My Discrete Math professor is the same gentleman who shepherded (if that is the right word) me through my first Calculus class last semester. Seeing his name on the schedule for this class, then, was not disturbing. For me, he is a known quantity, and a good professor. And, like most of the professors encountered on this journey, he is very giving of his time outside of the class. On the first day of each course, he lets the class vote on the most opportune times for his “extra help” sessions, adjusting his schedule to suit the needs of the majority of the students. He will be available at that time for any student, with any question.

I have attended his sessions this semester. If I may speak in the terms of a logician, I in this case implies the existential quantification: As in, of all the students in the universe of discourse (his class), there exists 1 student who has attended his “extra help” sessions.

I am that existential quantifier.

Today, while exploring the labyrinth of nested quantifiers during the “extra-help”, he made the most remarkable comment.

As I recall, we were talking about implications in a proposition: x implies y….or, if p, then q…..you get the drift. A relationship exists between two variables.

As he said, the logical relationship exists, but that the rules of logic ignore the existence of time. That is, the logic assumes that the relationship is timeless, until one of the variables changes. He further stated that he suspects the existence of a physical, universal law that must apply to logic and time. Even though he can prove, through logic, that an implication is not timeless, he has not yet persuaded his wife, a fellow mathematician, that his argument is true. Thus, the theory awaits further development.

This is beautiful stuff!

## Recent Comments