$Obj_{p} = ((IN^{-1})O)_{p}$

(A part of one of my equations)

I have to admit I love pure math. I’ve filled probably seven or so moleskine notebooks over the last several years with my version of it – it’s the quickest and  easiest way I find for me to express my ideas. The  syntax part has only come recently in the last couple of years or so; but the processes for me to formulate my work into this approach has been a long time coming.

The problem Im noticing now is how the interpretation of pure math can be so clumsy, muddy and down right bloated in comparison. One line of pure math can be so elegant it borders on being beautiful – interpret this line and you have some of the dirtiest scripting and code imaginable. Have I become a pure math snob??

I don’t think so, in fact I dont think i’ll ever write pure math in its purest form – I have too much software scripting/coding interpretation in my brain. In fact its become more a system I can interprete visually very quickly. I half-way house if you will, where my brain can ‘see’ what I write – A hybrid mix of scripting  and math wrapped up into a pseudo-pure math form.

I’ll be writing more of my hybrid-math on this blog, hopefully it will help you as it does me understand what the ‘essence’ and solution is to rigging problems.

1. Maulik
March 16, 2009

I agree with you about interpretation. I find it difficult to visualize pure math when I am also trying to imagine it in a piece of code.