Irreverently Irrelevant

Futility

2010-10-07T17:49:00.001-07:00

Ever assembled a jigsaw puzzle, especially one of those difficult ones? Suppose you are assembling a 100-piece jigsaw. First you seek out the edge pieces and try to put them together. Initially, all you can do is fit by trial and error. However, slowly, you assemble the edges and start working inwards. Piece by piece you search for anything that matches the inner curvature of the assembled pieces. You know nothing about the eventual picture. You know your knowledge is trivial. You do not expect much from yourself. You allow yourself many, many errors before making the right decisions. In fact, you are certain to make many, many mistakes before fitting the right pieces. But you consider this a fun endeavour. You do not take things too seriously.

You start to get a few things right. Your confidence grows. Eventually a picture emerges. Everything seems to fit. You reach into the bag for the 99th piece and smile. You begin planting a seed of satisfaction in your heart, expecting a happily-ever-after. You try to fit the 99th piece in a certain way and it does not fit. You smile even more. This is your last mistake. You now know enough about the picture to set the piece in exactly the right way. Your heart swells with the haughtiness of achievement. The chances of being mistaken again are exactly zero.

Or so you think.

You fit the 99th piece. The image is nearly complete. Nearly. There is a hole in the middle of the image. It has a unique shape and curvature. You look at it and smile. That hole is exactly the same shape as the remaining 100th piece in your bag. This is the first time you are capable of predicting how a piece fits without looking at it. This is also the first time that you know you have no chance to fail in your expectation. You build up an expectation of what the final piece should be. No, you build an expectation of what the final piece is. Your certainty is unbounded. Your confidence is sky-high. The picture is beautiful, almost. The final piece would make it perfect, beautiful, complete, whole.

You reach into the bag for the 100th piece.

You do not find it. Your smile fades.

There is no final piece.

You search frantically, desperately. In the bag, under the puzzle, below the sofa, beneath the fridge, over the shelf, in the trash. There is no final piece. You cannot seem to find it. It is not in your hands.

When all the pieces were scattered, that one piece did not matter. But now that the picture is almost complete, the 100th piece seems to be the most agonizingly important. If only you knew that there was no 100th piece! Would you have worked on it at all? Maybe not. Can you content yourself with an incomplete picture?

No. The hole in the middle pulls at the core of your heart. Its obvious absence taunts you. It is a permanent mark reflecting your failure to complete the picture. You could not make it whole, even though you wanted so badly to. Nothing you ever do can make the picture whole. You will always miss that one unique piece that you knew all about but could not find.

What happens when the jigsaw puzzle is your life itself?

Some people call this the doldrums. Some people call this maturity. A few others call it random misfortune. Some even call it the plan of a divine entity. What it is, is irrelevant to you. You only know that the outcome is not what you expected. Put up or shut up. Keep searching or quit. Live without it or live in denial. Compromise. Resign to your fate. Pray. Search harder.

Yet, that piece is gone. And you will never ever find it again. It is the one thing that isn't in your life. The one thing that will never ever be. That single irreplaceable non-existent thing that strips everything else of meaning.

How do you explain the nothingness of something? A loud resonating silence. A bright sharp shadow. An absence that catches the eye more than the presence around it. A desolate island in a sea of plenty. An emptiness amplified by the fullness around it. A misery born of hope. A sheer lack of feeling that crushes your soul. Vanity of vanities. All is in vain.

For such is life that what you have already done ceases to matter to you. What you can do might give you hope. What you cannot do might relieve pressure. But what you should have done, but could not do, will prod you from the inside again and again and again until your emotional core is but an empty shell waiting to crack open and crumble under the relentless and futile march of life.

Conference Sessions

2010-08-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

Session Chair: Our last speaker for this session is Mr. John Johny Johnson and the title of his talk is "Incredibly Boring Discussion on Extremely Minute Detail of Very Broad Topic"

Speaker: I thank the organizers for inviting me by mistake and I am grateful to be in the presence of so many boring old people. Today I want to show you some very important, but ultimately useless results for the next 45 minutes...

[and on and on]

Speaker: ...and thus we can see that every single experiment of mine worked and my data are beautiful and that my work is highly insignificant. I wish to acknowledge my advisor, my advisor's advisor, my colleagues, the coffee-shop lady and my grandma's knitting needles. I would also like to shamelessly plug my poster which I know none of you are interested in. Any questions?

Questioner: That was a very interesting talk, although I have no idea what the heck you just spoke about. I would like to stand up and ask a question in an annoying voice which I think makes me look really really smart, but actually makes me look retarded. What do you think?

Speaker: That is a very interesting point, for a retard who did not listen. In fact, I wouldn't have time to demonstrate how irrelevant it is to the topic at hand. I would like you to come to the poster that I just shamelessly plugged so that we can waste each other's time in one long torturous conversation made bearable only by the fact that the beer is free.

Session Chair: I guess we have reached the end of the session. It has been a really good session with several unrelated monotonous talks. I am now really sick of standing in front of you and pretending to be interested in any of this. I think it is time we went outside, had free coffee and continued our trivial discussions...

Disclaimer: All people in this article are fictional.

Crazy Nonsensical Poem Made Up On The Spot For Crazy Nonsensical Conversations

2009-09-23T18:57:00.000-07:00

The sky is blue,
The water's black.
My words are true
And I'll BE BACK!

(Alternate version, as misheard during said crazy conversation)

The sky is blue,
The water's black.
My words are true
And I'll pay you back

From New Mexico!

Crossroads

2009-09-02T16:21:00.001-07:00

Two roads diverged in a wood and I,
I took the one less travelled by
And that has made all the difference.

Mr. Robert Frost, here in his ever-famous textbook poem, is stranded in the middle of a forest with his trail dividing into two. Deciding to take the lesser-beaten path and evading multiple animal attacks, he reaches the other side of the forest with his life, head and all body-parts intact. But the experience moves him enough to write a quaint little poem about it.

There, I've reduced a famous poem about confusion regarding life's paths ahead into a mockery about getting lost in the jungle. Speaking of mockery, let me introduce to you something which almost entirely encapsulates the meaning of the word mockery: ladies and gentlemen, meet my life...

Of course, there are many areas where it seems like a mockery, personal and otherwise. However, today, it is my profession which causes me to mock myself. One score minus seven years ago, wide-eyed and terribly impressed, I said to myself: "Ooooh! I am gonna become a scientist." Probably all I had in mind was mixing things in tubes and making bright colors. Hey, science is fun! Science is getting dirty! Science is the innocent exploration of a baby in the bright blue world!

Later, as waves of idealism poured forth into my youthful years, it was all about how science is the pursuit of knowledge and how contribution to science is the greatest thing a human can do. Small contributions, big results down the ages. The great body of knowledge that humans possess is the most precious thing we have and yet, it is puny in comparison to what the world has known. To paraphrase a Tamil saying, what we know is but sand in our hands and what we know not is as wide as the earth. Blah blah blah! Science was about being a nobleman. Science was a higher calling. Science was a great big thing in the sky which shines out light and gives us energy, power, love, feeling, truth and humanity. (Who am I kidding? I still feel that way most of the time, but just not today.)

Right... Then you go to college. You talk to people. Some guys go on to make the boring big bucks (read: IT jobs). Some, still starry-eyed turn to science. Some, with even more unrealistic expectations, dream of entrepreneuring in science (in an ethical manner! Good heavens, the paradox!). Turns out science is not all magic and in-your-face awesomeness. Enjoyment in science can be a little more subtle than that. It was about being able to master a topic enough to feel good about it. It was being able to teach your friend the intricacies of the problem you just solved. It was about having a bunch of your peers sit around and listen to you lecture because they thought you had something valuable to add. It was listening to someone else talk and genuinely appreciate his work. It was about enjoying the arguments. It was about marshalling facts to your questions. It was about getting good grades in the subjects you genuinely cared about. Oh life was so easy!

Realism aside, you still go for a Ph.D. and after a freaky first year full of missteps and misadventures, you finally settle into a rhythm of not-working every day. Responsibility, work-ethic, graduate-student-frustration-themed-comics and the whole jing-bang. And life is amazing once more. Not only do you get to have fun, you also get to meet bright and intelligent people everyday. People you can argue with over the intricacies of your field and your subfield and your subfield's uncle's subfield. An amazing place where you can agree to disagree and just talk all day, accruing more and more and more knowledge to yourself and humanity. Where having a coffee in a corner is a discussion of the greatest ideas man has ever known.

Balloon. Prick. Boom! Apparently, you also need to do some work by yourself. Duh! If you can talk science, you can do science, right? Not so nice a correlation. You know why? Because doing science is f***ing hard!

Work in science: you need to pick something and think long and hard about it. Pick, pick, pick. Not so easy as it sounds. "Follow your heart" seldom works with love, much less with science. The heart (or rather, the heart of the brain and not the actual heart itself) flies away in a million directions. Am I a biologist? Oh yeah! A structural biologist or a systems biologist? Some combination of both. A biologist or a computer scientist? Some combination of both. A methods guy or a real-problems guy? Some combination of both. And on and on and on until you don't even know what you are.

Even when you figure out what it is that you are, there still lies the problem of what it is you want to do. Of course, there are always a million unsolved problems and you tend to choose one you think you know about or care about.

Turns out you don't know enough in ANY of them. There are always a million things to learn in any problem. Edison's hundred different ways of showing how it doesn't work. A counter-example to every example. A counter-counter-example to every counter-example. A tweak here, a niggle there. A beautiful handcrafted Renaissance statue dotted with beautiful spots of beautiful bird poop. A lovely Mona Lisa mistakenly used as a tissue to doodle upon. A viewpoint from which one method is absolutely brilliant and another viewpoint from which the same method is obviously crapshoot.

A million paths down which people have already gone (and probably already eaten by the animals of the jungle). A million ways to feel stupid. A million different things I could do instead.

Many roads diverge in my wood today.

Maybe one day, I will see the difference.

Sitting on a Hydrant with a Coffee

2009-07-12T20:17:00.000-07:00

Never give a writer (or a wannabe writer, for the sake of modesty) a cup of coffee/tea and a place to sit and five minutes to ponder. Because then his mind starts wandering and he ends up writing something.

So the story begins. Aforesaid wannabe writer had to pack his clothes before leaving for a month-long trip, complicated by the fact that he also had to move to a different apartment right in the middle of not-being-in-town. These conditions necessitated too much of organization and planning, something said writer is distinctly uncomfortable with. Plus, his nose was feeling weird and there was a mild rise too in his body temperature, which he thinks might become a full-blown fever in a couple of days.

In such a febrile state with plenty to do and little motivation, he decided to forget it all for a few minutes and get himself a coffee. Considering that the weather is on the warmer side resulting in his little apartment becoming a little too stuffy (like his nose), he decided to get his coffee and sit on the fire-hydrant peeping out from under the building walls and watch the traffic go by. And, inevitably, ponder.

Ponder, ponder, ponder! (Heil fellow geek, if you get the Pinky and the Brain reference!)

Having comfortably ensconced himself on said hydrant (albeit not too comfortably owing to the not-so-flat surface that hydrants possess to dissuade people from sitting on them) and having had the caffeine rush and its accompanying analgesic properties, with the cool breeze blowing through his long terribly dishevelled looks-like-a-homeless-person hair and pondering, pondering, pondering, he notices a couple walk out of the building holding hands. A couple he knows. A couple who are too engrossed in each other to notice the hobo-like-writer on the hydrant. An all too familiar feeling of unmentionable emotions hits the writer who then proceeds to not do anything about it as he has learnt to do in the past year. Yet, he proceeds to dispel such notions about the demerits of his inaction, since obviously, inaction is better than bibulousness ("better", implying less harmful to reputations, livers and wallets).

