After he had dressed me down on why he was sure I was wrong on why the number '1' was a prime but that that, as I pointed out, had no real bearing on the issue, he told me in no uncertain terms that if something WAS or WAS NOT a specific thing then that would have a lot of bearing on the issue.
I hate arguments, so I steered the matter to why he was trying to represent a 'composite' (as multiples are called) as having different ways of being expressed as the product of the same factors, like '12' for example:
12= 2*2*3 ; 3*2*2; 2*3*2
And why he would say that THAT mattered, and he surprised me, the same Mr-Everything-Has-a-Bearing, by saying, "It is always done like that; that is what 'conventions' are".
I am sure he thought he was talking to a fool, so, because I had nothing to gain by dressing HIM down; I had come looking for someone in a position to make CHANGES, not someone who just followed the flock, well, I left him to his delusions, and left.
Now, this is the very interesting part I find myself in. I KNOW what I know, and I KNOW what others THINK they know, and WHERE they are wrong, so now, because everybody is waiting for everybody else to take the first step, I will take the issue into my own hands and flood the media with what I know.
Teachers and pupils are going to find themselves in a very curious position, because on the one hand, there are the 'conventions' that they have always followed, and on the other hand there is my 'does-this-make-sense' approach to everything, and so, what is going to happen is a case of some serious schizophrenia here, as 'convention' clashes with 'reason'
I should empty classrooms in short order, since I aim to do this worldwide.
Now, what do 'delinquent' kids get up to when not gainfully employed? Imagine that, and ask whether the old ways are the best.
This should be interesting, and I get a front row seat!
