# Categories

So here are a few things I picked up on and liked. I guess what I’m doing here is generating categories of things to talk about. Once I’ve got a bit more experienced at doing this I’ll be able to go into analysing a talk with a clearer idea of what to look for.

A. Thinking/viewing as a procedure – a certain technique is all about how you view or frame something, the terms you talk about it in and what these allow you to do. Very Wittgensteinian and reminds me that I wanted to do some work on notation.

2. “Menasco decomposition says you think of…”

3. “you can think of this as a full slice of pitta bread and I’ve sliced it down the middle so it’s open inside so you can kinda push it apart from itself. When you do this after you’ve cut along it NOTICE THAT you can … undo single crossings”13.55

A.1 The advantage of something visual – this seems like a sub-part of the above, introducing a different technique because it can be thought about it more visual terms

4. “I wanna spend a little bit more time.….…….…. talking about a different type of polyhedra that’s a little bit more visual”

B. Drawing as a procedure – OK, so here we have this question of what the drawing does. There’s a clear implication in the first one that the drawing is an insufficient representation of something else that has its own existence, but then in 8 and 9 the shading appears to DO something. Number 7 has something to do with A, as well. Number 9 is very interesting – here the diagram is contributing to constructing a polyhedron, and there’s this idea of correspondence between the two.

5. “you’ve got your – your projection plane is this parallelogram thing I’ve TRIED TO DRAW” 6.07

6. 11.38 again draws parallelogram “so here’s the projection plane”

7. “maybe let me write let me draw a picture like this”

8. “these’re gonna give me shaded faces when I’m all done.” 13.22 writes ‘shaded’

9. “for every one of these little crossing circles I’m gonna shade this in and then I’m gonna cut along it” WHAT DOES THE SHADING DO 13.32

10. “the faces are going to correspond to regions of the diagram”

C. Shared knowledge/ transmitting experience – there’s a reference to having thought about certain things a lot, and this changing your viewpoint – see A.

11. “and if you think about this for a long time then you can see that there are a lot of, uh… nice properties of this particularly in the case that your knot diagram happened to be alternating. This is a nice polyhedron” 8.58

12. “so a normal disk D inside the polyherdon this is defined to be a disk whose boundary in a normal curve. Which is kind of a useless definition, so let me define a normal curve.”

13. “If this is your first time seeing that then I’m probably going too fast… I dont know who you are.” 9.45

So there’s this obvious tendency toward changing a viewpoint as an objective or outcome. That’s nice. And some of the drawing is all about that. I guess this is evidence for something I’ve already thought about, but it is evidence.

Something that would be good to do next would be to really focus on the drawings and the rest of the gestures. I’ve got images of each stage of the diagrams. I could do something like noting down every time the speaker goes to or steps away from the board, and carry on noting gestures and making GIFs.