Cars zoom by. As writers have been doing forever, he ponders on the small part the individual plays in the vast cobweb called society (and God is one crazy spider to have built that) and yet the hopeful importance that the individual ascribes to himself in the larger scheme of things, only to be sorely shot down later. Ambulances yell and zoom by. Again, as writers do, he ponders the transience of human life and the meaning of our existence, ephemeral it may be. A car stops at the intersection blasting loud hip-hop music. Now, he ponders how art rescues us from the mundaneness of everyday living making us feel like soaring eagles and when the music is turned off, plop! falls the eagle to the ground, breaking his silly beak. A cop stops his car and looks at him. Now, the writer ponders the suspicious nature of human interactions and bemoans the loss of trust and love replaced with the mad, mad rat-race which makes us worse than rats (which actually like each other once in a while).

Too much of pondering has resulted in an empty cup with only unstirred sugar at the bottom (the writer likes sugar and plenty of it) and a thought hitherto delegated to a corner is now taking center-stage: Pack your damn clothes! Reluctantly the writer leaves his pondering seat, goes home, opens his laptop ponderously and "expresses" it all. Here's to hoping he gets to pack his clothes eventually!

Oh How I Wish

2009-07-09T23:53:00.000-07:00

I just came back from a short-story club. We discussed James Joyce's "The Dead" over wine, coffee, ice-cream, baked potatoes, baked peaches, strawberries and a million other delectables. The participants were an assortment of nice people from different fields. The weather was perfect. We were sitting on a rooftop under a red, red moon and it just seemed apt that we should be holding a discussion pondering an author's creativity and purpose.

And then, for a brief moment, it hit me. I fell silent, just listening. Here were a bunch of kids doing awesome things in life sitting around and discussing an Irishman's thoughts from the 1920's. Can it get any better than that? At that instant, I wished it was me they were discussing. I wished it was I who had written that story eight decades ago and that it was my motives and thought processes that were being dissected.

It was a confirmation of sorts. The reason I wanted to be a writer played out right before my eyes. I want to leave behind something that would enthrall an audience of ten assorted people a million years later. That, for all intents and purposes, is immortality. Language is beautiful and man shall always be amazed at how another man chooses to express his thoughts and emotions in words. Such an appreciation transcends time as we know it. Immortality.

Sigh!

Where do our symbols come from?

2009-03-12T03:26:00.000-07:00

By accident, I stumbled on the Wikipedia page for the letter Q and how it's current form originated. I ended searching out other letters and realized that a majority of them originate from one of the earliest known written material in the world: Egyptian hieroglyphics. As language progresses, the symbols cease to mean any physical thing and therefore become more and more abstract. Only the most ancient languages have their symbols refer to physical objects. Here's a list of hieroglyph-inspired alphabets/numbers/symbols commonly used in English:

(Letter - Hieroglyph - Tip to imagine)

A - Head of an ox - Invert A and you see two horns.
B - Cottage - A side-on B is supposed to look like the floor plan of a cottage.
C - Staff sling - Add a long straight tail and it looks exactly like an ancient staff sling, which is a sling attached to a long stick.
D - Door - Imagine a hinge on the flat side.
E - A man with arms outstretched - Try putting your arms in front of you at different elevations. Lift a leg too.
F, U, V, W, Y - Mace - The mace became a Y symbol (try closing the two upper arms with a loop) in Semitic script, from which other letters originated.
G - Came later. (Old Latin)
H - Fence - Close upper and lower ends with lines and repeat the formation.
I,J - Arm - Easy enough. Extend your arm.
K - Open Hand - Fingers jutting out of a common center. There are 4 arms jutting out in K.
L - Shepherd's crook/staff - Like a long walking stick with a curved notch at the end for holding.
M - Water - Ripples!
N - Snake - While writing N, write without making sharp turns.
O - Eye - Easy enough. Pupils and irises are round.
P, Q - Cord of wool - Imagine a ball of wool with a little thread extending on two sides (start and end of the thread). Now cut off one end.
R - Man's head - The top part is the head and the stalk is the neck. The little slanting line could have been a beard or a later modification.
S - Spine - The spine is an S! Go anatomy!
T - Came independently. (Proto-semitic, like a plus symbol)
X - Possibly came later (Ancient Greek)
Z - Came independently (Proto-semitic, two horizontal lines)

Now the numbers came from India and Arabia.
0 - A small 'o'. Represents nothingness, so probably came from looking at a hole.
1 - Horizontal line, became curved, notched and finally vertical.
2 - Two horizontal lines, became linked and then curved.
3 - Three horizontal lines, linked and curved.
4 - Came from a cross or plus symbol(4 lines), now join the top left points.
5 - Very weird, has looked like 3 and 4 in the past. Probably came from a mirrored 3.
6 - A vertical rope with a loop in the middle. Bottom part disappeared.
7 - Curved staff, later became very stiff.
8 - Looked like a loose 5 and then curved back.
9 - Started off similar to a question mark without the dot ? Later became the 9.

The mathematical and punctuation symbols had very late origins. However, I try to document them. I just considered the ones on a standard QWERTY keyboard.
+ came from & which represented addition and - came from ~ which was probably written over m to represent minus. Earliest known print in 1489 by Johannes Widemann.
x - William Oughtred in 1631
= Robert Recorde in 1557 used it in math. Came from //
~ ' Started off as marks modifying other letters
& Ancient Roman, with the letters E and T written together
! Introduced in 1400s as "the mark of admiration"
# No idea. Earliest use was probably in music.
* Star or flower? First used by the early printers to print dates.
< > Angled brackets came first, later becoming greater-than and lesser-than symbols. Also gave rise to (). Soon, [] and {} showed up.
' and " possibly came from < and <<
/ and // were the early dividers. / became , and // became = and then -
@ Possibly ancient mercantile language, similar to our "at the rate of"
$ Came from a slash through 8. Or possibly from an S (which may have fused to a P to indicate Spanish Peso). Or possibly from fusing S and U (silver unit). Even ancient possibilities are fusion of the Roman H and S, Greek God Hermes' staff carrying intertwined snakes
^ Quite modern "hat" over symbols. Earliest use was as "insert" symbol during proofreading.
% Around 1600s the words "per cento" were written with an upside-down P and cento below it. Cento became o and the whole thing became %
? From Latin Quaestio meaning question, abbreviated to Qo. Q written on top of small o.
: Came from two pricks in the paper. Around 1600. Gave rise to ; to denote a lesser pause.

Yes, I did have a lot of free time! ;-)

Creation Myths of the Hopi

2009-03-01T21:34:00.000-08:00

I am currently reading this book called "Book of the Hopi", by Frank Waters which details the myths of the ancient (and still extant) Native American tribe, the Hopi. I found the Creation myths very intriguing. Here goes:

In the beginning was the creator, Taiowa living in Tokpela, or Endless Space. Everything was beginningless, endless, formless and timeless. From the infinite, Taiowa then conceived the finite and created his nephew Sotuknang, who was to be his instrument. Sotuknang collected matter (solids, waters and airs) from the endless space and organized it into nine worlds, one for Taiowa, one for Sotuknang and 7 for the life yet to come.

The First World was named Tokpela and in there Sotuknang created the female Kokyangwuti, who was the instrument to create life. She had a cape of creative wisdom which she used to bring life to mud mixed with her saliva. She first created the twins, Poqanghoya, whose duty it was to solidify the earth, and Palongawhoya who was the Echo, filling the entire creation with the sound of the Creator. Together, they were then set in charge of the vibratory centers of the earth and were stationed at the North and South poles respectively.

Thus the whole of creation echoed with sound of praise for Taiowa, the Creator, who was happy with it all.

Kokyangwuti then populated the earth with plants and animals. Taiowa now deemed it ready for human life. Kokyangwuti then took mud of four colours, yellow, red, white and black and made four men and four women. Using her creative cape, she brought them to life. However, they had a soft spot on their heads which was still not solidified.

Taiowa manifested himself as the Sun to harden the soft spot on their heads and completing the act of creation. Kokyungwati instructed the men and women that their duty was to eternally praise and respect Taiowa and remain connected to him through the spot on their heads, which was like a spiritual gate. The four men and four women were the progenitors of the four human races who then populated the world.

Now, the men worshipped nature as living beings like themselves. Just like humans had five centers of vibration(top of the head, brain, throat, heart, navel), the Earth too was alive and had five vibratory centers. The first vibratory center (top of the head) for men was to connect with Taiowa. The second (brain) was for intelligence. The third (throat) was for the breath and sound of life. The fourth (heart) pulsed in rhythm with the universe and was called One Heart. Evil thoughts and deeds would break down the rhythm and make it Two Hearts. The last center (navel) was the throne of Taiowa in man.

The peoples of the First world lived closely with animals and nature, which were not scared of them. As time went by, humans started using their vibratory centers for their own selfish purposes and forgot the commands of Sotuknang and Kokyangwuti. Lavaihoya, the mockingbird and Katoya, the big-headed snake led them astray with words and humans started noticing the differences amongst each other rather than living in harmony. Soon the races separated and were fighting with each other. Even the animals soon left the humans.

Taiowa decreed that the world be destroyed and be repopulated by a remnant of humans faithful to him and ordered Sokutnang to do so. Sokutnang used a cloud and a star (visible only to the faithful) to gather these men and women and instructed them to live with the Ant People underground. Sokutnang then destroyed the earth and the unfaithful with Fire and volcanoes. The faithful survived as they were protected and fed by the Ant people. When food ran out, the Ant people fed the humans first and so starved and had to tighten their belts.

Finally the First World cooled off and the Sokutnang created the Second World, Tokpa. The faithful humans emerged from the ant-hills to repopulate the Second World and lived happily, singing praises to the Creator.

Soon, they started the system of trade and material possession. This led to evil thoughts and selfishness and war and led them to forget Taiowa, their Creator. Taiowa instructed Sokutnang to destroy this world too and Sokutnang instructed the Polar twins to leave their stations. The earth spun out of control and was flooded. Soon, the entire earth turned to ice as it drifted through endless space. Here again, the Ant people were made to save the faithful humans while the unfaithful were destroyed. The Ant people starved a little bit more and strung their belts tighter resulting in the bodies that you see even today.

Sokutnang created the Third World in the East and repopulated it using the faithful remnant of the Second World. Humans progressed rapidly and built large cities, countries and civilizations. However they also became haughty and proud of themselves. They invented the Flying Shield and using that, they made war on each other. Taiowa again ordered them destroyed.

Sokutnang instructed Kokyangwuti to make hollow reeds in which he put the faithful humans. Then he flooded the earth with waters. The faithful floated around while the unfaithful were destroyed. When all was silent, the faithful gathered near a particular piece of land and exited their reeds. However, the land was too small. Making boats from the reeds, they travelled east and north. They reached a large island where they lived for many years, but Kokyangwuti convinced them that they had not reached the Fourth World yet. Soon, they sailed east again.

Going from island to island, they finally saw a huge landmass. Once they landed, they were disappointed to find mountains on three sides. However, on Kokyangwuti's insistence, they persevered. When they looked back, they saw that the islands that they had visited were sinking into the sea. Feeling thankful, they crossed the mountains into a vast and empty land. The land was both beautiful and tragic and humans had experienced both pain and pleasure. They were now in the Fourth World, the final part of the Creator's plan.

