There more correspondence and symmetry to be discovered it's not like we are at end of the world..once we accept to come out of fear mongering echoes filled cocoon, problems like yang-mills mass gap issues can be easily deciphered ....they is nothing wrong with intuition as long as you are not doing magic,provided intuition is followed by scientific explanations...once person intuition can be different to another person intuition..if person is able to use his intuition well and good.

to others.There more correspondence and symmetry to be discovered it's not like we are at end of the world..once we accept to come out of fear mongering echoes filled cocoon, problems like yang-mills mass gap issues can be easily deciphered ....they is nothing wrong with intuition as long as you are not doing magic,provided intuition is followed by scientific explanations...once person intuition can be different to another person intuition..if person is able to use his intuition well and good.

Can I ask for more detail ?

I see a lot of your posts that contian a grain of truth wrapped up in a banana skin, so the whole package is not only too short but unintelligable to others.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Can I ask for more detail ?

We should stick to the thread appropriately to avoid highjacking.

On 8/12/2025 at 6:55 AM, studiot said:

If I replied again to this thread I was going to point this example out to MigL.
But you beat me to it.

You two are ganging up on me, eh 😃

The map/territory allegory is not one I use often, but I do often stress the difference between the model and the reality.
The one HAS to be a limited subset of the other, otherwise the model would be the reality.

But I did appreciate KJW's post.

On 8/12/2025 at 11:55 AM, studiot said:

If I replied again to this thread I was going to point this example out to MigL.

But you beat me to it.

I take the statement "the map is not the territory" as allegorical.

That is it is a metaphorical depiction of a deeper meaning.

And I think, as obviously a lot of people do, that it is a good one.

Mathematically there are two considerations.

Firstly the strict definition of a map as a formal description of a relation between two sets leads to the first law of equivalence

An equivalence reation is reflexive.

In other words the map is identical to the territory because it is the territory.

In all other circumstances the relation map only offers identity for some aspect or aspects, but not all of them.

Which leads us the applied world where we constantly use models which only correspond for some desired aspect or aspects to the phrase

The map is not the territory.

You would not expect to fly to Berlin in the model that was used in the wind tunnel for the airliner.

I think a simple interpretation is one is a schematic construct of the other that contains sufficient details but no more than necessary.