Number theory.

I'm incredibly enamoured by certain arguments put forward in Richard Dawkins' book-'The God Delusion'. Richard Dawkins is a British atheist and his reasons to be, is spelled out very vividly in the afore mentioned book. Most of his arguments in the former part of the book, are counter thoughts to the frequently encountered conventional notions for the existence of God, many of which you would've heard or read before. However there was one which was very engaging and startling for the area it comes from- Mathematics!

This mathematical notion mentioned in the book was borrowed from an English writer Aldous Huxley's notable work 'Point Counter Point' which goes like this:

'You know the formula, m over nought equals infinity , m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought. In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. This is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?'

Now whether a mathematical flaw exisits in this equation, can be overlooked for the sheer brilliance in deducing such a result. By this I don't mean, for all theists there is a safe haven to defend their stand, but it can be contibuted for numerical prestidigitation to those agnostics who'll buy it. It is indeed tricky and yet appears very daft for those who'd question the logic of the method involved. Whatever be the case it gives an insight into the fact that a question as God's existence can perhaps be answered in the most sought after ways such as the revelation of scriptures, the inexplicable design of the Universe, miraculous happenings in our personal lives OR through the absurdity of a relationship in mathematics!

Losers aren't subject to an eternal loss.

Roger Federer, indisputably the heir to Peter Sampras suffered a devastating blow in the Austarlian Open Finale. I personally ain't a Fedex fan, in fact I'm always on the side of Rafael Nadal, whether winning or losing. But having to see Federer move to tears after losing the match lead to a somewhat sympathetic inclination towards him. I can't be accused of defection, Nadal himself felt empathetic for Federer.

Well the fact is I didn't watch the match, the media was too engrossed reporting about Hesh-Mirza making it to the Mixed Doubles Final and consequently winning, that I managed to overlook the mortal combat that lay ahead. Nevertheless the morning news is no less dramatic than the match itself. Federer is one short of equalling Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles and as he claims it must be killing him every moment for losing the bus to make it there. The next Grand Slam is at Roland Garros, which happens to be a clay court and even God can't choose to vanquish Rafa on that court.

The attitude towards winning a match or winning anything else in life, is vital. I'm not giving lessons to Federer or anyone else who wasn't the winner at this match, but what I see as the greatest threat to anyone's failure is their fear of failure itself. When one is so engrossed with the thought that he/she is incapable to overcome his/her opponent, the task loses its purpose. Sometimes I wonder why do we let ourselves be intimidated by people who were on that same ladder, also that same rung, where we now stand. Tommorrow can always be better day for a struggler or perhaps an unlucky day for a winner. There always will be a successor to the current ruler however that successor also sees the last day of his reign.

Honour is your name, Fame can be your friend, Love your backdoor vendor but Eternity, never your guest!