A special technique has been developed in mathematics. This technique, when applied to the real world, is sometimes useful, but can sometimes also lead to self-deception. This technique is called modelling. When constructing a model, the following idealization is made: certain facts which are only known with a certain degree of probability or with a certain degree of accuracy, are considered to be “absolutely” correct and are accepted as “axioms”. The sense of this “absoluteness” lies precisely in the fact that we allow ourselves to use these “facts” according to the rules of formal logic, in the process declaring as “theorems” all that we can derive from them.
It is obvious that in any real-life activity it is impossible to wholly rely on such deductions. The reason is at least that the parameters of the studied phenomena are never known absolutely exactly and a small change in parameters (for example, the initial conditions of a process) can totally change the result...
In exactly the same way a small change in axioms (of which we cannot be completely sure) is capable, generally speaking, of leading to completely different conclusions than those that are obtained from theorems which have been deduced from the accepted axioms. The longer and fancier is the chain of deductions (“proofs”), the less reliable is the final result.
Complex models are rarely useful (unless for those writing their dissertations).
The mathematical technique of modelling consists of ignoring this trouble and speaking about your deductive model in such a way as if it coincided with reality. The fact that this path, which is obviously incorrect from the point of view of natural science, often leads to useful results in physics is called “the inconceivable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences” (or “the Wigner principle”).
-Vladimir Arnold, On Teaching Mathematics
Do The Impossible, indeed. Looping a thin thread over someone’s head several meters away is tricky business. The slightest bit of wind throws it off. And this must be done without moving the wand or betraying the operation through one’s facial expression. I can’t imagine it being done without the utmost concentration, allowing of course for effort to be expended talking to Voldemort and maintaining mental blocks against any Legilimens among the Death Eaters (recall that in Half-Blood Prince Snape was able to detect spells forming in Harry’s mind). This is all done perfectly the first time around. Thirty-six times, plus Voldemort’s wrists.
I suppose one can honestly say A Wizard Did It...