' morning Craig,

You have been gracious in your acceptance of my apology, that apology, whilst unconditional, is intended to be a foundation for mutual reform on both our parts. Your reference to John Nash ( A Beautiful Mind) is tacit confirmation that we do indeed have an understanding. Thank you.

That aside, this is a two way street and it is hoped we can both live with our respective commitments.

I genuinely respect your intellect and I truly wish you good outcomes. At least two of us understand why.

spindoc, I don't think we do have an understanding, tacit or otherwise. I'm neither autistic, as Dustin Hoffman's character in Rainman was, nor schizophrenic, as John Nash was claimed to be (but wasn't).

I cited John Nash because he was a truly inspirational man. He essentially invented two completely different fields, one of which, the role of subjective probability in game theory, was responsible for his "schizophrenia", I believe. His other great contribution, relating to the embedding of discontinuous geometries finitely within continuous manifolds, is still being explored.

He also managed to overcome the debilitating effects of observing a reality that he could not properly explain and having his colleagues and his devoted wife think he was mad. I suspect that it was his ruminations on that experience which were influential in his later work, including the work that he discussed with Villani.

One of my life ambitions was lost when Nash and his wonderful wife lost their lives recently, since it meant there was no possibility of ever having the opportunity to meet him.

A beautiful mind indeed.

'morning Craig,

:)

Regards.

spindoc, having reexamined the initial posts, it looks like I owe you an apology first.

"Sorry about that", as Max Smart might have said.