(And that is where they still are. Some scholars interpret the third world to fourth world transition as migration east from Asia through an unknown landmass and then to America. Nobody knows if there existed a continent where now it is called the Pacific Ocean. Some geophysicists also indicate that the magnetic poles of the earth weren't always so closely aligned with the geographical poles and could have been at a very different position in the aeons past.)

Birthday XXIII, SuperBowl XLIII

2009-03-01T21:29:00.000-08:00

One of the most exciting birthdays ever.

There was a social experiment and there was mob behavior.

My birthday is on Feb 1st and as birthdays go, I've had several typical ones in India. Family throws a bash, friends throw a 'surprise' bash and boom, one more year has gone by. This time, however, there was this feeling that I should do something different.

Several factors contribute to this thought. I'm quite far away from the family I love and the love of my life is leaving me this year, so there was an unwillingness to get the year started in the first place. Plus, there were relationship breakdowns with quite a few people. Considering all this, I really did not want to celebrate my birthday. So, then, I embarked on an experiment.

Usually, family never forgets your birthday and God bless them for that. Neither do really close friends, especially the ones from home. (Who am I kidding? The close guy friends always forget and the close female friends always remember.) No matter what, there is always one person who knows who spreads the word and something gets done. This is especially true in school and college environments. However, this time I'm in a working environment and things are quite drastically different. If a single person remembers your birthday, it is a big deal!

And so, I thought, why not spend this birthday anonymously? Away from all the attention and spotlight. I thought it would be a refreshing change to do that. To just keep to myself and not bother too much about letting people know.

Now of course comes the exciting part. SUPERBOWL XLIII !!! Pittsburgh Steelers fight their way to the Superbowl final and face-off with the giant-killing Arizona Cardinals (they did kill the NY-Giants!). For those who came in late, the Steelers are the home football team for Pittsburgh and the city is incredibly crazy and possessive about its team. So, whenever the Steelers reach the final of Superbowl, the city drowns in a maze of alcohol induced madness. This played well into my hands. I got to party without letting people know it was my birthday.

The previous day, I went to a play with a couple of friends. It was an adaptation of Ovid's Metamorphoses centered around a swimming pool. Following which, I had dinner with them. Of course, none of them knew/remembered. Yet, I did get to see a play and have good food! On my birthday, I went to church like a 'good boy', 'cuz it was a Sunday. Mom and dad and sis called to wish me. A couple of Chennai friends remembered too. One of them sent me a nice geeky t-shirt.

The next few paragraphs are quite unlikely to be understood outside the American continent (and rightly so!), but a little glossary might help. Football refers to American football. Touchdown is like a goal in soccer, only you run across the line with the ball in your hands instead of kicking it between goal-posts. Steelers were known for their defensive plays, rightly earning the name 'Wall of Steel' and the offense is more than handy.

The afternoon was Superbowl afternoon and was spent crazily going mad in support of the Steelers. The entire city dressed up in black and gold and it was Steelers Steelers everywhere the eye can see. We went to Southside, the cool hang-out place in Pittsburgh and went into a random bar to watch the game. And my, my, what a game it was! With yells of 'Defense, Defense!' and the swirling of a million Terrible Towels, the famed Pittsburgh defense held back everything Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald and the Cards could throw at them. Meanwhile the offense, led by Ben Roethlisberger ( a name any Pittsburgher can spell even in the most drunken of states) was slowly piling on the points. And when James Harrison made a record-breaking 100 yard touchdown at the end of the second quarter, the city was smiling. "Oh, we're gonna win this by a mile!"

But as always, a good offense more often than not, gets through even the world's greatest defense and Fitzgerald managed to break free and score a touchdown with less than 4 minutes left on the clock! What? The Cardinals took a lead??? That moment probably held the record for the most number of people swearing simultaneously.

From quiet confidence, the mood had swung to desperation. Four minutes. Will we regain the lead? As I learned the other day, four minutes is a long time in American football. The Steelers rallied behind Ben and Santonio Holmes, who made amazing huge passes between them, but Santonio fumbled a touchdown. The defense held its own in the next play and the score remained still. With less than a minute left on the clock, the Cards were still leading. And that's when something happened which makes you realize why people play sport. In a picture perfect receive, Santonio Holmes caught the ball just outside the line, at the very edge of the field, with outstretched hands. His entire body was stretched out like a ballet dancer, with his toes inside the field, his head and arms outside and just managing to hang on to the ball. People cried in amazement. 35 seconds left on the clock and Pittsburgh was in the lead again!

The vicissitudes of the game left a huge mental toll on the townspeople. But of course, the final half-minute had to be cheered and again, cries of 'Defense! Defense!' rang out as the Steelers did what they do best: DEFENSE. And then, a sigh of relief and a roar of satisfaction. Pittsburgh, winner of five previous Superbowls was now Sixburg!

And then, the city broke out into riotous celebrations. People were hugging and kissing at random. The sheer jubilation in the crowd was such an amazing thing to witness first-hand. There were riot police out with fibreglass shields, marching in formation... Tick on my list for "Been in the midst of a riot" !!! Just search for "Oakland riots 2009 steelers super bowl" on Youtube to see the awesomeness of my experience!

Finally, at about 11:45 pm, I could not resist the urge anymore to tell someone that it was my birthday. I told just one person: the girl who was giving me a ride home. And yes, she swore at me for not mentioning it earlier.

All in all, it turned out to be a nice day. The entire city riotously celebrated my birthday without knowing it. My friends gave me a good time without knowing it. What more could I ask for. I doubt I can pull this stunt off again. However, as you get older, I suppose, the celebrations decrease in intensity and any little thing is quite cherished indeed.

Happy New Year 2009

2009-01-20T01:10:00.000-08:00

Another year ends... And another begins. Here I am, with the same old blog writing about the same old things. Well, what are blogs for anyway?

Things to expect this new year:
Academically, hoping to do a good collaboration and possibly get a couple of papers out. Flip side, I will be taking the machine learning course and hoping it doesn't turn out to be the fiasco it was the first semester.

On the emotional side, the one I would want to be with forever is moving away from me forever this year. God knows how I am going to handle that.

Things to look forward in this blog: More scientific posts, especially about popular science books; more posts on ancient literature, since I plan to read a lot on my way to becoming a sophisticated asshole; more literary posts, since obviously a lot will be happening and the creative juices usually flow at such times; and lastly, I will try to do more vetti posts, something which I've found very difficult to do.

Happy New Year 2009
May the year bring to you all its blessings and may you see the fulfillment of your dreams (Ooh lala!)

Faith and Science

2009-01-12T02:03:00.000-08:00

A long overdue post on the faith vs. science debate.

First of all, a little background. I am a scientist. I also come from a very religious Christian Pentecostal family. Faith and science have played very crucial roles in my life. My upbringing, my morals, my sense of right and wrong, my thoughts and feelings about events are completely dictated by my faith. This is one side of the balance.

On the other side of the scales is science, which is my passion and profession. Mathematics, logic and science have fascinated me from a young age and I've thought of becoming nothing else but a scientist ever since I was a kid.

Now, there's a slight problem here. I get crap on both sides of the so-called faith vs. science debate.

The more conservative people in my faith, mostly people from family and church have, as usual, targeted the poor scientist guy by saying things: How can you scientists believe in evolution? How can you say things that contradict the Bible? How dare you make statements that place 'doubt' on the Christian faith? I've even got really bad comments on how science is against Christianity and therefore should not be done. And today in America, I see fundamentalists led by Sarah Palin sticking on to a primitive world-view that almost demands you pity their ignorance and lack of reason.

The scientists aren't blameless either. I get similarly aggressive questions on the other side: How can you be a scientist and not be an atheist? How can you be a scientist and be skeptical about evolution? Can you prove God exists? Why believe when you cannot prove? And of course, the most disgusting scientist whose works I've read, Richard Dawkins, who thinks his work in evolution proves that God does not exist and actively campaigns for atheism.

Sarah Palin and Richard Dawkins are, in my opinion, equally detestable extremists on either side. If I met either of them, I would love to pour some cold water on their faces. People who react in the ways I've mentioned earlier, both scientists and believers, are contradicting themselves by reacting in such extremist manner. Why do I think so?

First of all, let me speak as a believer. (Of course, I am a Christian and therefore, my argument is influenced in that direction and I cannot speak on behalf of other religions or even other 'versions' of Christianity that abound.) The first and foremost meaning of faith is 'implicit belief'. However implicit does not mean unquestionable. Implicit, in my opinion, is just inexplicable. To me, faith is a relationship with a higher power, just like a relationship with a person I meet. I cannot explain why I believe. I'm willing to take the definition of belief as such. And the reason for my belief is: it has made a difference in my life. It has made me happier and calmer. It makes my burdens easier to bear.

Consider this analogy: Suppose a person has a kid brother who died a week after birth. And suppose the only hospital records of the kid were destroyed in a fire. Also, to extend the supposition, there are no physical remains of the kid. And suppose 50 years later when he's the only person left who remembers the kid, someone else comes to him and says "I deny that your kid brother ever existed". How outraged would he be? But can he do anything about it? Can he prove, in any acceptable manner, that there did exist a kid brother who died when he was a week old? Can he use scientific methods to show the existence of a kid brother in the absence of any physical evidence? But does that mean his brother did not exist? Of course he did exist. He would probably still remember holding the baby in his hand. That memory will not be extinguished and would serve as a reminder of the kid brother's existence even if the whole world is determined to prove that the kid didn't exist.

Such is it with my faith too. No amount of science or reasoning can take that away from me because of the personal experience of transformation. And that, my dear scientist friends, is what faith is all about. It comes from a personal relationship which you can never physically prove. Reverting to geek-speak, I would like to draw attention to Godel's Theorems of Incompleteness which, by the way, are purely scientific.

There are two theorems. Highly simplified, they talk about belief systems, a.k.a. axiom sets. An axiom is a fundamentally accepted proposition that is assumed unquestionable. Stuff like 1+1=2. Godel's first theorem says that given a set of axioms that are consistent with each other (like, hopefully, mathematics), it is impossible to prove or disprove every possible logical statement that might arise. Many scientists fail to grasp what this means. Extending to the typical scientist's logical train of thought about cause-and-effect relationships, this means that if something cannot be proved, it does not mean it is not true. This hits hard the atheist argument "Can you prove God exists?". You cannot, but you cannot disqualify him from existing either.

The second theorem is even more beautiful. It basically means, Given a set of beliefs, you cannot unequivocally prove consistency, i.e. even though I believe in the beauty of math and science and logic, I can never ever make sure that my mathematical/scientific/logical world-view is exactly and totally right. This boils down to the heart of science and the reason I love science: skepticism. Science TELLS you to be skeptical about science itself, as also about everything in life. So, a scientist (like Richard Dawkins), who believes in the infallibility of science and who thinks he can prove/disprove any statement in the world is actually doing a grave and serious discredit to the philosophy of science itself. Science is not all-powerful and a cognizance of the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific method (and not blind trust in it) will go a long way in making one a better and much humbler scientist. The most hubristic 'scientists' have always been humbled by the next humble truthful scientist who comes along. Every scientific theory has been chiselled, modified or discarded based on newer discoveries and such is the true way of science.

