melanoman: (Default)
This morning I spent the better part of an hour writing a review on Walt Hickey's recent article about controversial math facts and then promptly deleted my work by trusting the browser with too much text and not saving partial work. I'm going to rewrite the part of the article I actually care about and leave the rest of the review in the bitbucket.

I'm only going to look at two of the answers, #3 and #9. (slide 14 and slide 49 for those who don't want to read the whole presentation).

Let's take #9 first. This is a proof of why the harmonic summation (let's call that H) diverges to positive infinity. Hickey takes a similar summation (let's call it A) and expresses it in two forms. One form shows that H is obviously greater than A. The other form shows that A is obviously infinite. The proof concludes that if H is greater than something infinite, it must also be infinite. Great explanation, solid proof; I have no complaints here.

But then there is #3. In this section, Hickey claims that there are the same number of positive even numbers as counting numbers. He sets up a 1-to-1 correspondence between the to sets and concludes that they are both countably infinite and therefore it anyone who says that one set has more elements than the other is wrong.

So close, but fail. The fundamental misunderstanding here comes from the reflexive property of numbers which states
Every number is equal to itself
This isn't exactly the most controversial property ever. The problem is when you try to apply that rule to infinity, it doesn't work because infinity is not a number.

In problem 9, the key step of the proof was that H > A. Since H was infinity and A was infinity, that means that in this case infinity > infinity, not infinity = infinity. This is fine, since infinity is not a number and therefore doesn't have to follow the reflexive property.

Applying the same logic to problem 3, we see that it makes no sense to say that there is the same number of elements in the sets because both cardinalities (set sizes) are infinite. The moral of the story is that infinity doesn't play nice with concepts like equals, addition, multiplication and the like, so be careful about treating it like a number, or before you know it you'll be claiming that infinity minus infinity is zero or infinity divided by infinity is one, which turn out to be variants of the same mistake Hickey made.
melanoman: (Default)
There's a longstanding story about a "green flash" that sometimes appears right at sunset if just the right conditions appear. Tonight I saw it for the first time. I was looking out over the ocean and the sky was almost completely clear except for a couple could near the horizon almost perfectly lined up with the sun.

I watched the sun during those last few seconds when the top quarter slips beneath the horizon, and then just at the sun was a sliver, the line of the horizon went green. Not green in a "olive drab sort of way, but laser pointer green. I just lasted a moment.

I've watched a lot of sunsets since moving to about 50 feet from the cliffs and I was starting to think the green flash either didn't exist or at least didn't happen at this latitude. I'm happy to report being wrong. This was actually cool to see. That said, I've watched the sunset about one in three nights for three years, which is about 0.3% of the times I looked.
melanoman: (Default)
I'm in the waiting room of my GP, and have just been informed that I have monster eyes. The informant is about four or five years old, so I take this information as impeccably reliable. I have an ongoing condition called cluster headaches..

In the range of suffers of the condition I'm roughly in the middle. I have my clusters about 7-9 months apart, slightly less than twice a year. Each cluster is characterized by about one week I called the "outlier" week where the duration and timing is pretty random and generally toward the mild range. Then I get about three weeks of the "regular" period where I get about two to three hours of pain daily, always at the same time each day. Each cluster picks it's own time of day. Night time clusters mean interrupting the sleep cycle, since it's impossible to sleep during an event. Day time attacks usually mean a social price. I've learned its better to isolate during events rather than try to control my tone of voice. Finding a way to take a two hour break during the work day and then stay late to make up for it sucks. Sadly people are more likely to notice the time you weren't available than the fact that you are working more hours than anyone else. After the regular period comes the peak, where headaches come multiple times per day and every moment is either part of an attack, or waiting for one. Even though the peak generally last three days or so, by the end of the three days I'm generally certain this will last forever and its going to kill me this time. I can't even call this an irrational fear because in about 20% of cases that eventually happens and the person becomes a "chronic" case which essentially means that the cluster lasts forever with little or no remission between cycles. Chronic cases generally become suicidal. After the peak I get another week of outlier, then it goes away until the next time.

Seven months is perfectly long enough to let the hope set in that the pain will not come back. Or won't be so bad. Fuck hope.

