Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Stick]

The problem is that Russel doesnt know what die means yet he uses it so confidently

[Leo Gura]

It's a play on words.

[Davino]

Your last post reminded me of:

It has to be taken with the proper context, still is a good general quote.

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Davino said:

Your last post reminded me of:

It has to be taken with the proper context, still is a good general quote.

That's a great quote. I will use it.

[mmKay]

On 6/16/2026 at 8:32 PM, Yimpa said:

Soften up, buttercup!

 

Thanks for sharing that, very poetic

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, mmKay said:

Thanks for sharing that, very poetic

No problemo poblano!

[Thought Art]

The blog has become immature, disrespectful and petty. I think it’s time I stop following it, stop posting here and just move on. 
 

Bye bye guys….

[Ero]

Science Lacks Self-Reflection

@Leo Gura I recommend for you to read Henri Poincare's "Science and Hypothesis", specifically Ch. 2

There is an aspect of Mathematics that you have never experienced: the process of crystallizing intuition by self-reflection. 

In that book you will see how Poincaré deconstructs the then-prevailing definition of the real line (\R) as the "bag of all real numbers" by repeatedly reflecting against what "continuity" feels like. That process is what gave birth to "Analysis Situs" or "Topology".  

This process of self-reflection, when done seriously enough, makes me hallucinate - 150-200 ug LSD equivalent. Below is a rendition of my literal hallucinations when I was reflecting on his words for 2 hours -  what "hides" in the Continuum/ Abyss, if only one knew how to reach into it.

There is a reason Plato and Pythagoras called mathematics divine. There's a reason Cantor went mad contemplating infinity. That aspect of it is what lied behind the true genius of Ramanujan or Grothendieck. 

Reflect long enough on any mathematical object and you will materialize it in front of yourself. Mathematics is Hallucination

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Ero

[Leo Gura]

@Ero I don't doubt what you are saying. But what you are saying is not acceptable in today's science/academic system.

My point is simply that science needs to be more open to that kind of method.

[Ero]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

My point is simply that science needs to be more open to that kind of method.

Let me preface by saying that I know this is where your heart is at after a decade of studying your work. That said, feel compelled to pushback on your messaging, because I think your heart gets lost on those reading because of the absolutism/vindictiveness ("weasels", "cogs", etc.). 

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But what you are saying is not acceptable in today's science/academic system.

This is false. In Harvard's math department, about 30% of the people I met were explicitly in agreement with this aspect (they themselves have hallucinated math and actively seek that method) and about 40% implicitly. What do I mean by the latter? 

You will notice in a lot of mathematics "folklore" explicit use of the word "alien (1) (2)", "mystic delirium", "magic", "extra sense", etc. by other mathematicians when they speak of select individuals or mathematical results. And this isn't just metaphors or analogies, if you push them on it, you hear a lot of metaphysical weight behind the "mystic/magic" part of it, even if those people themselves are avid materialists. That is because if you do pure mathematics long enough, it is nearly impossible to come out untouched by this aspect of it.

The reason this isn't explicit or vocalized in lectures or "layman communications" has a social defense mechanism behind it because of the principle of explosion. It is to protect the edifice of mathematics from the Terrence Howard's and the like that have only multiplied in number since the LLMs - we do not yet have an autonomous verification system that would accommodate an "intuitively correct" but formally inconsistent results. Terry Tao has been an avid proponent of this or as my Math PhD friend likes to say - "putting all the schizos to use". 

Mathematics is the most empowering field to any and all people because "social value" literally do not care about origin, appearance (had professors in flip flops with after-gym clothes), speech impediments and even neurodivergence - the only thing that matters is "can you prove it". No one is above that, even Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles. 

The increasing autoformalization of Math that I have foreseen for more than 4 years is what I think will push this aspect from folklore between mathematicians to an explicit differentiating factor of the so-called "leaps of intuitions". 

Why did I add so many references and links? Because if you want to push science further, which I know you do, you have to genuinely change the vindictive tone and actually start highlighting the "brilliant spiritual individuals" (who still exist as I have highlighted). Because from reading your blogs or listening to your "deconstructing science series", people who don't know you well enough will get turned off. 

Shun less the ignorant and show more of the magic. 

[Stick]

muhahahahahaha