Enough scientist bashing, let's do some religious bashing. The thing I do not like about religious people 'defending' their faith 'against' science is this: If your faith were true, then it should accomodate science too. There are no two ways about it. I would never accept a faith that tells me 'Don't believe in the scientific method'. Faith has its share of unreasonableness, but that unreasonableness should be about the most simplest of beliefs, like the belief in a God, like belief in kindness, like belief in love. It should not extend to include unreasonableness about everything, like science and technology. Therefore, do not use arguments like "Because it is written here, written there" or "Because that is how it is". To commit to a belief system is a personal decision and there is no 'right' way of choosing between beliefs. If you want to evangelize, target a person's feelings and thoughts and need for happiness and hope, not the scientific paradigm.

As I reiterate, true faith is about a relationship. And where there's a relationship, there's doubt, frustration, inspiration, love, encouragement and hope. And these things are beyond logic. That does NOT mean that logic is totally absent in the world and everything is divine-determined. Look upon science, not as an enemy of religion, nor as a friend of religion, but as the mind is to the heart. They serve entirely two different purposes. Mix them both and you get a yucky slush that doesn't work.

Where do I sit on evolution? On the fence. I accept the fact that evolution occurs as this is an experimentally observed phenomenon, for example, in the transmission of viruses. I also accept that evolution leads to speciation and variation. However, I refuse to believe that evolution is THE reason life exists on the planet and that we(all life) are all linked in some kind of phylogenetic tree of life. Macroevolution is too much of an extrapolation from microevolution. Somehow that hypothesis seems to be beyond my powers of scientific reason and I prefer to be skeptical about it. That does not mean I'm going to disprove evolution as the origin of life. It just means "It could be, I do not know". (As an aside, I am highly skeptical about phylogenetic inferences and prefer to deal with actual physical descriptions, like structural biology ;) I know someone who'll hit me for this.)

The fundamental conclusion that I espouse is that, to me, there is no paradox in my being a Christian and a scientist. I'm not saying that one proves the other or that one refuses the other's existence. Both are different facets of my life which work together harmoniously to make the crazy ride that is my life.

Preferably, that is how I would like everybody, scientist or believer, view the debate to be. Remove the 'vs' from Faith vs. Science and replace it with an 'and'. Believers, be humble and non-aggressive, because your faith should stand the test of reason and it is okay to doubt things and reason and argue over them. Scientists, be humble because reason cannot prove everything and there are things that remain beyond science and possibly always will. Believers, you can never force your faith on someone else, just like you can never force a relationship between two people. Scientists, do science for the love of it, and give others the right to believe in the existence of God.

Dream Team 2008

2008-12-31T09:32:00.000-08:00

Well, well, an exceedingly fruitful year for Indian cricket. Dhoni's magic touch seemed to have given us opportunities to steal draws from defeats and victories from draws. We end the year as undisputed Twenty20 Champions and increasingly confident challengers to ODI and Test Formats. This was the year Dada and Anil retired and therefore an emotional one too for many of us. Here's an attempt at a Dream Test XI from 2008 performances. Of course, they are heavily biased from matches that I've watched/followed.

Test XI

Openers: Virender Sehwag & Gautam Gambhir
An automatic choice. They were easily the most destructive pair in world cricket and their rapid starts were to give India the platform in many of the matches they've won. Graeme Smith needs to get a look-in because he was the highest run scorer and had good partnerships with Neil McKenzie, but the chemistry and productivity of the Indian pair trumps him. Simon Katich also deserves a honorable mention, but I wouldn't put his partner Matthew Hayden on my team. So does Andrew Strauss.

Number 3: Hashim Amla
Another no-contest. This year was not too great for great number threes like Dravid, and Amla stands tall as a solid and consistent one-drop. I thought of Ricky Ponting, but then who wants a grimacing guy who cheats in his team?

Number 4: Sachin Tendulkar
There were a couple of other contenders but if I can justify including the greatest batsman who ever lived, then I have to include him no matter what. Sachin's form in 2008 has been remarkable by 'normal' standards. Yet Indians still gripe because they expect him to work miracles. That he can still score 1000 runs a year is a miracle too.

Numbers 5 & 6: Shivnaraine Chanderpaul & VVS Laxman
This was an okay choice. The only question was how I could leave out Kevin Pietersen. I guess, we could keep him as backup, depending on the game to be played. Chanders and Laxman are two of the best stonewallers in history and technically, the two could bat on together forever.

Wicketkeeper: MS Dhoni
This was a toughie. Dhoni or AB deVilliers? Both had excellent years and have similar styles of playing. Dhoni makes the cut for his innovative captaincy.

Spin Twins: Muttiah Muralitharan & Ajantha Mendis
Automatic again. These guys just destroyed India. Murali is an old wizard at the peak of his powers. Mendis is the new kid on the block with those unreadable deliveries. He can bowl the legbreak, offbreak, googly and flipper without perceptible changes in action. Add to that his carrom ball that seems to have a life of its own and these two guys are the best spinners in the business right now.

Pace Duo: Zaheer Khan & Dale Steyn
The toughest selection yet. Zak and Ishant Sharma spearheaded India's revival. Steyn, Morne Morkel and Makhaya Ntini are probably the most potent speed trio in town. No room for Australians here! How the mighty have fallen. If Brett Lee was in form, I would have selected him. Zak wins out because of his experience and because he's the closest current bowler to Wasim Akram. Steyn, because he's the fastest.

Book Summary: Minds, Brains and Science - John Searle

2008-12-29T23:44:00.001-08:00

The Mind-Body Problem
The foremost problem in scientific philosophy is the mind-body or the mind-brain duality. People have found it extremely difficult to reconcile themselves as free, conscious, rational agents made up of lifeless molecules that move around deterministically. Any explanation of how the mind and the brain live together usually demotes or denies one or the other’s importance. There are four reasons why it is difficult to think of a mental/psychological mind in a purely physical body: consciousness (or awareness of the self), intentionality (an event/thing meaning something to you: love, hate, distress, joy, fear), subjectivity (my mental state differing from yours about the same things, e.g. disagreeing about elections) and mental causation (causing physical events by wanting to do them, such as lifting your hand).

What we can do to overcome these difficulties is to accept that the mind with all its mental events is nothing but a macroscopic feature of the brain and all its biological events. This is just like wetness is a macroscopic feature of water molecules or rigidity is a macroscopic feature of iron atoms. We may or may not know how exactly that the macroscopic feature arises, but we should not have a difficulty in accepting that it does. Thoughts and feelings (and by extension, consciousness and intentionality) and other mental events are caused by and realized in the biology of the brain just like wetness is caused by and realized in water molecules. Mental states work on themselves as well as receive external stimuli and change. Subjectivity may just be a matter of two different mental states responding differently to the same stimuli. Causality on the macroscopic level (thoughts leading to action) can be perfectly compatible with causality on the microscopic level (brain neurons firing leading to motor nerves firing) if we describe the mind as a macroscopic feature of the brain.

Can Computers Think?
People often think of the mind as an extremely complex computer. Conversely, that begs the question, can we ever make a computer think for itself? While artificial intelligence is a hot field and tremendous progress has been made in making robots/computers simulate human behavior, we can argue that computers can never be fully ‘intelligent’ like humans because of the following primary reason.

Computers follow programs or sets of rules, but the rules are purely syntactical and deterministic, whereas humans follow/break rules not due to any hidden syntax or grammar, but due to their ‘content’ or ‘meaning’, i.e. based on what it means to them and how they feel about it. In other words, computer rules are syntactical and human rules are semantic. Syntax can simulate semantics but can never duplicate it. For example, let us suppose I had a computer program that could take a Chinese sentence as an input and give a Chinese sentence as an output and that this program is so advanced in artificial intelligence that it can fool a native Chinese speaker. Now, using this awesome computer program, I can have an hour-long conversation with my Chinese friend, but I still do not know Chinese! Nor do I have any idea about what I told my friend! While the computer program was responding to the syntactical rules written within them, they held no ‘meaning’ or semantic content for me.

The argument is thus: Brains cause minds as a macroscopic feature with mental states having semantic content. This content can never be duplicated using formal rules and syntaxes. A computer program can never rise beyond its syntax and so can never duplicate a mind. An artificial mind, if created, should be more than just a computer program. So a computer program can never ‘think’ in the way that you and I think.

Cognitive Science
Cognitive science aims to fill the mind-brain gap by treating the mind as an information-processing system. This is analogous to a computer, but it does not require the reverse argument that computers can think. On the contrary, it pretends that the mind works like a computer and then tries to characterize it given this assumption. The attractiveness of this proposal is that given the current state of technology, it is extremely easy to imagine a computational level between the biological and the mental level. Also, since we can design computers and information processing systems that obey rules and humans seem to obey rules too, it is quite possible to make a backward conclusion: that the mind works like a computer. However, history tells us that humans have always assumed the mind to work similar to the latest advance in technology: from catapults to telegraph systems to hydraulic systems to computers. There is no reason that any or all of them are exactly right, although they provide interesting analogies and insights.

An even more implicit reason for such a conclusion is the belief that somehow there’s an implicit theory or grammar in whatever we do, which is what allows us to draw similarities with the computer in the first place. A very important theory with such assumptions is generative grammar in linguistics. Proponents, such as Noam Chomsky, argue based on language studies that there exists an implicit grammar in our minds which our varied languages correspond to.

The crucial point which leads to the downfall of cognitive science is the fact that computers do not follow rules like humans follow rules. For example, to drive on the left side of the road in England is a rule that is generally obeyed by motorists. But this rule did not arise from any law of nature. Nor is it an explicit rule that cannot be disobeyed. It arises from a general convention or agreement among the people on the safety of road-use. It is about people agreeing to subject themselves to a rule to keep themselves and others safe. We define this as the literal meaning of rule-following.

On the other hand, computers and other things follow rules in an ‘as-if’ manner, i.e. they are metaphorical and/or descriptive. Their rules are imposed by human intelligence and/or the physical laws of nature. The mere presence of information content isn’t sufficient to ascribe rule-following. Water flowing down a hill can be used to derive information on the contours of a hill, but that does not mean water willingly follows a rule; it just obeys the natural law of gravity. The mere description of rule-like activity isn’t sufficient to infer a rule. For example, our eyes don’t follow an explicit rule that they shall not see beyond the visible spectrum. They just are not able to. There does not have to be an explicit grammar in all our languages that is encoded in our heads. Like our eyes, maybe our brain is just unable to deal with other grammars.

The alternative is to consider the fact there could be a purely mental/behavioral level of description wholly compatible with a physiological level of description. While there may exist an intervening computational level, there may not too.

With great difficulty we have written computer programs that ‘learn’ and recognize faces. What are the chances that the mind processes faces in the same way that the computer does? We seem to do it much easier and faster in our heads. Another informative example is that of clocks. Clocks seem to follow a simple rule like “tick every second” or “change positions every minute”. However, does that mean all clocks work exactly in the same way? Aren’t mechanical clocks fundamentally different in construction from water-clocks? The appearance of rule-following cannot be used to infer that information is processed based on rules. Therefore cognitive science can give remarkable insights and developments into the working of the brain, but can never fully describe how a brain becomes a mind.

The Structure of Action
Human behavior is characterized by actions, i.e. what we do. Now, an action is not merely a sequence of events. The same sequence of events can be interpreted differentially, (e.g. dancing, exercising or marching) and the same action can be described in different sequences of events (e.g. one can write, type or page a note to a friend. Even writing can be done with the left hand, right hand, toes or mouth.) Human actions have preferred descriptions (such as taking a walk, combing your hair, etc. instead of ‘alternating leg movements on floor’ or ‘repeated touching of head with comb’) which are intimately part of the event themselves. The so-called common sense enables us to infer the preferred descriptions immediately, although a thousand other descriptions could theoretically refer to the same action.

So how do we describe the structure of human behavior? What are the processes by which we do what we do? Firstly, an action consists of two components: a mental component and a physical component. The mental component is called the intention. Intentions are of two types: prior intentions, which are caused by reflection and deliberation and intentions in action, which are spontaneous. Intentional causation is the mechanism linking the physical and mental components. The intention has both logical and causal features. Logical features are usually due to conscious or subconscious reasoning of mental content. For example, to drive to Pittsburgh from New York instead of flying would constitute a decision that is consciously or subconsciously based on a lot of likes/dislikes, such as flight food, flexibility of travel, love of driving, etc.
Causal features are the ones that make me physically drive the car. Finally, intentions are not stand-alone and perform as part of a network of intentional states that constantly receive external and internal feedback.

Why do actions have preferred descriptions? The preference of a certain description or explanation is because it contains the same mental content as the action itself. If I want to take a walk, then I take a walk. ‘Wanting to take a walk’ is the mental content in my head and ‘taking a walk’ is the preferred description of the action. The beauty of common sense is our unconscious mastery of being able to read the mental content and the preferred description from the actions of others. A friend noticing me would usually draw the conclusion ‘He is taking a walk’ and not ‘He is moving his legs in a defined sequence of motions.’ Thus the preferred description for an action is constitutive of the action itself.

Prospects for the Social Sciences
Why have the social sciences failed so miserably in terms of rigorous definition like the physical and biological sciences? Is there grounding for the social sciences in physical sciences at all? Some claim that the grounding is there, but is inexact, like the sciences of weather and geology. However, all sciences arise from the fact that there is a systematic correlation between observation, deduction and prediction, even in the inexact sciences. However, this is not true for the behavioral sciences.

This is because behavioral or social ‘things’ require the presence of mental content. They have some sort of self-referentiality which comes from agreement or convention. Money is money because we consider it money. If we did not, then it would be just paper or gold or silver. A marriage is a marriage because of what we consider a marriage to be. The same concept can be applied to all behavioral events, from wars to economics.

However, based on our previous arguments, psychological or mental states are typically open-ended. There is no purely physical reason behind a mental argument and every mental state relates to an individual’s network of intentions (as defined previously). Therefore the behavioral sciences may never be able to fully provide correlations or ‘laws’ of human behavior, i.e. the bridge principles relating biology and behavior may never be found exactly. What they can do is however, embrace the idea of history, i.e. using past experience, a prediction can be made, but without any scientific confidence, due to the volatility of human nature. Economics works to a large extent based on history.

The social sciences can be best described as theories of pure and applied intentionality, with the caveat that intentions change and no correlation is exact or immutable.

Freedom of the Will
The fundamental question that is the entire premise of this book is that human actions are free, or at least, we experience the sensation of freedom of will. When describing normal human action (i.e. not under coercion or hypnosis of any kind), we seem to experience a sense of ‘could-have’, i.e. for every action we take, we can visualize a hundred different alternatives that we ‘could-have’ just as easily taken.

Determinism, on the other hand, seeks to imply that every action is purely determined by the physical interactions of our molecules and that there’s no free will. This somehow seems total nonsense to our minds. When presented evidence, a rational mind can usually abandon previous ‘common-sense’ ideas. For example, given the evidence, we easily accept the heliocentric theory and the non-flatness of earth though neither of them is obvious to our senses. However, no evidence seems to rid us of our conviction of the freedom of will.

A supposed bridge is compatibilism, which states that given a set of psychological states, the expression of action is determined. Therefore, free will (defined as acting based on our psychology) is compatible with determinism. However, this argument is specious because given a set of psychological states, will a person do exactly the same thing every single time? If this were so, then is not compatibilism just another form of determinism, retaining the shell of free will, but not its substance?

However, the experience of freedom goes beyond the experience of action. If one were immobilized, but still felt short pangs of pain, then is not our mind really free to experience emotions without the help of the body? Conversely, if we programmed a robot to move randomly and unpredictably, would you associate it with free will? Freedom of will is perhaps just the ability of intentional action. When action is lacking, intention alone can constitute free will.

The conclusion is that science does not allow for a radical or pure free will within its current description. However, our minds, whether due to unnatural or natural reasons, do not seem to have the capacity to give up the notion of freedom embedded in them. Therefore, the question of free will quite possibly remains an unanswered enigma.

Book Summary: Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh

2008-12-24T17:00:00.000-08:00

One of the best books I’ve read in a while. This book should be read like a detective story that spans centuries, tiny nuggets of information collected all the way till the 20^th century when the last greatest theorem ever posed was solved: Fermat’s Last Theorem.

For those not in the know, Fermat’s Last Theorem was, for 300-odd years, a conjecture. To get an idea about it, we begin with the familiar Pythagoras theorem: x^2 + y^2 = z^2
Now, it is possible to get an infinite number of combinations of whole numbers x, y and z that satisfy this equation. Whole numbers are counting numbers like 1,2,3, etc. and do not include fractions or negative numbers. On the other hand, the genius that is Pierre de Fermat discovered in 1637 that if you increase the power even by one, there are NO whole number solutions. The statement goes:

The equation x^n + y^n=z^n has NO whole number solutions for any whole number n higher than 2.

Looks simple, doesn’t it? But the greatest mathematicians of the last 300 years have been unable to provide a complete proof for that statement till Andrew Wiles came along. Slowly but surely, the mathematicians over the years have been chipping away at the conjecture, but it was Wiles’ magnum opus in 1995 which finally settled the issue once and for all. Here is a short approximately chronological list of the important events leading to the proof of the last greatest mathematical riddle.

In 1637, while reading Book II of Claude Gaspar Bachet’s Latin translation of the medieval mathematical treatise Arithmetica (by Diophantus), Pierre de Fermat made a marginal note near the Pythagoras Theorem. He mentions that increasing the power to any whole number greater than two results in the number of (whole number) solutions going from infinitely many to zero. Also, he mentions discovering a marvelous proof of the same, but no space to write it down in the margin. This statement was to tease, tantalize, torment and torture mathematicians for the next three centuries.

In another context, Fermat specifically proves the case for n=4 using the method of infinite descent. Note that the equation is structured such that proving it for all prime numbers (indivisible numbers like 2,3,5,7,13…) is alone sufficient to proveit for all numbers. If we prove for n=3, that automatically proves it for n=6,9,12,... The mathematical genius Leonhard Euler used the concept of imaginary numbers (built on i, the imaginary square root of -1) to prove the case n=3, but was unable to extend it or generalize it to higher primes. Sophie Germain (one of the few women mathematicians who rose beyond petty circumstances to greatness) showed that for special prime numbers (called Sophie Germain primes), even if Fermat’s conjecture was false, then there exists an extremely tight restriction that makes a solution extremely unlikely (but not entirely impossible).

Based on work by Sophie Germain, Gustav Lejeune-Dirichlet and Adrien-Marie Legendre independently proved Fermat’s theorem for n=5. Later, Gabriel Lamé extended it for n=7. Lamé and Augustin Louis Cauchy had a very public rivalry (working on similar lines) to arrive at the generalized proof when their hopes were dashed by Ernst Kummer who showed that their lines of thinking had a fatal flaw: they assumed unique factorization (i.e. every number can be made by multiplying a unique number of primes, e.g. 6 = 2x3 and 9 = 3x3), which doesn’t hold for complex numbers. A flaw in Kummer’s reasoning was then fixed by an amateur mathematician Paul Wolfskehl (who almost committed suicide, but then got interested in the theorem) making the proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem even more unattainable.

As an aside, spearheaded by David Hilbert, mathematicians were re-examining and re-establishing every mathematical statement ever made using the most basic of mathematical axioms (assumptions such as 1+1=2). Kurt Gödel dealt a death-blow to this effort by proving that given a set of consistent axioms, it is possible to make statements that can never be proved true or false. Worse still, given a set of axioms, we cannot even prove that they are consistent. This finding caused a lot of disillusionment, especially with unsolved problems like Fermat’s Last Theorem, opening up the possibility that theoretically, we may never be able to find an answer and that Fermat may have made a mistake in reasoning.

With the invention and rapid development of computers, brute-force methods were employed to search for solutions that disprove Fermat’s Last Theorem. None were found, but that cannot remove the niggle of doubt that mathematicians subsist upon. Mathematicians know for a fact that searching an infinite space, even to a significant extent, can never give the right answer. For example, 31, 331,3331,33331 are all primes. However, the extrapolation is destroyed by the fact that 333333331 is not a prime number. Also, a conjecture similar to that of Fermat was made by Euler (no whole number solutions exist for x^4 + y^4 +z^4 = w^4) and was proven wrong using brute-force search by Noam Elkies.

In the modern era, Fermat’s Last Theorem was almost forgotten and was just an ancient romantic mathematical curiosity. Developments in two other fields were soon to bring the theorem under the active scrutiny of mathematicians.

One of these fields was the branch of elliptical equations (which take the form y^2 = x^3 +ax^2+bx+c) which are hopelessly complicated if you attempt to find solutions. So a technique called clock arithmetic was used on them. Clock arithmetic takes a small subset of the number line and loops it onto itself, much like the clocks we use to measure time. Our standard clocks and watches are 12-clocks, i.e. 12=0 and the arithmetic changes accordingly. For example, 2 hours after 11am is 1pm, i.e. 11+2=1. If we take a series of clocks (1-clock, 2-clock, 3-clock, etc.) and see how these elliptical equations look like in clock arithmetic, we see that they have different number of solutions in different clocks. For each elliptical equation, we can write down an infinite sequence of numbers which show the number of solutions in each clock. This sequence is called the characteristic L-series of the elliptical equation.

The other field was modular forms, which are exotic mathematical entities living in a four-dimensional space. Just like complex numbers can be constructed with one real number and one imaginary number, a modular form is constructed from numbers from 4 different dimensions. Modular forms are similarly decomposed as containing an infinite number of components. Worse still, they can contain different numbers or “quantities” of each component. Again, these numbers can be arranged in an infinite sequence called the characteristic M-series of the modular form.

Around 1955, Yutaka Taniyama and Goro Shimura floated around a hypothesis forever linking the two fields: Every elliptical equation with its L-series has a corresponding modular form with an identical M-series, and vice-versa. This was an exceedingly bold statement and was called the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture. Every elliptical equation form that was examined and scrutinized verified the conjecture. However, examples don’t maketh a proof and the hypothesis remained a conjecture, with no mathematical proof. However, it formed the starting point of a new generation of mathematicians, taking number theory to new heights, but nevertheless with a sense of discomfort that it was still a conjecture.

Andrew Wiles who had been fascinated by Fermat’s Last Theorem as a child, decided to temporarily abandon his fascination in favor of more ‘productive’ math and joined as a Ph.D. student under the supervision of John Coates in 1975. Coates encouraged him to study elliptical equations and soon, he became an expert on them. His childhood dream of proving the Last Theorem was soon to be resuscitated, though. In 1984, Gerhard Frey announced a flashing insight that if Fermat’s Theorem was actually false, then any solution for that equation can be “rearranged” to give an elliptical equation. Surprisingly, the L-series of this equation seemed to be highly unlikely as an M-series of a modular form. Ken Ribet later redefined ‘unlikely’ as ‘impossible’. These developments carried a startling inference: the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture implied Fermat’s Last Theorem. If one was true, then the other had to be.

Wiles realized that he was now actually equipped to deal with his childhood dream. All he needed to do was unequivocally prove the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture. He decided to work in seclusion till he mastered his prize. It took him seven years spent in mastering modern mathematical techniques and applying, modifying, redefining and strengthening them to suit his case.

Wiles decided to use a time-honored technique called mathematical induction to prove Fermat’s Theorem. Given an infinite sequence of statements to prove, the principle of mathematical induction says that it is enough to prove two things: one, the first statement is true; two, if one statement is true, then the next statement is automatically true. This is the mathematical version of the domino effect: if dominoes are arranged next to each other in a sequence, toppling the first one will topple all of them in sequence.

The problem Wiles faced was that not only a single L-series have infinite elements, but also, there are an infinite number of L-series as well. This was infinity piled upon infinity, in other words, an infinite number of domino lines, each of which stretched to infinity. Using a technique called group theory (developed by the 19^th century tragic genius Évariste Galois), Wiles was, able to ‘sort’ the infinite number of domino-lines (read, elliptical equations) into a bunch of groups. Painstakingly, he also proved the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture for the first element of each group. All that was required now was to show that within each group, toppling one domino toppled the rest.

Using a methodology called Iwasawa theory, which he learnt under John Coates, Wiles attempted to show the domino effect for each group. However, after a couple of years of experimentation, Wiles gave up on Iwasawa theory and looked around for something else. Another student of Coates, named Mattheus Flach worked on extending a previous method by Victor Kolyvagin in the study of elliptical equations. Wiles found renewed hope in the Kolyvagin-Flach method and worked on extending it to deal with his groups, but found the mathematics out of his expertise. Using help from Nick Katz, he slowly and steadily applied the difficult method and proved the domino-effect for each of his groups.

In a series of lectures in June 1993, Andrew Wiles finally delivered his proof to the audience of mathematicians. Flying rumors about the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture had ensured that most renowned mathematicians had arrived for the lecture, just in case they were true. To a packed audience of the best mathematicians of the present decade, Wiles delivered what was to be known as the Lecture of the Century. He outlined his proof of the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture using Galois representations and the modified Kolyvagin-Flach method. By inference, this was the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. At the end of it all, he wrote out the statement of Fermat’s Last Theorem and said “I think I’ll stop here.”

Among cheers and standing ovations, mathematicians let out a collective sigh. An ancient riddle had been cracked, but a beloved and inspirational puzzle had been lost. Such is the way of math. Fermat’s challenge had been finally met.

Outlining a proof on the blackboard does not substitute for detailed scrutiny of the written proof by your peers. Soon enough, manuscripts containing the detailed proof were submitted and sent to referees for checking. Nick Katz, one of the referees, soon spotted an error. Wiles believed he had modified the Kolyvagin-Flach method to be sufficiently strong enough to deal with his groups. Unfortunately, the expert in Katz showed it to be otherwise. This left a hole in the proof which had to be filled before the proof can be agreed to be true. Wiles believed that this would be a minor correction. However, it proved to be a stumbling block and the correction never materialized, no matter how hard he tried. Wiles became depressed and dejected and wondered if seven years of work were going to go down on a technicality or whether he had been barking up the wrong tree all the while.

Finally, after struggling hard with his inner demons, Wiles had his final flash of insight that would rest the problem forever. He had previously discarded Iwasawa theory as inadequate. Similarly, the Kolyvagin-Flach method had also turned out to be inadequate. But Wiles realized that putting the two together, the combination was irresistible. In a matter of weeks, Wiles had combined the two methods to publish irrefutable proof for the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture and Fermat’s Last Theorem. The new manuscript was even more streamlined and cohesive than the previous one.

Fermat’s Last Theorem was finally laid to rest in the minds of the geniuses of this century.

A couple of words about the book itself. Simon Singh has done an excellent job in compiling the history of mathematics. The book is a history book disguised as a detective story. A must-own for any math lover. Singh relates events from centuries past and present that will inspire you to take up mathematics today. Especially riveting are the tragic stories about Galois and Taniyama. The historical context adds a great deal to the story and increases one’s appreciation for the fact that the things we trivially ‘assume’ today have actually come from a lot of work by geniuses of the past.

Would it hurt to say I am a little excited after all?

2008-11-25T18:47:00.000-08:00

Let's see... One assignment had its deadline extended. One I finished with a sense of satisfaction and submitted online. Headbanged all day to VERY loud "Turn the Page - Metallica". Then had decent free coffee. Then went shopping and got me a really cool coat that I like. Once in a freaking blue moon, I have the trouble of choosing between TWO coats that look good on me. WooWoo... Was a nice trip too, with nice conversations and company.

Tomorrow, catching a flight to Boston. Going to New York too. Big Apple Baby! Meeting someone from my Chennai life whom I haven't met in ages.

Packing apart, I'm quite excited...

Bonjour, mesdemes et messieurs, au revoir!

A blogpost of nothingness

2008-11-21T02:07:00.000-08:00

This is a perfect "It is one of those moments" moment. When irrational melancholy and discomfort can be blindly and comfortably relegated to being so infrequent and hence, irrelevant. The catch is, nowadays, such moments seem to be so frequent that the above mentioned argument is increasingly specious.

Working on an assignment. Trying to. The math doesn't excite me, neither is there a deadline pressure. Or maybe there is and I just don't care. I'm in lab, awake at 5 am. No mood to watch comedy shows online. No mood to watch the unwatched movie Cd's in my drawer. No mood for research. Trying to listen to music, but can't seem to zero in on the right song. I pick my phone to call someone. I do not know who I want to call, so I place it back. I open Firefox, but I do not know what to type in the address bar.

Every action, every moment underlined by a sense of discomfited existence.

Something is missing. Yes, many things are. This is not the usual I-miss-home, I-miss-my-ex-gf rant. While these factors are obvious contributors, there seems to be something fundamentally different which is causing this current melancholy. Something unworldly.

I think it's just me. The guy in the mirror. I thought I knew him. But he's a total stranger now. And I have to put up with him for the rest of my life.

And the Guy upstairs. Wonder what He's upto? You listening, Buddy? Give me something to look forward to, will You? And not just make me uselessly move from second to second like a stupid old clock in the attic.

God has a sense of humor

2008-09-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

I lately realized that God has a sense of humor.

1) McCain makes a speech in which he says "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Hours later, the stock-market crashes.

2) Indian markets were surprisingly stable with respect to the recent economic crisis. However, nobody noticed something: There falls the rupee. What's the freaking point?

3) Pittsburgh's daily weather patterns. It sounds a lot like a practical joke.

4) Almost all the women whom I can term "incredible" are older and married.

5) Within 6 weeks of my having broken up with the love of my life, no less than SIX of my friends have got hitched/committed/married. You got to be kidding me!

The Paradoxes of Everyday Living

2008-08-18T14:06:00.000-07:00

I have to be at a party at 8 pm. Which means I can't be scruffy and will need to take a bath. However I need to wash my clothes else I wouldn't have anything to wear. But I do not have quarters for using the washing machine downstairs. Which means, I will have to go out and get them. If I'm going out, I might as well catch lunch. But then, I would need to take a bath before going out.

Time is 1 pm. I have a mild fever. So maybe I should take a tylenol or a crocin. However, I would rather not do that on an empty stomach. Which means, I will have to eat. Since my food stocks are perenially empty, I would have to go out and eat. However, since I have to take a bath before I go out…

Plus, to avoid the feeling of grad-student-"I wasted a day"-guilt, I will need to finish up a couple of derivations which I've been slogging over. But I'm hungry and my mind doesn't work well on an empty stomach. However, since…

The paradoxes of everyday living.

Above All

2008-07-03T01:41:00.000-07:00

"Above all" is the name of a nice little Christian hymn. It is also the stupid slogan of the United States Air Force. Well, for me, it is about these nice clouds I saw when I peeked out of the window while travelling from Pittsburgh to Chennai.

So, on my flight from Pittsburgh to Newark in a teeny weeny Embraer, I saw these nice little cloud fluffs. Later research showed them to be Altocumulus with a little bit of Cumulus. Turns out local flights in USA fly quite low when compared to international flights. The view through them was awesome. I was trying to locate Pittsburgh using my meager knowledge of Pennsylvanian geography for about 10 minutes till I realized that at those speeds, we would have passed Pittsburgh aeons ago.

On my flight from Newark to Bombay, the plane was bigger (a Boeing, I guess) and faster and the altitude was much higher. Now I saw a thick white sheet outside and man, was that heavenly! Seriously… Like a pure white cotton sheet stretching for miles… One of the most awesome sights I've ever seen.

And then I fell asleep.

Writing

2008-06-29T18:51:00.000-07:00

I was just reading Philip Roth and there's a quote by him describing writing as "excrescence of the brain's excrescence". The word excrescence is ugly enough and sure enough describes ugly stuff (something growing out of something else: a wart). Being (or rather, wanting to be) a writer myself, that set me thinking. Why do we write what we write?

The usual answer is that writing is a form of self-expression, just like music and art. Writing is our way of taking a particular skill called "being good with words" and give shape to thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions and broadcasting them to a wider audience. That's a pretty involved answer, but what does it mean exactly? So I looked back and wondered: How do I feel before, when and after I write?

For me, at least, writing usually happens when I'm strongly feeling about something. There's a strong sense of conviction about a certain issue or a situation or a person or a thing. Do not confuse this sense of conviction to a sense of clarity. Sometimes it is unclear what it is exactly about a particular thing that I'm so convicted about, but nevertheless the conviction is there. And the necessity to get it out in the open.

Perhaps, it has something to do with the conscious/subconscious thing. Not often do I write when I'm consciously aware of the exact things I'm going to say. Usually, only the subconscious experiences this conviction and writing is my way of buying the conscious into the thoughts of the subconscious. Yes, writing is sometimes all about convincing myself about something the subconscious knows already.

But there is this other thing which I call the "trigger factor". I'll tell you how that works. Usually I think a lot about anything and everything. "John, you think too much" has been said by nearly everybody I know and have conversations with. Well, that's my job. I think. And often, unrelated ideas and thoughts are formulated and stored somewhere down there (the subconscious?). All of a sudden, a particular event happens which "triggers" all these thoughts into cohesion. It's like when you're playing Sudoku and all of a sudden, you fill in this one particular space which holds the key to solving all the other spaces. It's like the middle piece of a jigsaw puzzle which touches all the other pieces and gives them the shape that they were missing before.

This trigger factor could be anything: an off-the-cuff remark by a friend or by myself, watching the news, a line from a book or a movie or a song's lyric, anything. That particular event makes everything seem coherent and substantive. As soon as that event occurs, I get this strong urge (perhaps craving would be the better word) to get near a laptop or a paper and pen. I HAVE to write it down. I HAVE to. Anything I'm doing at that time is not even remotely important, no matter how critical it may actually be. Till I get to my laptop or a piece of paper, the rest of the day is a haze. No great conversations. No attention to the real world. No attention to hunger or the needs of the body. The need of the mind takes precedence over everything else.

Often have I made the mistake of ignoring that trigger and going back to doing what I was doing, thinking I would recover the train of creative thought at a later stage. But no, it doesn't happen. Rarely does my train of thought go down the same track twice. I need to write it down before it dissipates. Set it in stone for people to read and wonder. Nowadays, I don't ignore it. I just go ahead and write it, knowing perhaps that writing is one of the few things about myself that I genuinely like.

When I start writing, I usually don't feel anything. The brain is too focused. (I wish that would happen when I'm reading a scientific paper though.) I let rip on my keyboard and I usually don't move away till I finish. Maybe that is why I've only written short stories and essays. In that period of time, nothing else can take my attention. Chats and calls remain unanswered. Food is untouched. Music is unchanged. Even the posture doesn't change.

And after I finish writing is this sense of completion. If it is a really good piece, then bliss. Contentment. The conscious and subconscious are one. All is well with the world now: that kind of thing. Things may be horribly bad in my life, but I just wrote what I wanted to write the way I wanted to write it. Anodynous perhaps, just like smoking, drugs, alcohol, caffeine, chocolates and sex. Best thing to do would be to go to sleep immediately to cap a beautiful end to the day.

Well, I got a little carried away, didn't I? But that is how it usually is, the moment I finish writing something. A big big grin on your face.

Maybe one day, after I become a "great" writer, I would look back at this post and smile.

Geek PS: Turns out trigger-factor is a ribosomal chaperone in eubacteria.

Spilt Beverages

2008-06-22T04:28:00.001-07:00

I spilled my coffee seven times in the two-minute walk between my cubicle and the coffee machine.

Seven times. Hot coffee.

All over my hand.

First time: F***, that hurt...
Second time: Not again...
Third time: I'm really clumsy...

Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh times: Hmm, you know the coffee spilling is not the worst thing happening right now? Get your a** to the cubicle and blog.

Coffee dearest, spillest thou on my hand and scaldeth me! Thy awful taste I forbeareth, thy caffeine I lusteth for and thy mere existence in my hand well nigh before the sun dawneth, doth it not show thee the cravenness of my existence?

Doth thou hurt more than the lover that trusteth not? Or the friend that wanteth not? Or the momma and dadda, who for great things waiteth? Or will thee hurt more than the exalted expectations of mine own self?

Spill, coffee dearest, thy pain is welcome. Thou art all that is wrong with my world and all that is right too.

Salman Rushdie

2008-06-07T06:55:00.000-07:00

I've been raving about Salman Rushdie for too long. It was high time I blogged about him.

(No, you nitwits, you won't find anything on Padma Lakshmi here. This post is purely about his authorship.)

It all started one fine hot Chennai day. I went to British Council Library on Mount Road with a bunch of people (girls, of course... it's a library!) and spied a book on the shelf that was titled "Indian Authors". Salman Rushdie. Midnight's Children.

I like reading good lit. But that doesn't make me a connoisseur. I do not admit to being well-read and being able to reel off quotes from the back of my hand. However, what little I read, I appreciate. Before I picked up Midnight's Children, the only thing I knew about Rushdie was that he's an oh-so-famous Indian writer in English, he's married to an oh-so-hot Tamil chick (a hot Tamil chick!) and that he's oh-so-gonna-get-killed if he so much as takes one step into an Ayotullah-fied Iran.

The book stopped me DEAD in my tracks. It is not a conventional story written in conventional prose. It is not a stirring tale of a great hero/heroine rising from rags-to-riches or going from anonymity to superstardom. It had practically NONE of the ingredients I was used to reading in my previous forays into prose.

And yet, I LOVED it! I adored it. I still believe it is the best English book written in the modern era, so rightly winning the Booker of Bookers. Rushdie introduced me to the genre of magical realism (and helped me explore other exponents like Edgar Allan Poe and Gabriel Garcia Marquez). A genre of fantasy stuck uncompromisingly in reality. There's plenty of magic and wizardry. But underneath it is a stark reality.

More importantly, it presents the history of my dearly beloved country through the eyes of someone living it and loving it and leaving it. A history of India through the eyes of an Indian. An Indian who IS India because he was born on midnight, 15th August, 1947. A history where the facts are irrelevant and where thoughts, feelings, magical perceptions and heart-rending desires and humiliating desistance take center-stage. A vulnerable India, a betrayed India, a dark and bloody India. An India finding its strength in its vulnerability. An India that refuses to go away. An India, that when all is said and done and removed, stands alone as the greatest nation on earth. As a country, nay, as a person, with an inextinguishable soul. An India, despairingly beautiful and beauteously despairing. An India which you can't think of without being ashamed, but which you love anyway, from the bottom of your heart.

Previously, I was locked in my own personal struggle to explain what I felt for my country. The mixture of shame, regret, pride and love that tears the heart apart. Rushdie's book was a godsend. If you're an Indian reading this blog, I strongly recommend that you read Midnight's Children. You MUST! Every sane Indian (who's not a jihadi or a trishul-waving activist) must read this book to feel the pulse of a nation that has given so much and yet has taken so much suffering.

That's what Rushdie did to me. Conjured up and gave words to all those emotions. He takes you for a trip through his head and lets you examine his thoughts. He gives up Victorian grammar and ethic for a roller-coaster ride of thoughts and emotions in unassailable and beautiful prose. Sigh!

If Midnight's Children was about India and the Indian, the second book I read, The Ground Beneath Her Feet is about the lover and the beloved. Just like the country and the citizen join seamlessly into a single person in Midnight's Children, the male protagonist in The Ground Beneath Her Feet is One with his woman. It is a tale of love. Across the seas. Across space. Connected in a chaotic and perversely harmonious web of music. Rock music! Again, the sheer beauty of prose and the thought process of Rushdie blows your mind. In the book is a fictional song which makes rock history, called the Ground Beneath Her Feet. (As an aside, U2 put a tune to that song and I kinda liked it. Check it out here.)

The best thing I like about Rushdie is his tendency to write in the first person, making it sound strangely "real". This was a technique that I used in my stories too and hence it immediately struck a chord between me and the narrator of the novels. Though we've never met, I guess Rushdie and I agree that the simplest and most spontaneous way of conveying your thoughts to someone else is not to put it in a third person's mouth, even a fictional character, but to come outright and say "I'm saying this. These are MY thoughts and words." The spontaneity of the language is outstanding and should be read to be experienced.

The third Rushdie book I read was East, West, a compilation of short stories. Although the book is not so great compared to the previous two I've reviewed, there are still snatches of prose which are typically Rushdie and savorable.

Now, I'm reading Fury. I'm through about 60 pages and Rushdie has not disappointed. In my humbly arrogant opinion, I think no author can ever hope to convey what Rushdie does about the personal trauma of choice through his prose. Sigh! Wish I could write like that...

How I Waste Time

2008-05-27T02:05:00.000-07:00

Watch funny videos on YouTube
Check Gmail & YahooMail a thousand and one times
Check every 5 minutes on Cricinfo for updates (even when there are no matches)
Watch music videos on YouTube
Irritate my million and one female friends on GTalk
Check out where to have the next meal and with whom ("Hey! Have you had lunch? Wanna have tea?")
Go to Caribou and drink tea 20 times a day, usually with pleasant company
Play video-games late into the night (Hitman, AoE, C&C)
Buy video-games and get that "accomplished" feeling (Generous people please buy me real-time strategy games)
Watch movies that others have watched (and have asked you "What? You haven't seen That Bullshit Movie that Everyone Likes ??")
Watch episodes of TV-shows online (naa, not F.R.I.E.N.D.S... Ross & Rachel get me thinking about #16 on this list)
Check out stuff on Amazon.com that's so cool but that I'm never gonna buy (either due to unaffordability or due to principled opposition to Apple's monopolizing practices with the iPods)
Get into a discussion with someone else about evolution, string theory or anything scientific
Get into a discussion with someone else on how girls will always be girls and guys will always be guys and how that sucks
Dish out relationship advice to people as if I'm one great guru and then tell myself "Haha... Do you believe what you're saying?"
Think of how depressing my personal life is
Write quick and lovely four-liners and then not send them to the people they were intended for
Write useless blog posts like this one
Consciously go back and delete all the full-stops (check it if you want!)
Think of something to round-off to 20

Thresholding

2008-05-13T15:36:00.001-07:00

A very extensive conversation with a friend, as is often, the inspiration for this little piece. Somehow I keep stumbling on these topics during discussions of specific issues and then realize that they are applicable on a much larger scale than was originally intended. One such topic was the concept of thresholding.

While I will not go into the details of the actual conversation that set me thinking along these lines, I will probably start with a definition of thresholding. Thresholding, in geek terms, is to discretize a continuous system into two based on a tolerance/acceptance of one side over the other. Gobbledygook? In normal terms, thresholding is tantamount to drawing a line in the sand.

Thresholding has helped science in a wonderful way. It has helped reduce supposed infinities and discontinuities in logic into remarkable predictions made with a humility that only true scientists appreciate. For example, according to Schrödinger and Heisenberg, a particle can theoretically exist anywhere in the universe. Now, what's the use of such a theory, you might ask. But with this little trick called thresholding, we are able to predict where the particle can be 95% of the time. 100% vis-a-vis 95%. What's the big deal, you might ask? For an electron, 100% means the entire universe (and other universes, if they exist), whereas 95% means the tiny space in an atom as we know it. Yes, our willingness to forgo that 5% has made such a huge difference to our knowledge. In fact, all knowledge of modern chemistry is directly or indirectly reliant on this little trick.

The previous paragraph, if you didn't read it, is an example of what I call explicit thresholding. Why choose 95%? Why not 98%? Why not 99.99%? That particular question can never be answered satisfactorily, because it will somehow incorporate the word that scientists learn to abhor: "arbitrarily". Meaning, out of choice or accepted convention. Meaning, there's no "good" reason for it: it's just a number that works.

Most statistical and probabilistic analysis work this way. You are first required to fix a confidence-limit. An arbitrary limit that you use to tell yourself "I will allow this much error to creep into my calculations." And then whatever result you get, you take it with a pinch of salt. How big a pinch depends on the limit you fixed in the first place. This is what I call explicit thresholding, a human imposition on the laws of nature so that we mortals can understand it better.

There is the other type of thresholding which is implicit and which does not need a human opinion. For example, how much can you bend a pencil before it breaks? At what minimum height do you have to drop a coconut so that it shatters? How far away from a gun should you stand to confidently say that a bullet wouldn't hurt you? How strong should a bridge be to carry the weight of 100 trucks at the same time? These are the kind of things in which human opinion does not matter. A threshold already exists by nature and we can do our best to estimate it.

Now, to the more interesting and confusing stuff: life. Thresholds apply to life at a very personal level. In relationships. In a career. Every time someone says "I've had enough", they are applying a threshold to some aspect of their life. What confounds this situation even further is that almost never are we sure of what our threshold is. Setting and improving thresholds for trust, hope, faith, patience, hurt and pain is part of the learning process and part of what you would call natural growth into an adult. People who have fixed thresholds suffer almost as much as people who keep moving them often. Finding the right balance, often out of necessity, often because life does not offer you a choice, is what life is all about. Thresholds of tolerance are extremely important in two individuals deciding whether they are mutually compatible for a relationship. Often they would test each other till the edge of the cliff. And then, either they pull themselves together and live happily ever after. Or one of them jumps and quits the relationship.

But it would be wrong on my behalf if I did not point out that thresholds do not apply to everything. There are two things that, in my opinion, can never be thresholded. The bad one first: Hate. There is almost no limit to the extent humans can hate each other. We can hate the other person for trivial things like being of a different color. Or for being from a different country. Or for following a religion. Or for just being different. Or to make money out of it. At the other extreme, people tend to hate each other because they are too similar too. Man doesn't need a reason for hate. Ask Pol Pot. Ask the jihadists of Pakistan. Ask the Bajrang Dal of India. Ask Narendra Modi. Ask Hitler. Ask Osama Bin Laden. Ask George W. Bush. (I personally see no difference between the last two.)

And then the good one: Love. Love in any form can never be thresholded. Nobody will ever say "I love him/her only so much and not more than that." When a person says "I love you" and means it, you can never ask "How much?". That question does not even arise, although it is extremely tempting to ask it. This is true for all "kinds" of love. And although it is difficult to believe for an absolute cynic like me, it is true even of romantic love.

Yes, sometimes it doesn't work out. Sometimes relationships fizzle out. But if that happens, then there can only be one of two explanations: one, the love wasn't real; two, love wasn't enough. Usually, after a break-up, a person can feel one of two things: one, "Oh my God! What was I thinking?"; two, "I love him/her. Am I going to regret this forever?". The reason people break up is not because there was a threshold to love, but because all the other things that go into a relationship had broken their thresholds. The other things like trust, hope and faith. It's a sad world we live in where love just ain't enough.

And on that melancholic note, I sign off. Au revoir!

Perspective

2008-03-30T20:45:00.000-07:00

Perspective. From Latin, per specere, to look through.

Do you ever wonder whether what you see or hear is really what it is? Now, I'm not really talking about a Matrix-like situation created by the Wachowski brothers. I'm talking about how our realization of the world and our notion of truth, in general, is highly dependent on our sensory inputs, namely touch, taste, smell, hearing and vision. Of these, we react immediately and impulsively to touch, taste and smell. However, the advancement of human culture has necessitated that vision and hearing are not merely restricted to being senses, but serve as thoroughfares for assimilation of knowledge, discussion, debate and choice. Ultimately, the receptacle of the mind reaches the "cultural" or "social" world predominantly through these two senses.

So, knowing that what we see and hear affects what we know and how we react, the question to be asked is: are we a product of our environment or is our environment the product of us? From one standpoint, the environment or society is obviously made up of the people present in it and their needs and desires . From another standpoint, society seems to be this uncontrollable animal with whom you need to "learn" how to interact rather than interact in the way you would want to (given a choice).

Is there a choice at all? Fundamentally, everything a person does can be broken down into a set of discrete choices. But some question the utility of a choice in situations where choosing one situation over the other does not really offer a distinctive personal benefit. It is like asking a person the method of his execution: hanging or bullet. Ultimately, the person would die and this choice is of absolutely no utility to him. Life is full of such choices.

I digress. Coming back to perspective, the animal that I previously described can be approached/tamed in different ways. You can reward it. You can beat it. You can restrain it. Or you can just let it be. An individual's approach to dealing with society and the so-called choices offered by it are often highly complex and variable. It is probably reasonable to say that you can always find a situation where two individuals would react differently, no matter how alike they are. However, it is not wrong to say that perspective is the only channel by which we can experience society. The very concept of good/bad arises almost entirely from perspective. And when you have a choice presented in front of you, perspectives can tend to conflict either between two people or in a single person's head.

So is a highly individualized perspective a good or bad thing? A bit of both perhaps. If perchance, that there IS a certain right way of doing things in a particular situation, then inflexibility is not a good thing because the chances of you finding it with a fixed perspective are low. On the other hand, an unchanging perspective is often necessary to "get through" things and move from "doing" to "accomplishing". While a "social" perspective is wide-spread because of the success rate of such a perspective, changing times and situations can never fully rule out uncommon or individualized perspectives.

Truth is like a diamond in a dark room. Perspective is like a torch. Unless you move the torch around, chances of you finding the diamond are slim. Unless you agree to disagree with people, you cannot find the truth.

There are some people who feel they are inviolably right because their perspective makes complete sense to them. Almost all of us have felt this way at some point of time. We take offence at disagreement, because we cannot remotely fathom how something which makes so much sense (to us) is unacceptable to others.

However, nature has taught us, and has been constantly teaching us about how wrong we could be. A little humility is often needed when we consider the perspectives of others, wrong though we think they are. Ptolemaic astronomers thought the sun revolved around the earth when all along they had the data to disprove themselves. It took a fresh Copernican perspective to disprove them.

A perspective, from the Latin roots, is like a view point. A point in space and time from which you can look around and absorb the information. Given human nature, we should probably say that a perspective is a viewpoint from a point in space and time and for a particular person. Considering that the truth, if it could be found, can only be experienced in terms of perspective, it is unwise to restrict yourself to a single viewpoint. It is quite possible that what you're looking for is invisible to you but visible from somewhere else, isn’t it? However, even an individualized perspective is not easily thrown away since it has come out of experience (or lack thereof). It is indeed difficult to look through the eyes of others. But that is precisely what we must do if we wish to lead fulfilling lives.

So, where do we draw the line? The two extremes are this: one, never change your perspective; two, consider all perspectives. The reality, I guess, should lie somewhere between them. Never changing one's perspective and denouncing all others is a sure recipe for disaster. However, you can never please the entire world and so you can never really consider all perspectives. Perhaps the best way out would be to consider immediately relevant perspectives while giving a slightly higher importance to your own. This not only satisfies the uncertainty that your perspective COULD be wrong, it would also mean retaining control of your own life and not ceding it to the society, the animal. If in a situation, we do see that our perspective is wrong or doesn’t bring results or makes yourself unhappy, then you should consider changing it. How far do you need to be pushed to change it is another issue altogether. But changing your perspective does not bring you down in any way, if you don't change it often enough. Again, change does not have to be a complete transformation. It could be an inclusive/accommodative change, where there is room for more than one perspective.

To put the lid on perspective and its relevance, we have an Aristotelian quote: To perceive, is to suffer. Truly, perspective is suffering, whether you change it or not. But this would lead to arguments of a higher level, of life and love and happiness and suffering and the true meaning behind living the way we live. Frankly, I don't think I can discuss them just as yet.

Cricket vs Football: Personal Impressions

2006-07-01T04:37:00.000-07:00

Let me admit this at the start. I am a cricket lover and hence my views may tend to be slightly biased towards cricket. However, in my own irreverent fashion, I would state them as I wish to state them. What makes me write this article was a small scuffle among my colleagues as to which was the better game: cricket or football. Needless to say so, I took the side of the former. Yet I still like football. Here are my arguments on why cricket is better than football.

As stated previously, I'm a hardcore cricket fan. Still, I couldn't help myself getting caught up in the football fever surrounding the FIFA World Cup 2006 and therein lies the beauty of football. It is difficult to get a person, any person, to dislike football. True to this nature, football is well and truly the most widely appreciated international sport.
The appeal of football lies in its inherent simplicity. The rules are very simple. Do not touch the ball with your hands. Do not foul. Kick it between those two posts on the opponent's side. And yet, it is not easy. You need dexterity and accuracy to make those passes. You need teamwork to receive those passes. And you need that skill and presence of mind to shoot or to defend the ball near the goal. Of course, any football team worth its salt will tell you that it is not so easy as it seems. You actually need a lot of strategic planning before you can defeat the opponent.
But what matters and what is appreciated by the public at large is not the formulation or the brilliance of the strategy by itself, but rather in the actual, physical, execution of that strategy. Even then, it is the individual's skill or the teamwork exhibited that is the cynosure of all eyes. After a match, ask the average football fan details of the strategy employed by his team on the field and he would mostly draw a blank. And this is precisely where football differs from cricket.

Cricket is a complex game and therein lies both its advantage and its disadvantage. Disadvantage, because it takes a certain amount of knowledge to appreciate it and the common public cannot be expected to "learn" to enjoy. Advantage, because then it becomes more than just a ball game. In fact, it is more closer to chess than any other ball game in history. No cricketer can survive on mere skill. The batsman has to adapt to the situation, be it setting targets or chasing them, assessing his strengths and weaknesses. The bowler has to adapt to the batsman's style and the pitch. The field setting has to be designed to get the batsman out or to stop the flow of runs. And the captain (the poor captain) should have a bird's eye view of what is going on and manage his team to get the best out of them at the right time. Strategy plays a vital part of the game in all it's aspects: batting, bowling and fielding. The average cricket fan can sit and talk to you for long hours on what bowling/batting resources he would use and how he would use them, were he made the captain.

Football is purely physical. Cricket brings in abstract concepts like strategy and temperament. In football, individual skill and team work are the only priorities. In cricket, you also need to out-think the opponent. You need to adapt to changing situations. You need a brain: a thinking brain. If you were to pit 10 lions led by a hare and 10 hares led by a lion in a game of football, the lions would win easily. In cricket, the hares would win.
Of course, that doesn't mean individual skill can be sacrificed or team work can be made unnecessary. As a bowler, you have to be able to land the ball in the right places. As a batsman, you have to read the ball and time it and play the appropriate stroke. As a fielder, you have to pouch those catches and stop those runs and direct those throws accurately. Teamwork is also crucial. Batsmen need to have proper understanding while running between the wickets. The bowler should bowl for the field set for him.

The great Pele called football "Jogo Bonito" or "the beautiful game". True, football is beautiful. But is cricket any less beautiful? I don't think so. A true sportsman will marvel as much as he would at a Ronaldinho pass as he would at a Tendulkar hook or a Dravid cover drive. Can a Messi strike be less magnificent than Yuvraj and Kaif stealing a run which never existed? Is a Beckham bender any better or worse than an Akram inswinger or a Waqar yorker or a Warne googly? And is it not unfair to compare Oliver Kahn and Jonty Rhodes to see who can dive better to stop those balls of different sizes? Beauty is intrinsic in sport and both cricket and football manifest it equally.

Cricket is primarily of British origin and is hence limited in geographical spread to a few parts of the erstwhile British Empire, whereas football has a nearly universal fan following. Some people point this out as specious proof that football is better than cricket. I see this as proof that cricket is better than football. It takes a certain amount of sophistication and knowledge to appreciate the nuances of cricket and obviously, you cannot expect everybody to be sophisticated and knowledgeable. To learn and appreciate cricket, a certain incubation time is necessary and perhaps, a 1000 years from now, cricket's fan following will be greater than or equal to that of football.

A personal angst that I have against football is the fact that cheating and faking pain to get free kicks and penalty kicks is a standard part of the game. Football is more prone to hooliganism than cricket. Besides, football does not seem to exhibit "the Spirit of the Game", something which is very very important in cricket. The Spirit of fairness of play, of equanimity of success and defeat, of appreciation of the opponent, is sorely lacking in football. True, passions run high in cricket too, typically in India-Pakistan and England-Australia matches. Still, Indians admire Wasim Akram and Englishmen admire Shane Warne, albeit grudgingly. Compare this with football, where a Korean striker's contract with an Italian club was scrapped because he scored a goal in a World Cup match between South Korea and Italy. How scrummier can it get?

In cricket, unfairness of play exists, but is unanimously condemned. The Azharuddins and Cronjes are banned from cricket. The Dennesses are told to mend their ways. But in football, everything is condoned. Ivory Coast will be penalized but Holland will not, although anybody who saw that match will tell you that Holland fouled ten times more than Ivory Coast. Worst part, nobody raises an appeal! Not even a kitten's mew. Football, for all its beauty and simplicity, will always be a hooligan's game. What can we do if there are more hooligans than gentlemen?

Reeks of snobbishness? Maybe. But I still cannot help wanting to see the next Brazil match. And that is what football does to you. It draws you to it without you having to think. I like football. But I can never love it as I do cricket.