No one would dare to question speculation. Because what would it be of freedom of speech without it? The Securities Market is only the hint of deceiving, of the difference between prices willing to be paid and prices due to be charged. This sounds a little boring so I'll stop.
Language in its mathematical structure is the equivalent of axiological mathematics, where the scientific discourse sails from. I do not feel myself while writing this. Structured discourse impersonates as the development of a proposition. It’s like I have to say something because I thought about the great idea of linking speculation with freedom of speech. In such exact system where the objective truth hinges, statistical uncertainty has the name of perjury, defining the word as the chance of something not to be true. Because if defined strictly, and the proposition were not true defining perjury as such, it’d happen directly that its inverse would be indeed true and that would lead us back to the deterministic field.
Statistics are highly speculative. Freedom of speech legally grants the right of pronouncing from the point of view of subjective truth, as ridiculous as it may sound. Soon we notice democracy is a complex act of emergence from a biological state, and as far as it concerns to our question, it is a natural effect the need of convert exactitude of language in a possibility that deviates from the commitment to objectiveness. Speculation, at last, is an act impossible to be condemned, because, as I tried to prove, it is a seminal feature of the human condition.
My language is highly mathematical. It seems to me to be speaking the only possible way, considering the situation in its extent. Power of the numerical function broadens my mind of fleeing the nest. So I remain, mathematical statistic.
