Everyone sees it as a high-dimensional network structure, and love is the interaction between different networks, and is the result of the construction of connections at different levels of the network. The continuous growth of the love relationship can form a certain mapping relationship with the relationship construction of the network.

And I think the construction of this relationship is universal, like the thermal movement of molecules, and of course it will eventually form a certain distribution. It's all about probability in nature. According to life experience, we find that different levels have a certain potential difference to form a relationship, that is, the probability of hierarchical interaction is greater. The simplest example is the appearance of a man/rich woman. Of course, this also needs a larger base as a support, such as the matching of various conditions, which can be macrocosmically expressed as a door-to-door pair (emphasizing the general environment, not necessarily true), such as having the ability to communicate with each other, etc., these can be compared to the macroscopic representation of the overall environment, because we believe that the former is the result of the selective expression of the environment. An extreme example is that because you are poor, you will not have seen a lot of things, and your vision will be more limited, so you will have a lower probability of communicating effectively with other people who have rich experience. Of course, everything is probability, and we can only describe the general situation at the statistical level of the whole, and there are still different expressions of specific individuals, but this situation is very rare, and we will ignore it for the time being, because we want to explore a more extensive model.

The seed sequence that we used to model the idea of the BLAST algorithm to find corresponds to the central node of the network theory, that is, there are many levels as factors to be considered in our network model of love, but its importance has a certain distribution function, that is, the power-law distribution of the network: the number of levels with high importance is small, and the number of levels with low importance is large, but it must form a certain equilibrium. That is, we have a greater weight assignment to some levels, for example, the other person's appearance, talent, conduct, personality, and so on. We know that these distributions have a certain relativity, that is, different people have different powers for different projects, but this power-law distribution is universal.

The existence of the central node with high connectivity is an important channel (like a bridge) for communication between different networks, and communication is the basis for the formation of relationships between networks. For example, a shared experience may connect two people who are very far apart. We always need a certain degree of strong connectivity to connect with the central nodes, such as meeting at work, a club, etc., of course, now powerful social software makes this communication more convenient.

The central node is also constantly changing, for example, at the beginning of the appearance, the next will start to be picky about other aspects, which can be seen as a kind of relationship growth, accompanied by changes in the network structure, such as the relative ratio of the central node to the general node.

This kind of central node not only exists as a pathway, but also makes its sublayers form strong connections, such as friends of friends have a greater probability of forming friends, which is a process of circle formation. Of course, this kind of clustering does not only occur at the central node, but also at the general node.

Strong stimulus, i.e., the promotion of hierarchical interaction by the potential difference mentioned earlier. Perhaps this is the theoretical basis for people with complementary personalities to tend to form a pair, and of course there are also people with similar personalities who will form a pair, which is different clustering.

Well, these are all nonsense, the main thing is attraction, which is the premise of all operations, and can be regarded as an abstract interface, I really can't complain about the various ideas of complex human beings, and all kinds of messy reasons can be a reason to like it. Although my understanding is that the brain has made a decision after a series of calculations, the specific occurrence of an event is only a kind of reverse effect.

Then there is the invocation of various functional functions based on this interface, that is, the depth of various common experiences and the in-depth communication at the network level. Essentially, it's all the result of multi-level interactions. Of course, the pressure of the external environment may act as a catalyst, because the equilibrium formed by its influence moves in a certain direction. I think a large part of the love between Romeo and Juliet was due to the persecution of the external environment, which can also be understood as the resistance of the Internet, the more severe the oppression, the more fierce the resistance. Since the underlying assumption of the network is probability theory, we must accept a variety of possible distributions. But I think sometimes, love is a zero-clearing mechanism.

Of course, considering that the average person is not as grinding as I am, they rely more on emotion and experience and a small amount of interest games to make decisions, and I tend to use mathematical models to consider the comprehensive impact of various factors, which can only be said to be a habit. Although my thinking is more low-level, more abstract, and may be applicable to a larger range, I actually envy the way of thinking of ordinary people, because I seem to lack this emotional thinking module in the brain, and as a result, I can only approximate the results of perceptual thinking with rational large-scale calculations. That is, I came up with useless models again. I still think that a complete deconstruction of love can help me get love, but it turns out that only by thinking at the emotional level can I get true pure love, like me, based on large-scale data calculations completely destroy the beauty of love, because emotions can't stand up to calculation, just like Ding Ding solving a cow, he no longer sees a cow, but a combination of various musculoskeletal groups. This shows how deeply I was influenced by reductionist ideas, and wanted to subdivide, approximate, and sum functions (complex results, corresponding to love) like Newton's calculus to get a high-dimensional picture, and the result was divided into the most basic modules and I didn't know how to reassemble them, just like I repaired electrical appliances such as alarm clocks before, and I never reinstalled them after dismantling them. The holism of the network emphasizes the combination of different levels, that is, the probabilistic combination is exponentially increasing, and the final path formation is a kind of path collapse, which is like the observation sequence formed by the transfer probability matrix expression of the hidden Markov model.

It's a paradox where you want to understand love deeply in order to end up with it, but in the end, you find out that love doesn't exist. And looking back, I found that love still exists with a certain probability. It's embarrassing. If you want to be happy, you can only be ignorant. But for me, ignorance is more terrible than loneliness, and the equilibrium that I can only form in this competitive game is: know it, but you can't get it, and if you get it, you can't fully know it. Then I'll deny its existence.

No, I still have a small probability that there is, as long as the time scale is long enough. P=1-(1-p)^N, as long as the number of N times is large enough, even if the probability of p is small, the probability that I will eventually be able to get love will continue to increase. Although I can't say that I can't have a big N, the theory can prove that the ultimate possibility exists, and I am relieved.