So this is going to sound obvious, but it turns out that cluster headaches do not imbue the sufferer with an immunity all other forms of disease. I mention that because I picked up that flu-like thing that is going around during the regular period. Which means during the peak of the cluster I had the flu. So in addition to having a rusted iron caterpillar in my head that wouldn't stay damn still, I was drowning in snot and was running a fever.

In a normal cluster, my eyelid (almost always the left side) droops and gets puffy, and the eye gets a little red. With the combination, the condition spread to both eyes and is so severe that my eyes don't have whites, just reds. It doesn't look like bloodshot -- the red is pretty even throughout the eye. The edges are a little yellowy where the eye coating has swollen out of its normal space. The bright blue irises in the middle look really creepy.

I have monster eyes.

I'm into the outliers now. I just need to go another few days without telling anyone to go fuck themselves nor pointing out that they are blithering idiots who shouldn't be allowed to talk.
melanoman: (Default)
I saw geek feminist wiki for the first time today, and after browsing I found that there was a common tactic of troll that doesn't seem to be in their lexicon yet. I call it the Clean Slate argument. Here's a first draft of a write-up:


The Clean Slate Argument is when someone argues that the past should not be considered. The argument typically involves the notion that the future is more important than the past, then makes an awkward leap to the idea that the past should therefore be discounted as unimportant.

An common example is the troll who claims to have been reformed and wants to be taken as sincere in spite of repeated past examples of poor faith. I discussed this previously as D_Vosray:
I generated a mini-lesson that was included into a middle-school “critical thinking” curriculum in his honor. Some of the current trolls and those who have to deal with them could use this highlight from it.
  • ad hominem attack “We should ignore him because he is a troll.”
  • ad hominem fallacy“What he said must be wrong because he is a troll”

  • The latter is a bad idea because trolls can’t be relied on even to be wrong and also because it sets them up to use reverse psychology. The former is just good sense.

    Arguing for a personal clean slate is more destructive when the argument is applied to the subject matter itself. In the example of Martin Krafft under the definition of concern troll, his last statement is a perfect example of this tactic.
    "Under the assumption that most people would like to move forward towards an equal-opportunity community, how does keeping meticulous track of all the problems of the past and present help?"
    melanoman: (Default)
    I've been playing poker since I was a kid. I've been playing in casinos since college. Some times it feels like I've seen all the situations unfold and the challenge of reading people is what keep the game interesting. Today was an exception.

    I got a straight flush. With the Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten of clubs, I held the immortal nuts. I even got two callers on the river.

    If you never ever fold and always go to a showdown, that still only happens once every 31 thousand hands in holdem. So with about 25 hands per hour, this should happen once every 1240 hours of play. When you take folding into account, then number goes way up and the math gets too complicated for a late night blog.

    But I got a Royal Flush. At this rate I should have another one in 2035.

    melanoman: (Default)
    Saturday October 6th: Ghostchaser rallye.

    I've written my first A-B style gimmick rallye and will be presenting it with The Rallye Club on October 6th starting at Larry's AutoWorks. This is a puzzle game that should be a lot of fun. Slow driving in non-traffic areas. All you need is a pencil, a flashlight and a friend. A highlighter and a clipboard might help, too.

    I'm hoping to get good turnout. If you've ever thought about coming to a rallye, this is the one to start with. If you don't know what a rallye is, try this out. It's fun.
    melanoman: (Default)
    Representative Todd Akin of recent "Rape can't make you pregnant" infamy has been also mentioned in the news for what has been characterized as as protecting chaplains who refuse to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

    Section 536 of the NDAA does exactly that, and its neither unusual nor inappropriate by itself.

    Unfortunately none of the media coverage included reading on to Section 537. Section 537 prohibits anyone else, chaplain or not, from performing any solemnization or ceremony for same sex couples on any land controlled by the DoD (whether owned, rented, or whatever). This is the actual nasty part of the bill. It aims not to protect the chaplain who doesn't want to conduct a same-sex ceremony but to prevent others who do not share that belief from doing so.

    This might seem like just one more clause to add to the list of things that need to be repealed when the anti-gay power block has finally been thrown out of power, but there is a twist. Section 536 provides a loophole to section 537. A chaplain who believed that same-sex marriage *should* be allowed is now exempted from any punishment for performing the ceremony consistent with his sincerely held religious beliefs.
    melanoman: (Default)
    There is a criminal conspiracy in Florida.

