Nobody mentioned good or bad, outside the context of 'good at math', or 'good step in solving a problem', aside from you, sur. Also, I had to google the difference between inherent and intrinsic, and it's a fine line. Anyway, I already defined what I meant in the 3rd paragraph of #179.

It was my own fault for waxing poetic on the subject of the beauty of math. We can certainly agree that the question, "What is beauty?" is not a scientific question, and certainly not suitable for a physics thread.

Thank you for the positive thoughts. I really could go on for hours.


On the topic of the aplituhedron, here's a link to Nima Arkani-Hamed speaking this year at SUSY.
Full disclosure, this is way over my head, and I imagine that you will all hate me if I don't warn you:
Even though he speaks American, I did feel like I was listening to a foreign language for an hour while he was enthusiastically gesturing at lines on a screen.

That link is from a rather long forum post I found on physics.stackexchange about the amplituhedron which discussed the significance of the object. The author certainly seemed to know what he was talking about.

Apparently, it's still describing things that are a couple of steps below string theory thus far... so you know... don't get your hopes up any time soon for a revolution in physics. This new object has still got to describe the proposed objects that underlie string theory, which itself is not a physically accepted theory for reasons I've stated ITT.