>>…_good_ writing shows some of the equality and balance of math. >> And often modern writing lacks that balance…no equality of subject and object…I don't know…just no balance. No ability to construct complicated sentences that are intelligible. If you've ever read Thackeray, you'll know what I mean. Not that his stories were exactly rip-roarers, but his sentence and prargraph structure was a thing to behold!

But just to throw a log on the bonfire, one of the things I find distressing about modern writing is that I think that _good_ writing shows some of the equality and balance of math. When you don't feel that balance, you know something about the writing isn't right.

Does that blow any fuses here??

I know a bit about non-Euclidean space (using the simple example of the Earth as one), but no where near as much as you. I do remember being very disappointed as how "mundane" it was once I learned what it meant, considering that my first real exposure to the phrase came from H.P. Lovecraft. It's a real let-down to know that there aren't lots of mathematicians studying how to bring across the Unspeakable Hordes from Across Time and Space.

Well, so far as I know there aren't…

-1 = e ^(pi*i)

It doesn't really get any more fundamental than that. And I'll point out that Euler was probably the greatest mathematician of all time. We still don't fully understand his work. And his work is everywhere: structural engineering, mathematics, economics, you name it. We are all indebted to Euler. We just don't know it, and we don't really understand it yet.

And yes, I'm a math geek. But that's okay, Math is Power. And I can tell you, math geeks like getting wound up in the explanations as well. We don't get many opportunities to talk about math when someone else is actually listening

Then again, I kind of like getting math geeks all wound up in explanations.