    The National Voting Rights Act was put into place as part of the Civil Rights movement to put an end to racist and classist practices where active racists would use literacy tests and poll taxes as a pretext to deny non-white and poor citizens their legal right to vote. The NVRA was written with safeguards against clever new ways that criminals would use to circumvent it, such as a 90-day freeze on purging voter rolls before any national election. The point of the 90-day waiting period is that there is time to fix the registration of citizens who are incorrectly removed from the rolls as part of a trick by corrupt officials, or even just inept officials.

    The Florida primary election is scheduled for August 14th, 2012, which means that the deadline for purging voting rolls passed back in the middle of May. Florida is in the middle of a registration purge right now, which violates the NVRA both in letter and spirit. The Department of Justice wrote Florida Govern Rick Scott a letter warning him that he is in violation of the law.

    The NVRA has teeth. In 42 USC § 1973gg–10, there is a provision for up to five years in prison for anyone who attempts to violate the provisions above. At this time, the illegal purge against over 2700 registered voters has not been suspended. This is what voter fraud looks like.

    It isn't enough to stop this particular attempt to illegally deny people their vote. If we allows the perpetrators of this crime to stay in office to try again and again, they will find ways past the watchers. There is wisdom in the law that provides for personal punishment for this sort of voter fraud. Let's follow the law and put these criminals on trial. Let's give those most responsible a stay in federal prison proportional to how heinous the illegal orders they gave were.
    melanoman: (Default)
    I like to listen to the stories people tell to explain their own existence and search for purpose. Here is something I noticed while listening.

    A tiny bit of background first. There is a calculation that is popular among certain Fundamentalist Christians about the world being quite young. They usually pick some age around five thousand to ten thousand years. Some fundamentalists sects have latched onto this number tightly and consider it essential to their theory of creation. They indoctrinate their children with this number and invest a lot of their credibility.

    Which brings us to dinosaurs. Most books about dinosaurs have numbers in the millions of years estimating how long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth. When four year old little Janet shows up to her religious service with her Pterry the pteranodon doll and hears from her clergy that the world is thousands of years old right after reading her favorite book about dinosaurs living millions of years ago, there is no force on earth that can stop the question "BUT WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS!?!?"

    Back in the seventies, I heard a clergyman answer that question. He suggested that the dinosaur bones in the ground might have been faked by scientists. Scientists were (and continue to be) a popular villain in these stories. These scientists dedicate their time to elaborate fraud to lure the religious away from their faith. Scientists all over the world were hard at work trying to prove evolution, so being villains they would invent the evidence to support them in the form of dinosaur fossils. Not satisfied with a single explanation, he also suggested that the bones might have been left there by God as a way to test the faithful. Either way, the statement to little Janet was clear; there were no dinosaurs. She would have to choose between her belief in dinosaurs and her belief in God.

    The question from all the children like Janet hasn't gone away, but more recently there has been a new story to answer it. Dinosaurs did roam the earth, but they did so alongside humans. There was even a place in the southwest where people could go to see the footprints of human tracking a dinosaur, or perhaps the other way around. The disagreement about the age of the earth hadn't gone away, but now instead of questioning the existence of dinosaurs, the story left room for adventures including them. The book from the scientists suggested that there were no such adventures because the dinosaurs had gone extinct before the humans existed.

    The sects with the story that there were no dinosaurs suffered from their conflict with the children who wanted to believe in them. The sects that offered a lost world with dinosaurs and people alive together flourished. Over time, the sects with the older story died out or adopted the new story.

    This is how the fundamentalist position on creation has evolved.
    melanoman: (Default)
    Name reminds me of Leave It to Beaver

    not-equals is /= instead of !=

    LHFGG says ++ implementation has O(|left|) concatenation instead of O(1).
    Look for a streams implementation. (see "comprehension" below)
    colon is the cons operator
    list.get(x) is !! x

    car/cdr is head/tail
    last/butlast is last/init

    cddddr is drop 4 (where 4 is the count of d's) so tail is drop 1

    max and min are spelled out
    [x..y] specifies a range with step +1
    [x,x2..y] specifies a range with step (x2-x1)
    .. works for floats

    map-filter combo is call a "comprehension"
    [expression | x<-[range], constraint]
    func x y can be syntactic sugared as x `func` y

    let makes variables (scope?)

