Quote: "When these conceptions are generalized to more than two dimensions, they open the door to Riemannian geometry, tensor sensor analysis, and the idea of Einstein."
Questions: Was having a set number of dimensions a huge thing?
Comments: Let's be honest. This reading was insufferable, they keep getting worse. I usually find a few lines that I particularly like, but not in this one. The one I chose was one that just led to a bigger idea, completely unrelated to the article, but I chose it anyway. The thing I noticed about this line is that life has those sort of domino effects. I'm sort of relating this to Rachel's class instead, but when we read that short story "Harrison Bergeron", I thought about this quote. In that story, everything was equal, no one was smarter or faster than anyone else. But... this quote doesn't show the competition of work (Though there may have been intense competition), it shows the process of being inspired and working off the idea of another person which isn't equal, but it's progressive. I don't know, I was terribly bored by the reading and when that happens, my mind wanders off into space.

Quote: "The distinction between pure and applied mathematics did not exist in Euler's day, and for him the entire physical universe was a convenient object whose diverse phenomena offered scope for his methods of analysis."
Questions: Why isn't it? The outcome of his thinking was still applied right?
Comments: I'll be honest, this reading was a little boring. There were a lot of shapes and pattern figure-outing but it didn't really dig deep into any cool philosophy like how one infinity is bigger than another. This line, however, I found rather interesting. This sort of sums up what I think of the world. We have to admit there are millions of mysteries of phenomena that we have yet to discover. However, when we grasp it by some means of observation, of course the opportunity is going to be seized. The wording itself stood out to me just because I feel like that would be along the lines of something I'd say.

Quote: Leibniz was torn between the contradictory claims of science and philosophy as ways of knowing reality, but he leaned in the direction of science.
Questions: How do people know which one to believe? How did philosophy come to be so different from science?
Comments: I found this interesting because I know there are facts, science, and stuff like that. But there is also opinions. Everyone has their own truth, does that mean philosophy is truth too? I find this interesting just because they are so similar yet they both contain totally different aspects.