. to my surprise, would you believe you,
opening the Pickwick Papers...
   Dickens reads like an insistence
of spreading butter on a warm piece
of toast;
i'm more inclined to fibrous
narratives, notably in the guise of
Irish existentialists...
   the rocky-esque: break your leg
while you're at it running
    a Minotaur's marathon:
   yes, not in a straight line...
                                      but in a maze.

ever since i remember what
mathematics was in school,
and what mathematics
was at university...

              i've been bewildered by
what mathematics is,
in reality...
  shorthand...

at university level mathematics
is seems to be so focused
on abstracts that...
well... i had to sample something
from it:

as i was told:
just because you're a mathematician
doesn't imply you're
a synonym of someone who,
once upon a time,
would sit in an architectural
office: and be good at arithmetic...

so...
  is this statement true?

                 rouge ∈ red

well... erm...
                             x ∈ A
i guess...

   rouge belongs to red,
it's a vague representation
of red, in that it's a shy red...

so yeah...
                 rouge ∈ red...

or rather:                  red ∩ white (B)

so... yeah:

                   A ∩ B {x : x ∈ A & x ∈ B)

x ∈ A / B...

so what about... burgundy?
what makes...
    ah... white, red, violet...

      so this is... the "grand" logic?

elaborate slang...
should i learn it...
it would also reveal:

   a generic name,
e.g. John Smith...

            using ∀, i.e.
for every instance of the surname
Smith, has a predicate: John...

mathematical shorthand...

no...     ∀ can't work here...
i.e. not every John (A) is a Smith (B)...
but a John Smith
can exist as both

i.e. (A ∩ B) ⊆ A   (a)
   (A ∪ B) ⊇ B          (b) -

     (which is basically an elaborate
of ≤ and ≥) -

  oh look... and some Braille
while we're at it:
                                    ∴  ergo

   ∵       because 1 + 1 = 2   or?
       1 + 1 is therefore 2?

five sets of etc.:
  …        ⋯
               ⋮       ⋰
and ⋱

              back to John Smith...

(A ∩ B) ⊆ A:
    every name has a surname...
(A ∪ B) ⊇ B
   every surname has a name...

because Socrates or Plato...
were?
                                 Plato Alexopolous?
Socrates Anastas?
        
John Smith could become...

A ∩ B {x : x ∈ A & x ∈ B)
    
   John "jomith" Smith
       prefix (of) A: jo-
              and suffix (of): -mith

A ∪ B {x : x ∈ A & x ∈ B)
sure... but that wouldn't be true...
if we're talking about John "jomith" Smith...
if A ∪ B were true...
we'd be talking about John
"johnsmith" Smith
and not
  about A ∩ B, i.e. John "jomith" Smith...

come to think of it...
would have i written something
like this, by having only enjoyed
the smoothness of a Dickens' novel?
i couldn't get my head
around this... without first
prying open S. Beckett's watt?

i don't think so.