    The following works, so cons-stream is lazy as it should be
    let nats = [1,2..]
    let evens = [2*x | x<-nats]
    let bomb = nats ++ evens
    take 4 bomb

    Multiple ranges does a walk of all combinations with first list incrementing most slowly and so on.

    underscore is used both as a void type and /dev/null for values

    If an = without a let a function declaration?
    let expr = value
    myFunc arg = value
    melanoman: (Default)
    I'm looking at the examples on this page and so far everything looks like scheme with the verbs moved around.

    The option bind example tweaked me as being really bad code. The expression

    new F<Integer, Option<Integer>>() {  
        public Option<Integer> f(final Integer i) {  
            if(i % 2 == 0) return some(i * 3); else return none();  

    is repeated thrice. Why not save the expression in a variable?

    F<Integer, Option<Integer>>() trippleOdd = new F<Integer, Option<Integer>>() 
        public Option<Integer> f(final Integer i) 
            if(i % 2 == 0) return some(i * 3); 
            else return none();  

    As far as I can tell the scope bindings would all be identical and the result is unchanged. Switching from learning mode to judgmental mode: This is Bad Code(tm) unless someone can tell me why it isn't.
    melanoman: (Default)
    The obvious part of this post this post is that an anti-abortion zealot was preparing to murder a medical professional, that he had a gun to do so, and that the only reason he got caught before making the attempt was some premature firing in his hotel. The DA will have to prove intent to get him on the charges of attempted murder and intimidation, but the concealed weapon charge and illegal discharge of a firearm are trivial to enforce.

    This blog is about the reaction of the Wisconsin state senate: they are changing the law to remove the easy-to-prove charges. Those voting with the majority have now officially taken a pro-murder stance (as long as the intended victim is "one of them"). I have no doubt that if the next stray bullet from a concealed weapon kills a child who just happened to stay at the wrong hotel, they will be quick to point out that this is a tragedy and that we shouldn't assign blame. But they are wrong. This is the mistake that will lead to that tragedy. This is what they deserve to be blamed for.

    In Wisconsin that vote only took three people to pass, which underscores the dangers of allowing demagogues into power when power is so concentrated. Politics is life-or-death serious.
    melanoman: (Default)
    If you can't beat your opponent in an election, have them shot in the head.
    melanoman: (Default)
    Someone claims to have the basis for an HIV cure. It seems this would be bigger news if true. Who's heard more?
    melanoman: (Default)
    This was inspired by a recent HuffingtonPost article that tried to explain what was wrong with banking policy since deregulation took hold.

    This is a well considered article, but it doesn't quite bridge the gap between the financial dialects and the popular audience in a few places. A few examples can help immensely with this.

    When a person buys stock in a company or other venture, this is an equity investment­. They get a share of the proceeds in the form of dividend, and may be given some degree of control of the company.

    When a person makes a Certificat­e of Deposit (a "CD"), they hold a debt for the bank.

    Let's say two banks each spin off a subdivisio­n to issue credit cards. If the division is funded with equity (such as by selling stock), and the division is a disaster, the stock holders lose their money. If the division is backed by CDs, then the cost of the disaster is transferre­d to safety nets like the FDIC.

    SaneBank and CrazyBank, run their credit cards differentl­y. SaneBank checks credit history carefully and limits their credit to people that aren't so risky. CrazyBank barely checks to see that the card holder is even a real person.

    Obviously CrazyBank is going to be a disaster. If people bought stock in CrazyBank, and there are no bail-outs to confuse things, they will lose their investment­. If CrazyBank was funded with debt, then they get to pawn their costs off on the public by collecting on deposit insurance. So it is in the public interest not to allow CrazyBank to do this.

    This is where regulation comes in. We can set banking policy to require that anyone who funds things with debt must run things more safely. Stock buyers will stop investing in CrazyBank because they don't want to lose their money. And the regulation­s will prevent CrazyBank from acting crazy if they use debt to finance their operation. (assuming the regulation­s are well made and enforced).

    At this point some spokescrit­ter for CrazyBank will start jumping up and down to say the these regulation will cost them money. That is true, they will no longer be able to rely on the deposit insurance money. But think of where that money they want came from. It came from SaneBank. When we require bank to join an insurance scheme without adding the appropriat­e regulation­s, what we are really doing is allowing CrazyBank to take money away from SaneBank.

