
How does a story that has a romance as bland as “stalking-angry girl-persisting-maybe a fight-eventually fall in love” storyline gets picked?. Is it just a question of hero-vs-producer-preferences-vs-desperate-writers combo?
I feel like there’s a good chance of disrupting the industry, (I do see some interesting plots in the Tamil Movie Scene, but I’m biased and do see dull stories there too.)
* — which might be a reasonable assumption with TV cable costs going down.
So in the previous post, I outlined the assumptions involved from a formal systems (and/or Godel’s theorem centric) approach for a proof of “There’ll never be an exact specific formula for predicting number of partitions for number ‘n'”.
This is a follow-up post, trying to get into more detailed nature and define what we mean my “exact specific formula”.
- “formula” — We refer to a mathematical function To re-phrase, it is a mapping/pairing from set X to set Y. There can be one-to-one pairings, one-to-many, many-to-many, directed/undirected pairings, cyclic/a-cyclic pairings. (Yes i just made a comparison of it with graphs). Anyways for our case, we add the following constraints. it will take natural numbers and produce natural numbers. It is acyclic. It cannot be one-to-many, but it can be many-to-one.
- “exact specific” — We refer to the symbol between LHS and RHS and are trying to say it must be the equals operator.
So as per the previous post, the thesis/theorem goal becomes to prove that we don’t have a graph subject to above conditions, if we restrict the operations to those defined (as per previous post).
Formally, a function f from a set X to a set Y is defined by a set G of ordered pairs (x, y) such that x ∈ X, y ∈ Y, and every element of X is the first component of exactly one ordered pair in G.
Numbers as a formal system: axioms
This is an attempt to prove that there can never be an exact formula for the say nth prime or for that matter the no. of partitions for number n.
- 0 and 1 exists
- addition is a way of adding 1 to an existing number
- 0 is the identity element for repeated addtion operation
- Primes is special type of number, which has exactly one partition where all the constituent numbers are equal(in this case 1).
I might be missing something, but i think next step would be to prove that having an “exact closed form formula” for prime would be the equivalent of proving one of the axioms.
Then from Godel’s incompleteness theorem we have proved our premise.