Love

my second mid-terms got over yesterday and believe me, exams really suck. but while doing some last minute studying, something really struck me really hard. or rather i realiZed something. and then i came across this. the course was IMA(Introduction to Modern Algebra) and the referenced book happened to be named 'Abstract Algebra'. Abstract has many definitions and the ones i like include

• Considered apart from concrete existence
• Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation
• Considered apart from any application to a particular object; separated from matter; existing in the mind only; as, abstract truth, abstract numbers
• Expressing a particular property of an object viewed apart from the other properties which constitute it; -- opposed to concrete and an idea separated from a complex object, or from other ideas which naturally accompany it; as the solidity of marble when contemplated apart from its color or figure

basically people like abstract stuff(ideaZ, movies, books) because they are free to interpret there own version into it. so its not that ppl understand abstract art or something, but technically becoZ each one of them links that particular concept to any one pertaining to what they like best theres a larger audience that could be related to it. if i present you only with a circle u can read almost a million things into it. i could be trying to communicate to you about my life being a circle of sorts, or that the earth is round or presenting a visual form of some wise thought like 'what goes along, comes along, or it could just be a circle. and that is hte beauty. abstraction is a terrific form of generaliZation. and love is just one of those generaliZations. it can span such vasts limits(hopefully more so on the +ve side) that u can really use that word at a prettly lottof places. so prooving ur luV is basically bring that 'luV' thing to a more specific, concrete structure. putting more meat into it, defining it to an extent that the other partner can know what extent (s)he really meant. shanon`s information theory is hardly of any help when talking about the amount of information in such stuff. 'i luv u' is only a string of symbols for it. the formula does not take into account the context specifics or the number of interpretations. infact we should not only talk about the amount of information in a string but the amount of knowledge additon to the sink. let the string be 'abc'. more important than the amount of information in this string is the amount of knowledge addition. and this would be reciever dependant. for example let the string be the sentence 'apaches are persian gangsters'. let the amont of information in this string be x. but what if i already know apaches are persian gnagsters. the information in the string is still x. but there was no knowledge addition for me. my vocab would reamain at the same level. on the other hand for some-one who is not aware of the particular fact would be happy that a new word has been addded to their vocab. knowLedge Additon.