    At that point SaneBank has the incentive to gets its own share of the insurance money (or bailout money), which means they need to start acting crazy. This all goes back to the regulation structure. If we force CrazyBank to behave well or else kick them out of the insurance group, then Crazy bank needs to act more sane. If we don't, then SaneBank starts to act more crazy.

    Until the government steps back in and takes its regulatory responsibi­lity more seriously, we are going to get more and more crazy behavior, which isn't good for anybody.
    melanoman: (Default)
    The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom wants to host the World Cup in 2018. Comments to his open letter on the Huffington Post are on hold, so I'll repost my response here lest it be lost.

    [This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.]

    I can see why England would want to host and participat­e in the world's largest competitio­n for the sport they invented. It makes this a perfect time to remind the English of the Lacrosse World Championsh­ips. Lacrosse was invented by the Iroquois and other tribes of the Haudenosau­nee peoples. When the inventors of that game tried to travel to the UK to participat­e in the largest competitio­n of the sport that they had invented, the British proved foul hosts and turned them away.

    Why should the internatio­nal community entrust the World Cup of soccer to a country whose ministers of protocol were unable to resolve a passport dispute for the equivalent competitio­n for Lacrosse?
    melanoman: (Default)
    At first glance, Elizabeth Warren looked like the sort of dedicated egalitarian who would follow through on her promises to root out corruption and tear down rules intended to help bully corporations steamroll individuals. Of course the corporate powers that be would never allow a person like that to head the consumer protection agency. Someone like her might actually make the agency protect consumers.

    On second glance, her actions have exactly matched her promise. No wonder the Obama administration needed a recess appointment to get her confirmed.

    I do hope that politics somehow align so that the DINOs and Republicans can't block her when the time for a real CPA head comes up. Not holding my breath on that one. At least she is doing good now.
    melanoman: (Default)
    I'd like to reccomend The White Chamber as a quick read worth the time. My response to it is below.

    Thanks for this. I hope a long comment from a stranger is okay in these parts.

    I disagree on one point
    And be forewarned: in all probability, you will never want to talk to this friend again afterward.
    I’ve found that by focusing on the disagreement rather than the person, it’s actually possible get though this conversation without cutting someone off completely. Not always, but more often than not. Sometimes it can even strengthen a friendship, especially if the incident leads to a little introspection and change.

    The reason I think that is so important is that most white people know, at least subconsciously, than most of their white friends have at least a little of this in them. If calling one of them out means cutting them off forever, then making a habit of it means being ostracized from the white people in their circle of friends. Here is one way the conversation can go well.

    Freind: Black people are so loud. Ghetto much? [nervous laughter, looking for reassurance]
    You: I disagree with that
    Friend: [surprised] What?
    You: You just notice loud people more because they are loud. Did you see the quiet black person two blocks back?
    Friend: [confused, uncertain] Ummm…
    You: It’s an easy mistake to make. It doesn’t make you a bad person. Just think about it.
    Friend: [not very convinced] I guess

    I know the conversation would be better if the friend converts to anti-racism on the spot, but that wouldn’t be real. That is just too much agenda for one conversation. But think about this — the friend was nervously looking for reassurance, which means she aware at some level that there was something to be nervous about. Offer her instead the reassurance that she can grow out of her racism without it being held against her forever. It won’t ensure that she makes that conclusion, but you don’t control her, so nothing will.

    Alternatively, your friend may argue the point. That probably won’t go as well.

    Friend: Black people are so loud. Ghetto much?
    You: I disagree with that.
    Friend: [shocked, maybe feeling a little betrayed] What?
    You: You just notice loud people more because they are loud. Did you see the quiet black person two blocks back?
    Friend: [controlling] Don’t you think black people are more loud in general?
    You: No. I think that looking at group averages leads to mistakes. It…
    Friend: [interrupting] What it’s not like I’m in the KKK or anything.
    You: It doesn’t make you a bad person.
    Friend: [Holds breath. very very silent for a while]

    This is real too. You haven’t changed her mind, but you have established a boundary that it is not ok to make racist comments around you. If she keeps crossing that boundary, that will be a problem and this is headed downhill. On the other hand, there will be less racist comments floating around you like farts.


    melanoman: (Default)

    March 2013

    S M T W T F S
    2425262728 2930


    RSS Atom

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags
    Page generated Oct. 20th, 2017 09:38 pm
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios