THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.fan.harry-potter
From: Shreesh 
Subject: Theory of magic (was OotP, CoS Prof. Snape) (was: OotP, CoS Prof. Snape)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:23:07 +0530

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:28:59 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message news:,
> Shreesh  enriched us with:

>> What I actually meant to say when I said without the help of wand is
>> that wand would convert the human magical energy to unicorn or phoenix
>> magical energy. I did not say that the wand would be a source of
>> energy. 

> Sorry, my bad - I misunderstood.

Later on, it came to my mind that wand can be considered a source of
energy, like capacitors. You use a wand for certain time, it is
charged by your magical energy, you drop the wand, say lumos and lo,
the wand is alighted. 

Correctly speaking, every ingredient of potions with magical
properties might be considered to store magical energy. So also
unicorn hair, phoenix feather, etc. which make the core of the wand.



>> Definition of Necessary condition: 

>> p is a necessary condition of q if: only if p then q, or q only if p,
>> or if ~p then ~q (~ = ¡not¢)

> Actually I disagree with the first part - "if p then q" is insufficient 
> for p to be a necessary condition 

It is not 'if p then q' it is 'only if p then q', you might have
missed 'only', so it is same as the second statement.

> it is the last part "if not p then not 
> q" that is the key (it can also be expressed as p being the necessary 
> condition for q if and only if q then p: q => p is equivalent to 
> ~p => ~q  The mathematical "=>" is called the implication in Danish - I 
> don't know if the same is true in English, but IIRC I used 'imply' in 
> that, mathematical, sense in my previous post).

Yes, its technical term is material implication to distinguish it from
causal implication. Eg, Clouds are the cause of natural rain, but it
is 'natural rain => clouds' and not the other way round (make it
proper propositions first).

>> Definition of Sufficient condition: 

>> p is a sufficient condition of q if: if p then q, or whenever p then
>> q, or if ~q then ~p

> Precisely. (p is a sufficient condition for q) <=> (p => q) <=> (~q => ~p)



> Eh - could you remind me; where was it we disagreed?  ;)

I will enumerate our points of disagreement.

You: Wands only shape, control and focus the magical energy/power, and
if the wizard can not do all wand-less spells, it is only because he
can not produce enough energy or the necessary focus. Further any
wand-less spell can also be done with a wand (Note your subset
relationship which I took as equality after changing the definition
slightly).

Me: Wands shape, control, focus, and convert the magical energy/power.
So, since conversion (from one form of magical energy to other form of
energy) is involved, a wizard may not be able to do all wand-less
magic regardless of the fact how much energy he could command.
Similarly, I do not agree that every wand-less magic (see I have
changed from spell to magic, so my statement does not seem outright
false) can be done with a wand.

My observations: Snape's counter jinx, elves and phoenixes apparating
in Hogwart's(Fawkes apparated inside CoS, the tunnel has caved in and
also Ron did not see him), Voldemort not able to get his body without
wand, animagic (better if it is a spell), defence from imperius curse
[spell incantation 'No, No, I won't do it' :-)].

There is yet another.

You: Since wand focuses your magical energy, so in every case wand
would produce a better effect than wand-less spells.

Me: In most of the cases it is true that wands are better than
wand-less spells but in some of the cases wand-less spells might be
better than one with wands.

My observation: Snape's counter jinx.

There is a basic assumption involved for the above difference. I take
the shaping and conversion differently. You do not talk about
conversion because you assume the existence of only one magical
energy.

Thus another point of difference.

You: There is only one kind of magical energy.

Me: There are many kind of magical energies (call it, human magical
energy, elf magical energy, unicorn magic energy and so on) though
they can be readily converted to that of another kind by specific
magical objects or beings.

My observation: Elves and Phoenixes can apparate inside Hogwart's
while humans cannot. Further elves are (quite possibly) not able to do
all human beings magical stuff. This makes their magics not a proper
subset of the others' magic.

The fact that elves can readily apparate inside Hogwarts can now be
explained as follows. Suppose, for any kind of spells any human can
produce at most 1000 units of E1 mag. energy. and 1 unit of E2 mag.
energy. Suppose, any elf can produce at most 1 unit of E1 mag. energy
and 100 units of E2 mag. energy. So, if apparition inside Hogwarts
required 10 units of E2 mag. energy then no human being can apparate
inside Hogwarts (Hermione's pet statement) whereas elf can do it 10
times before having to recharge.

JKR does say elves has there own brand of magic (and phoenixes have
immortality, unicorns [or their blood] have life giving abilities,
centaurs have divination abilities which are different from
Trelawney's). 

We can generalise on this and say wizards have there own brand of
magic, phoenix have there own brand of magic, centaurs have there own
brand of magic etc. That is, there is one (or more) general kind(s) of
magical energy(which several species if not all can produce) say E,
nad specific kind of magical energy say Eh for humans, Ee for elves,
Ec for centaurs, Ep for phoenixes, etc. Then there would be magic
which can be performed by humans but not by elves, no matter how much
energy they can command (they have got 0 Ee energy) and vice versa. We
get the general idea from the books that there are magics which are
exclusive to the species. This can not be had if we assume only one
kind of magical energy. Add this to the theory that wand would convert
Eh into say Ep or Ec or Eu, then we get to my theory that wands are
absolutely essential for some spells. Also if say, presence of Ep or
Ec or Eu interferes with some spell than that spell can only be
produced wandlessly.

I still consider that Snape's counter jinx should be taken as the case
where wands are inapplicable or at least wands are not as effective as
wand-less muttering. Snape would not fear public opinion to take out
his wand, he definitely was trying to save Harry from serious injury
(possibly death, or not, considering he has a destiny to fulfill
according to the prophecy, but then again Harry could have as well
died because it was after all Voldemort who was behind Quirell thus
fulfilling the prophecy). 

-- 
Shreesh
email:shreesh(at)gmx(dot)net