The other day, I walked by a pond in the park near my block. There were some goldfishes inside. Strangely, they could talk.
* * *
A: Why people could be puzzled by `known' knowledge yet ?
B: Hmm, it sounds abrupt...
C: Haven't you heard of the almost independence of Scotland ?
A: Don't bother ! It's out of the concern at the moment.
B: Well, it's likely the known knowledge are arranged in a puzzling manner.
A: But, why people do things that way ?
C: Haven't you heard of ...
A&B: Shut up !!
C: ...(Unfair!).
B: There could be many causes for that. But, they can be classified into two sets: some puzzles are set up on purpose; others are unintentional or obliged. The first kind of puzzles might be set up for protection purpose, or for retaining some superiority in competations...This kind of causes are less respectable, of cause. As for the other set, writers may omit things that appear clear to themselves. Sometimes, you do think those things are clear to the readers, also. However, the most important causes might be the rearrangement of the materials. In particular, events occurred later in the research might be put at the beginning when writing up the paper...
A: Does it matter to rearrange things in a paper ? People have the freedom to do that, if the truth is not lost.
B: It does matter a lot. Things of being `true' are not necessarily being `genuine'.
A: It sounds puzzling. Could you illustrate the idea by examples ?
B: Sure. Consider to draw a triangle with equal edges on the blackboard. To be `unique', suppose the length of each edges of the triangle is `one', with the bottom edge being parallel to the ground level, and the center of the triangle lying at the `center' of the blackboard...Wait, it is hard to say where is the center of the blackboard, rigorously. So, let's modify the requirement, and let the center of the triangle be given somewhere on the blackboard. To draw this triangle, one has to calculate the distance between the center and one of the edges, and the distance between the center and the corresponding vertex. After he gets the two numbers, he has to decide the edge to be drawn first...
A: Hmm, I become a little impatient. Let's suppost the three vertices be given, say, A, B, and C.
B: Good idea. I become sweating. So, you connect the vertices by pairs and get a triangle.
A: Everyone can do that. So, what ?
B: Yep. I can do that also. The point is, your triangle ABC and my triangle ACB is identical logically. We say it is `ture' to refer to `your' triangle by `ACB', but it's not `genuine'. By `genuine', you describe things in the order they came to you.
A: Hmm, I cannot see the difference. Does the order matter ?
B: Well, there are generally more information in something `genuine' than something `true'. You can derive the true part from the genuine thing, but not reversely. In our triangle example, if you describe your triangle in the way you drew it, you might provide more information. For example, one may infer that you likely have drawn it by your right hand.
A: It sounds not very convincing.
B: Well, remember the aborted example of drawing a triangle with equal edges earlier ? You may request remove that part in our discussion. After that, things here are still `true', but not `genuine' anymore. I prefer to leave them instead of removing them. It makes things more vivid at least.
A: ...
Yiwei: Well, anyway, time up. It's time to send the email. Ask for homework ? Try to figure out the role of C in this talk. Good night.
