> On Numbers. Lacan has some 20,000 unpublished notes with
> graphs, charts, numbers and such. He regarded these things
> as "recreational mathematics."
Fakery can more or less be forgiven. But if he knew the difference between imaginary and irrational numbers and didn't bother to make the distinction, then I would object to him as to some of Robert Frost's later work -- the contempt for the reader embodied in it. (Frost often parodies himself, with the implicit "message," "those fools out there won't know the difference.")
Incidentally, the main intellectual crime in fudging one's use of "imaginary" and "irrational" numbers is a crime against history. Someone pointed out that imaginary (complex) numbers aren't imaginary and irrational numbers aren't irrational. Precisely: and some important philosophical and social history is buried in those labels. The same person whined about "up" and "down" quarks -- the point is that the scientists who explored quarks had a sense of humor. "Quark" itself comes from *Finnegan's Wake*. On the other hand, the earlier mathematicians who coined "irrational number" really thought those numbers were an insult to rationality. And the mathematicians who coined "imaginary number" really thought those numbers didn't exist. Humanists, sociologists, psychologists may not take mathematics seriously -- but if they don't take history seriously, then fuck them.
Carrol