Many times in our lives we do not agree with something or someone. We clash with various positions and opinions. In some cases, we question even our own vision by asking ourselves if it is right or not. But for a mathematician, in the era of planetary sharing of ideas, this question cannot and should not have any sense. 

As a result, the question is "badly placed" in its very being, because there could not be a right or a wrong vision, but an interpretation of one person’s reality that clashes with that of others. This very personal definition has no objectivity and comes from our own life experience, study, research, in a word: soul. Therefore, the question of whether our own vision of an event or an issue is right or wrong is completely wrong, because no one can claim the right to examine the soul of the others.

So what will be the right question? In reality the well placed question exists and it becomes important to try to recognize it, just to cancel superfluous tensions and discussions and to bring a comparison that is constructive, that is, to find a reason for sharing development that will give satisfaction to all contenders. A well placed question must take account of a boundary, a clear and overwhelming limit in which the dialectic is necessary for a continuous improvement among the people who start a discussion. The border becomes a guideline that drives us to confront each other in a specific field, in order to limit the problems and which, for this reason, has less uncertainty in the identification of the boundary conditions.

These conditions become the second paradigm, essential because a disagreement on an issue can turn into a system of improvement for the contenders, where there is not a winner or a loser, but only two complementary elements that bring their own visions into the field, within a precise boundary and with an appropriate and limited list of boundary conditions.

And, in this way, the correct question arises in a discussion , a question that will have to take into account these factors and which has, as its aim, the constructive growth of those people who disagree, within a systematic and holistic perspective that considers that  " all are connected to the whole and none of us is the only one ".

So, the question is: which of the methods that create discussion in a particular field and with well defined boundary conditions, obtains the highest number of positive results for the contestants? If you think about these terms during a discussion then you would have a continuous improvement, where logic, related to "belly", becomes an element of systemic deduction and continuous improvement.

This observation comes from reading several conflicting views on the topic of EXPO 2015 and its real validity to the Italian system.

From one side there are fans of the event, inclined to magnify it, and its greatness who, in their discussions, seem not to take into account the waste, the bad management or the complexity of the impact that that is generated by an event of this magnitude.  On the other hand, there are attackers tied to the production of continuous negative criticism and the amplification of fanatical interpretations about the problem of resources of our planet or the escalation of marketing and the costs of the event.

Which of the two groups will be right? In fact, if we use a holistic system of "everything", both of the two are absolutely legitimate opinions, and we would be in a dialectic impasse that avoids pragmatism and enhances the time dedicated to discussion of the issues, but not to solutions. This is totally unproductive and, above all, it will not lead to any improvement.

So, we move everything to a higher level, to re-design an event of this magnitude for both groups and find a “intersecting" view that can offer a mutual improvement.

Expo is a global event and so, by definition, attention is focused on the whole world and how some areas have and produce goods. This brings the issues to the attention of public opinion, a global window that describes the strengths and weaknesses of those companies around the world, proposing therefore, a proactive and not grumbling philosophy. This leads to knowledge, culture, and therefore, brings an improvement to both groups.

Let's start from the border to look at the EXPO 2015 as an agglomeration of positive incitements.

And then we relive a journey through this event.

Now we speak of the boundary conditions. In this time of great social and economic crisis in our country, the question that brings out the attackers is: "Why spend so much on an event that will not be permanent?".

The other group says, "Why not feel part of an event that centralizes global attention on our country?"

As we said, both questions can be legitimate and true, but, as stated in a famous theorem of mathematical logic: "no axiom can be both true and provable".

So you need to change the system, to see everything in a different light that reaches the consideration of axioms in an ad hoc say. In this new system that we want to examine, we can say that in the Expo there is a demonstration of the "good" things about each nation. Not considered, however, is the evidence of what is negative. Everything negative present in individual nations is alienated and considered external to the culture that drives the organization itself.

So, because they confine their observations to the “good”, there is no sense in criticizing an event because it does not show the "bad", because, simply, it is not included in the border. Admitting thisg oes to the heart of the role of the critic, to observe the event from the perspective of the "good" while the "bad" will be discussed elsewhere, rightly confined.

At the same time, by recognizing that we are talking about "stands which represent Nations" and not Nations themselves, we delete any debate between the contenders that is relevant to areas of tension about the policies and activities carried out by the countries themselves, since they are alien from the stands which, by their real nature, are elements that describe the "good", as mentioned before, and that emphasize what is produced for a common development.

So discussions on policies or globalizations’ processes  are useless as the event is not simply relevant to this. It is useless to boycott a stand for the "atrocities" committed by the Nation that describes the “good” the nation has also in it. So, we have just limited the observation of the event itself and its concreteness and we can therefore analyze what brings a benefit to the contenders who talk about it.

Expo has been an opportunity for testing the planning and development of one of the major hubs of growth of our country, represented by the city-metropolis of Milan; a constructive valuation of the event, suggests that it is a contribution to the construction of a model that is good for our country that must and will be reformulated in other areas to bring more results.

The global event has brought foreign countries to Italy, showing to millions of people, "good" customs and traditions of countries  that are completely ignored. Italy is among the last places for its knowledge of mathematics, this is now taken for granted, but little it is known of Italy's position in terms of knowledge of geography. In fact, our country is the second lowest for this ability; then, what better occasion than this to publicize specific knowledge of this matter?

The event has involved thousands of young people who have acquired job skills, absolutely realistic but also unique. Entering a hall and seeing one of the many Italian animators, many second-generation children of immigrants who now live permanently in our area, speaking three languages, changing linguistic register immediately and with a simplicity and a smile that transmit shivers, is one of things that should give pride to all of us.

For several reasons, if we were unemployed it has been an opportunity for development, if we have little knowledge of languages, this event has brought languages ​​to us to reflect on our ignorance, if we tend to racist views.

The Expo has put before our eyes a young Italian second generation who can speak 3-4 languages, who speaks in dialect among themselves, but talk with sheikhs and foreigners with a frightening naturalness.

This generation, connected to many young people who are working as volunteers, of their own free will. This is is our "good product" that the Expo is exalting, if the observer’s eyes are watching carefully.

Then there is the beautiful. Italy is the country of "beauty".

You can see it in every place, in every palace, realm or church, and in the stands the research of the beautiful in architecture is enhanced because we are in Italy. Who does not think of the EUR building when seeing the development of the Chilean stand , or who does not associate the descriptions of the "rites of fishing" from Angola with our Mazzara’s traps.

Each stand can be a stimulus to understand how our nation is important, rich and prosperous, well beyond the plaintive threads, or "criminals" robberies.

Our nation is all that we see in those halls and more.

Finally EXPO has given us a way to experiment with effective communication and thematic highly technologized models, at low environmental impact. Multimedia Communication experts have done their best to describe the "good" of the host countries. You can see advanced mixed Italian culture throughout the narrative that can only give stimulus to ourselves, we have much to say, you can find ways and technologies to make the whole of Italy an Expo.

Looking at the event in this way, are there more diatribes? Absolutely they are not! There is only a third vision which is attempting to enhance what is constructive in a discussion for both contenders and what we can still get to improve. It's just a medial vision that does not reconcile but that can bring together wasted energy in discussions related to constructive action and improvements for everyone.