Dear Kirby, Bill, Ryan and all,
I wish to invite you to my favorite math educator John Baez's lecture "Two
of my favorite numbers: 8 and 24"
https://cmsa.fas.harvard.edu/event/qm_82423/
You will find a link to the Zoom session along with the password. His talk
will take place on August 24, Thursday, 7:00 Pacific Coast Time, 10:00 East
Coast Time, 16:00 Central European Time, 17:00 Lithuania Time. His talk
will include his thoughts on Bott periodicity. Afterwards, I will host an
"After Talk Party" at our own Zoom session at the usual link. Please let
me know if you would like to come and I will make sure you have the link.
Thank you, Kirby, for your videos and your ideas about Whether, What, How,
Why. I am excited that you and Kirby and others are growing fluent in this
language of wisdom. I am exhausted this evening so I hope to respond
tomorrow.
John Harland and I have talked a lot about math. Today he wrote out his
study plan for investigating the relation between quantum physics and
classical physics. I hope to share that soon.
I learned that my video "Binomial Theorem Is a Portal to Your Mind"
received 10 flags that it was inappropriate. It was removed from the
Summer of Math Exposition contest. I include below the letters I exchanged
regarding that. The video has received 300 views in less than 3 days, and
is now the 3rd most watched Math 4 Wisdom video.
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
math4wisdom@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.math4wisdom.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your video has been flagged multiple times as inappropriate
Hello, your entry for SoME3 has been flagged multiple times as
inappropriate. We will need to remove it from the competition.
Link we have on file for you: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfItf8mQUT0
Thanks,
James
----------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Upon further reflection, we have decided to remove your video from the
competition at this time.
Thanks,
James
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi James,
I am sorry to hear that my video was flagged and has been removed from the
competition.
Please, do you have more specific feedback as to what was inappropriate? I
don't have any idea what is wrong. I worked on the video for two weeks and
would like to learn something from this.
I await your reply.
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
math4wisdom@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.math4wisdom.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
To be honest, the video came off a bit strong, to the point that it was not
clear to me (or the reviewers) what the point was. There was no concrete
claim that was being made. On top of that, when trying to make
extraordinary, universal claims, you need extraordinary evidence to back
this up. This video kinda threw around a bunch of math concepts without
explaining any one in depth.
For example, what does "every choice adds a dimension" actually mean in
this context. I could imagine some mathematical representation for this,
but because it was explained in a real-world discussion instead of in a
visual explainer, it comes off as really colloquial and not rigorous.
On top of that, the editing was off-putting. You consistently used shirts
as green screens and introduced faces of people in them when those people
did not say anything. This really gave the video a rushed vibe. It would
have been better if you had just talked to the camera instead of trying to
spice things up with unusual editing techniques.
Finally, as I see you posted on discord, let me just repeat what they said
there (Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill)):
1. The Binomial Theorem has been understood in all its forms since Newton
and even farther back with positive integer exponents. Why has no one seen
the connection you have over the past millennia or so?
2. The term "binomial theory" isn't standard and it wouldn't reger to
subsets of sets. That's just Set Theory.
3. The Bott Periodicity Theorem is related to topological insulators and
there's a tenfold way associated with them.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065010/meta
4. The Observer/Observed distinction doesn't have anything to do with
powers of (a + b) and it's not involved in the proof of the Bott
Periodicity Theorem.
5. While there is certainly Physics underlying everything in the mind, it's
more of a domain of biochemistry. Deepak Chopra kind of stuff sounds like
this.
6. There is some research in using things like topological insulators to
better simulate a brain, but I'm having trouble seeing if that's what
you're talking about.
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/429532-using-topology-to-build-computing-devices-that-resemble-our-brains
7. Do you have any testable predictions to go with this?
tl;dr: It's mainly that you seem to be using the phrase "binomial theorem"
in a non-standard way and that there's a strong negative association
between Physics and the word "mind" because of grifters like Deepak Chopra.
Also, observer/observed distinctions and stuff like that isn't scientific
unless you can make testable predictions out of it. It's why I hate debates
over the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
Essentially, the entire video comes off as a crank video. To be taken more
seriously (even on youtube), you need to take a more pedagogical approach.
Thanks,
Dr. James Schloss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr.James Schloss,
Thank you for clarifying. Please, I ask, would you reconsider and
reinstate my video?
At the Discord server, I exchanged a series of posts with Joseph Mellor.
He didn't actually watch my video. He was simply objecting to my post at
the #physics thread. "I went entirely off your text post, so I saw
"binomial theorem", "topological insulators", "mind", etc. I looked up
connections between those ideas and found what I posted." I addressed his
points as I show at the end of this letter. But as regards my video, I
asked, "But do you want to reject my video on behalf of everybody? Do you
want my video to be removed from the contest? Is it possible that somebody
else could find it meaningful?" They replied, "The reasons I've given are
why I don't believe it meets my standards. It's up to others if it meets
their standards." Similarly, Viriona did not watch the video but simply
responded to my post.
In summary, Joseph Mellor's objections were as follows:
* "it's mainly that you seem to be using the phrase "binomial theorem" in
a non-standard way." Joseph Mellor was critiquing my post, where I wrote a
typo "binomial theory", but that has nothing to do with my video.
* "there's a strong negative association between Physics and the word
"mind" because of grifters like Deepak Chopra" In my video, there is only
one sentence as regards physics.
* "observer/observed distinctions and stuff like that isn't scientific
unless you can make testable predictions out of it. It's why I hate debates
over the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics." My video contrasts two
very different interpretations of the binomial theorem, from the point of
view of algebraic combinatorics, and argues how one interpretation
describes the state of the Observed ("observed to do this or do that")
whereas the other interpretation ("observed to exist or not") describes the
world of the Observer. In one sentence, I note that this distinction could
be helpful in modeling spontaneous collapse, what it would mean for nature
to observe itself. In other words, this distinction could contribute to
the design of testable predictions.
You add your own personal perspective. You note my failure to communicate
my point to you.
* " it was not clear to me (or the reviewers) what the point was"
* " when trying to make extraordinary, universal claims, you need
extraordinary evidence"
* "it comes off as really colloquial and not rigorous"
I appreciate your feedback so that I can acknowledge my failures. However,
I would likewise benefit from the further feedback I would receive from
other viewers. I do not think the failures you mention make my video
inappropriate, one that must necessarily be removed.
Other comments you give are, I think, matters of your personal Taste:
* "The video came off a bit strong"
* "The editing was off-putting."
* "This really gave the video a rushed vibe."
* "It would have been better if you had just talked to the camera instead
of trying to spice things up with unusual editing techniques."
* "Essentially, the entire video comes off as a crank video. To be taken
more seriously (even on youtube), you need to take a more pedagogical
approach."
I humbly ask you to suspend your own personal Taste. Please let other
people see the video which I have made for this contest. I worked on this
for two weeks with the help of my colleagues with the hope of being found
by a few new people who might join us. This is a rare opportunity for our
small group. Please give reviewers a chance to give their own feedback.
Why remove me based on your own personal feelings or those who did not even
watch the video? The criteria for the contest are Clarity, Motivation,
Novely and Memorability, but not any one individual's personal Taste.
Here is a response at the Discord server from another person Krngl, who
watched my video, as you did:
@AndriusKulikauskas Hi. I didn't follow the discussion here but I saw what
types of things are discussed and I decided to watch your video. First of
all I think it is important to separate science, math and spirituality. In
our cultures nowadays with western culture being the dominant one, we tend
to value science and math while we devaluate spirituality. This climate
influences people who do spiritual (religions, occult, magical systems,
schools of meditation ect.) to present themselves as scientists or
mathematicians. It would be unnecessary if our culture was different. Of
course spirituality can be inspired by math and science but it doesn't mean
it is math or science. This is math competition and what you do isn't math.
At least not in the video I watched. It doesn't mean that what you do isn't
valuable. It's just that we are conditioned to belive that there is no
value in spirituality. Another result of our devaluation of spirituality is
that many people who try to work on these topics are far from the
mainstream, to the point of being on the edge of sanity. In some of the
past cultures even people who suffered from psychosis were included in
society and have an important roles in it. Nowadays things are different.
We could elaborate on how this may or may not be related to all the social
issues that we face, but that's not my point. Personally I enjoyed your
video. It isn't of high spiritual value to me (those things tend to be very
subjective) but the artistic value is in my opinion very high. Especially
considering how low the budget was. Keep up the good work, be careful, and
find better target audience than mathematicians or people interested in
math.
In conclusion, I ask that you reconsider and reinstate my video into the
contest.
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
math4wisdom@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.math4wisdom.com
Summer of Math Discord Server, #Physics thread, August 20.
AndriusKulikauskas — Vakar 18:20
What would it mean for nature to observe itself? I contrast two different
interpretations of the Binomial Theorem in terms of the Observed (choices
of this or that) and the Observer (observing an outcome or not) in my
submission "Binomial Theorem Is a Portal to Your Mind"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfItf8mQUT0 If you are interested, I
invite you to join the Math 4 Wisdom discussion group
https://www.freelists.org/list/math4wisdom We have a study group for the
math of "divisions of everything" which proceeds from the binomial theory
(subsets of sets) to Bott periodicity (organizing the various kinds of
subspaces of spaces) which is key to the tenfold way of topological
insulators. We include participants on the high school level but also the
graduate student level.
viriona — Šiandien 05:37
Well this certainly sets off all my crank alarms
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 06:30
Here's the checklist.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/how-to-tell-if-youre-about-to-revolutionize-science-a17b534b59a7?source=friends_link&sk=41e65a0afc3d9e4f8ac82d8cea08df5c
How to Be Taken Seriously as a Scientist
You think you’ve just found a model that explains everything. Let’s make
sure that you’re not missing anything.
How to Be Taken Seriously as a Scientist
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 06:45
@viriona @Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) Thank you for your reply. I am
curious what specifically you take issue with. I have a Bachelor degree in
Physics from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Math from the
University of California at San Diego. I lead the community Math 4 Wisdom
which includes 7 people who have PhDs or will have them by the end of this
year. That's great that you have "alarms" or "checklists" but is there a
specific issue that I could be aware of? Why should I take you seriously?
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 06:50
The specific problems I see are
1. The Binomial Theorem has been understood in all its forms since Newton
and even farther back with positive integer exponents. Why has no one seen
the connection you have over the past millennia or so?
2. The term "binomial theory" isn't standard and it wouldn't refer to
subsets of sets. That's just Set Theory.
3. The Bott Periodicity Theorem is related to topological insulators and
there's a tenfold way associated with them.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065010/meta
4. The Observer/Observed distinction doesn't have anything to do with
powers of (a + b) and it's not involved in the proof of the Bott
Periodicity Theorem.
5. While there is certainly Physics underlying everything in the mind, it's
more of a domain of biochemistry. Deepak Chopra kind of stuff sounds like
this.
6. There is some research in using things like topological insulators to
better simulate a brain, but I'm having trouble seeing if that's what
you're talking about.
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/429532-using-topology-to-build-computing-devices-that-resemble-our-brains
7. Do you have any testable predictions to go with this?
tl;dr: It's mainly that you seem to be using the phrase "binomial theorem"
in a non-standard way and that there's a strong negative association
between Physics and the word "mind" because of grifters like Deepak Chopra.
Also, observer/observed distinctions and stuff like that isn't scientific
unless you can make testable predictions out of it. It's why I hate debates
over the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 07:02
A PhD doesn't protect people from being incorrect. See
* Kurt Wise
* Fred Hoyle
* Raymond Damadian
* Linus Pauling on everything except what you know him for from textbooks
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 07:44
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) Thank you for being specific. That makes it
possible for me to respond.
You ask "Why has no one seen the connection you have over the past
millennia or so?" That is an immodest question which I do not raise. By
asking that question, you yourself are elevating my claims and then using
that to argue against me. But since you raise the question, I would say
that I am first and foremost a philosopher but also a mathematician and
physicist. My PhD is in algebraic combinatorics. So when I look at math I
am much more interested in the interpretation - in the cognition of the
mathematician - rather than the math on paper. I am coming at this with an
unusual point of view. And I am saying that this distinction between
interpretations is noteworthy, whereas others may not have thought it
important.
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 07:59
The first question is a standard check to make sure
no one else has already figured out what you said (see
https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/9602),
what you said doesn't have any major errors that would have prevented
scientists from looking more into it (e.g. Scientists have considered heat
to be its own substance that repels itself and doesn't interact with
matter, it just doesn't work for a lot of things.),
and it accounts for new experimental evidence that past scientists would
not have known about (e.g. Schrödinger derived the Klein-Gordon equation
first, but abandoned it because he couldn't get it to work with spin-1/2
particles. It wasn't until we discovered spin-0 charged particles that we
could found a use for it.).
In short, these are very fair, modest questions.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:04
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill)
You say that I use the nonstandard term "binomial theory" but nowhere do I
use that term in my video. That was simply a typo. I meant to write
"binomial theorem". Counting, listing, generating subsets of sets is a
topic in algebraic combinatorics much more so than set theory. The point
that I was tersely making in my post above (which I do not make explicitly
in the video) is the noteworthy result (which apparently you do not know)
that the Gaussian binomial coefficients
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_binomial_coefficient count the
number of subspaces of a vector space over a finite field F_q, and
furthermore, when q=1 this yields Pascals's triangle, which counts the
number of subsets of a set. The curious thing here is that q=1 implies
that the finite field has one element, which is absurd because a finite
field necessarily has at least two elements, 0 and 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_with_one_element In this theme, I note
further that there are various flavors of Grassmanians which are manifolds
of subspaces of vector spaces. The classification of symmetric spaces can
be understood in terms of Grassmannians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_space#As_Grassmannians and Bott
periodicity organizes this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_space#Bott_periodicity_theorem
This is a subject that I want to learn, that is key to my philosophical
conjectures and that I have started a study group on. I do want to find
interested people. In the video I simply say "I want to show you the
learning paths in mathematics that lead up to Bott periodicity, an
eightfold framework which organizes the ways of choosing subspaces of
vector spaces." I provide a diagram of those learning paths which show my
interests.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 07:44
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) Thank you for being specific. That makes it
possible for me to respond.
You ask "Why has no one seen the connection you have over the past
millennia or so?" That is an immodest question which I do not raise. By
asking that question, you yourself are elevating my claims and then using
that to argue against me. But since you raise the question, I would say
that I am first and foremost a philosopher but also a mathematician and
physicist. My PhD is in algebraic combinatorics. So when I look at math I
am much more interested in the interpretation - in the cognition of the
mathematician - rather than the math on paper. I am coming at this with an
unusual point of view. And I am saying that this distinction between
interpretations is noteworthy, whereas others may not have thought it
important.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:18
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill)Thank you for clarifying. Question 1 is
appropriate for an academic paper where one is taking credit for original
work. But in my video I am not making any such claim. Question 2 is
understandable and I myself have not discovered any obvious errors.
Please, if you or others see such errors, let me know. Question 3 supposes
that I am making a claim about physics. In my video, all I say is that
"The binomial theorem was a portal revealing to me that I was an observer
and nature itself could be an observer and observe itself as in the paradox
of quantum physics, the collapse of the wave function." Please note that
this is part of a theatrical performance. But as regards the main point,
please note that it is a longstanding challenge, how to interpret the
collapse of the wave function, and one approach is known as spontaneous
wave function collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-collapse_theory In my video, I am
claiming that there are two very different interpretations of the binomial
theorem, one of which defines the state of the Observed, and the other of
which defines the world of the Observer. And then, if that distinction is
valid, it could give a formal way of talking about an observer in nature.
I think that is a noteworthy example of how exploring the cognitive
interpretations involved in simple mathematics can have applications in
other fields.
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill)
You write "The Bott Periodicity Theorem is related to topological
insulators and there's a tenfold way associated with them."
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065010/meta
Yes, that's true. Bott Periodicity is related to many things. Topological
insulators are very interesting but they are not even mentioned on the
Wikipedia page for Bott Periodicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bott_periodicity_theorem So how does this
relate to my video?
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:26
You write "The Observer/Observed distinction doesn't have anything to do
with powers of (a + b) and it's not involved in the proof of the Bott
Periodicity Theorem." My entire video is about two different
interpretations of the powers of (a+b). In one interpretation we expand
powers of (This + That). In another interpretation we expand powers of
(Exists + NotExists). I discuss the differences in these two
interpretations. I argue that they distinguish the Observed (for which
events happen This way or That way) and the Observer (which carves up space
and time so that an event may Happen or Not Happen). You can certainly
reject this. But it would be more friendly if you had a specific objection
and not a blanket rejection. I make no reference to the proof of Bott
Periodicity and I don't understand why you bring it up. And I can be
interested in an interpretation or application of Bott Periodicity without
being interested in the proof.
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 08:27
I take back what I said about the typo, but you keep doing this thing where
you say part of what you mean to say, I respond to what you said, and then
you criticize me for responding to what you said instead of what you were
thinking. In your original post, you said "the binomial theory (subsets of
sets)". I responded to this part by saying
I don't know what binomial theory is.
Subsets of sets is more like Set Theory.
The typo is totally understandable as I made a typo in my response.
On the other hand, there is no mention of "counting, listing, or generating
subsets of sets" in your original text post. Just talking about subsets is
Set Theory.
While I knew about vector spaces over finite fields (it's actually the
topic of a series I've been working on), I did not know about the Gaussian
binomial coefficients because I was more interested in the
eigenvalue/Jordan Normal Form stuff. Regardless, there's no way I could
have known that you were talking about the Gaussian binomial coefficients
from the text post because you just said "binomial theorem".
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 08:30
I went off your original text post where you talked about Bott periodicity
being related to the tenfold way of topological insulators.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:31
@JosephMellor
You write "While there is certainly Physics underlying everything in the
mind, it's more of a domain of biochemistry. Deepak Chopra kind of stuff
sounds like this." In my video, I say just one sentence about physics. I
thought my work could be of interest to physicists and I did not expect
your reaction. But getting to know you is better than getting to know
nobody. 🙂
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 08:34
The blanket rejection is more to do with the fact that it doesn't seem to
mean anything.
I keep mentioning it because you mentioned it in your original post. You
said "binomial theory" -> "Bott periodicity" -> "topological insulators" in
your original post, and I said that it doesn't make sense how you could go
from (a + b)^n to Bott periodicity.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:43
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) I apologize - thank you for explaining. Yes,
I myself am very interested in topological insulators. As a philosopher
with a PhD in Math, I am intrigued to master Bott Periodicity because I am
curious if it relates to an eightfold periodicity of cognitive frameworks
that I have been accumulating evidence for. Here are two academic
presentations that I gave:
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Research/20170929TimeSpaceDecisionMaking
https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Research/20171011DisembodyingMind
Topological insulators are interesting to me because they are based on CPT
symmetry, which is to say, they involve Charge conjugation, Parity and Time
reversal, which are all quite metaphysical. Some forms of matter have Time
reversal symmetry and others do not, which is to say, in some forms of
matter it does not make sense to speak of "becoming" but in others it
does. Charge conjugation means that in some forms of matter, when we have
a sea of particles, a hole in that see is the same as an anti-particle but
in other forms of matter it is not. So this encourages me that there might
indeed be a metaphysical connection between the cognitive frameworks
("divisions of everything") and the topological insulators. This is
something that our study group will explore in learning about Bott
periodicity, and will able to find evidence for or against, when we
understand it better. In my video, I welcome people joining our study
group but otherwise it's not the subject of the video.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:47
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) I accept your critique that my post and/or
video "doesn't seem to mean anything". I have failed to communicate my
idea to you. But do you want to reject my video on behalf of everybody?
Do you want my video to be removed from the contest? Is it possible that
somebody else could find it meaningful?
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 08:51
The reasons I've given are why I don't believe it meets my standards. It's
up to others if it meets their standards.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 08:52
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill)
You write "There is some research in using things like topological
insulators to better simulate a brain, but I'm having trouble seeing if
that's what you're talking about."
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/429532-using-topology-to-build-computing-devices-that-resemble-our-brains
Thank you for the link. No, this is not related to my interests, and is not
at all related to my video, where I don't mention topological insulators.
Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) — Šiandien 08:53
I went entirely off your text post, so I saw "binomial theorem",
"topological insulators", "mind", etc. I looked up connections between
those ideas and found what I posted.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 09:00
You ask "Do you have any testable predictions to go with this?" My video
is about interpreting the math. The connection with physics is very
preliminary. However, I am investigating the fivefold classification of
orthogonal Sheffer polynomials, which arise in solutions of Schroedinger's
equation and also are relevant for quantum field theory. I have a video
presentation here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ReRg_TCKSY That is a
different exploration but it does involve finite combinatorics and
different probability densities and thus there is a chance that these
interpretations of the binomial theorem may be relevant.
AndriusKulikauskas — Šiandien 09:02
@Joseph Mellor (TheLandfill) Thank you for explaining and also for caring
to respond to my post here.
-----------------------------------------------
Hey Andrius,
There are a bunch of comments I have, but I will settle with saying the
following:
1. I thoroughly believe that there is a way for us to recognize and
rigorously analyze our own spirituality and that many people become better
by doing so.
2. The video had 10 total flags, this means that almost every person who
watched the video flagged it as inappropriate rather than judging or
providing feedback. It was the single most-flagged video at the time of
removal.
3. I looked through the feedback you received and relayed it to you in the
last email after verifying that it was correct, so what I said was a matter
of personal taste, but it was the taste of many people, not just me.
I am sympathetic towards your message in a way and understand that you want
as many people to see it as possible; however, this video pushes more
people away than it attracts. I think it is possible to get people to
understand, but you need to meet them where they are at instead of giving
them everything at once.
The video hits a weird uncanny valley in terms of pedagogy. You start with
the binomial theorem and then use it in a bunch of unusual ways while
introducing skit-like scenes throughout. Those that would enjoy the skits
probably don't have the math background to even understand why they are
interesting. Those that have the math background (specifically this
audience) want you to explain the topic much more deeply -- or at least
point to relevant references -- so the ways in which the theorem is used
don't feel weird.
You have a PhD. You've done research. You know what academics are like.
They want every t crossed and every i dotted. In your case, you really,
really need to do so because there are so many crank theories trying to do
exactly what you want to do. So you've gotta prove yourself even moreso.
There are a lot of videos that could have done well here that could also
have lead people towards your cause:
1. A discussion of other, similar theories and their flaws
2. https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Research/Writings ;<-- anything from
this page that doesn't touch theology
3. A single, well thought out discussion of the binomial theorem (or any
other graduate-level topic) without the spirituality. You can add the
spirituality in another video
Anyway, I am giving you as much feedback as I can as both an academic and
someone with a decently successful online presence.
Thanks,
James
