Saturday, November 26, 2011

On Numbers

Why hello, reader. Recently I was asked by a professor of mine to participate in a quirky little activity: writing six dissertations on an abstract concept of my choosing in different common rhetorical modes. Being mathematically inclined, I chose to discuss the concept of numbers. Perhaps I'm posting this more for my benefit than for the enlightenment of the reader, but that shouldn't detract from the post's marginal value. After all, selfishness is inherent in all motives. That's a philosophical argument for another day, though. I'm going to be writing six little pieces on the concept of numbers, and for added fun you should try to guess which mode each was written in.You may find the list I'm using here.

Number 1: Numbers are thought by many to be more than simple concepts. But does a number have any inherent meaning? To answer this question, let's examine the number 3. I draw two similarly-oriented half-circles both connected at their ends and move it so that it's taller than it is wide. What does this mean? You may recognize it as a number, but what if I distort it a little? Imagine I make the symbol incredibly short, and it begins to resemble a line. In my mind, homeomorphic shapes are essentially the same. What meaning do you see in the line? Certainly you don't associate it with a triangle or a Triforce.

Number 2: I'm not really sure when my fascination with numbers came to be. There was always that arcane book called "number power" sitting on the near-unreachable shelf in my parents' room taunting me like the raven on the bust of Pallas. I'd earlier seen my father reading it, and the looks of twisted confusion on his face as he was reading (presumably) the later, more difficult chapters made me realize that I deeply wanted to read the book. One day, I hauled a large chair into the room and hoisted myself until I could barely grab the book with my seven-year-old fingers. I can't remember a time in my childhood when I was more enthralled by a book.

Number 3: It is my opinion that common knowledge about the different kinds of numbers is only skin-deep. Most people could tell you that the integers are whole numbers, and almost as many could tell you that real numbers are made up of the integers as well as the decimals. But who knows that imaginary numbers have both a real and imaginary component? We all know that pi is irrational, but how many people that you meet on the street could tell you that irrational numbers are defined as ones that can't be expressed as a fraction? And what of the transcendental numbers? The eternal symbol, e, can't possibly be the root of a real polynomial with real or integer coefficients (e.g. 4.5x^2 + 1.33x + 0.66), but how many people would know that? This lack of general knowledge is lamentable.

Number 4: According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary , are "arithmetical value(s), expressed by a word or symbol, representing a particular quantity." This definition, however, makes numbers seem less important than they actually are. Most would agree that numbers are more than just for counting: they allow for the creation of a mathematical framework in which we solve various problems in the world. Without numbers, people would have an awfully hard time communicating amounts, dates, or specific information about cargo, food, etc. Numbers are basically the blocks upon which buildings, machines, and inventions are built.

Number 5: I believe there should be a national day of recognition for math and science in the US. Granted, we wouldn't get a day off from school, but it would be a day to reaffirm our commitment to education and engineering. Consider just how much numbers have shaped our society: without them we would be severely limited in our ability to communicate amounts. For example, most people would be dissatisfied with the US government if their yearly debt report simply stated "a lot." Without a strong commitment to science and math,  we as a country are doomed to fall behind other industrialized nations very rapidly in the fields of innovation and business, thus such a day would not only be beneficial but necessary.

Number 6: No one is quite sure who wrote the first number. Of course, we've all seen the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but the point at which humans evolved enough to sufficiently understand the concept of "amount" and the written language is still obscure. Obviously the need to communicate amount is what preceded the invention of numbers. As societies evolved, the need for numbers became inevitable, and thus they came to be used in common practice. With the proliferation of these symbols, suddenly a new level of depth of meaning in communication was possible. As a result, societies were able to expand, civilizations arose, buildings were made and copied elsewhere, and humanity was able to advance.

I hope you had fun reading my spiels. In case you were wondering, the rhetorical modes that these were written in will be available at some point on Sunday or Monday. As always, have a nice day.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

On the merits of blogging

        Twitter. Tweets. The ubiquitous Fail Whale. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't know the meaning of any of these in today's society. Why have they become so popular? Are the services that they're offering or the ideas they're symbolizing really that valuable? Above all, who would pay attention to, or even care about what Taylor Swift is eating today? If she isn't even in my Monkeysphere, why should I care about Taylor Swift at all? The answer lies in the fact that we live in a celebrity-worshiping culture.
        Of course, the knowledge of the going-ons in the life of a particular figure have no intrinsic value. Yet, tweets have become some sort of commodity as of late. Think of them as some sort of social currency; we dredge the schedules of celebrities from their public pages so we may share them with others in exchange for more gossip. The supply is in the social network, and the demand is in the heart of the general populace. Social economies of scale thrive upon the adoration of the public for its leading figures. But, if economic theory is applicable here, we must face the grim reality that some day there will be a market collapse.
        Consider Black Tuesday. People were reaping enormous profits off of the stock market. As news of this spread, more and more people joined with the belief that profit was just a moment and a dollar away. As more and more people were buying random stock on a whim, the markets became more unstable. When the stocks began to devalue, everyone panicked and dumped their shares onto the market. People lost a large amount of money and our nation was launched into the great depression. People and families suffered.
        Consider Akon. His managers were all the rage at parties because they could tell pretty much anyone what the star was up to. Others, wanting to gain similar status, started gathering information about celebrities with breakneck speed, believing that popularity was just a talking point or a click away. But many of these socialites failed to realize that not all of the information they had was important, and at some point people would tire of hearing their hapless chatter. This is the way the Twitter ends. This is the way the Twitter ends.

TL;DR: don't invest in gossip, it's worthless and it'll cause a social market meltdown. </rant>

Sunday, November 13, 2011

On Computing

        The World Wide Web in the recent years has really been living up to its title. Every day, innovation is fueling the expansion of the internet. Progress may seem slow at times, and when that seems to be the case it is useful to remember that progress can't be lost, and thus advances much like a glacier or tectonic plate: slowly but surely. Even when movement seems to be imperceptible, we can predict potentially enormous long-term effects. It is with this belief in the progress of the internet and the computing society that I form my response to a few valid criticisms against them.

  • Does the internet render privacy impossible?
    The question here is whether or not someone can remain truly anonymous in a society like ours. Even before the digital era, census data was available to any determined party. Now, credit card data is held online in databases of questionable security. Social networks render anonymity nearly unattainable for their members. However, there is a glimmer of hope for the independent mountain-man or retired CIA agent. If you keep a low profile in real life and don't give anyone reason to add your information to the internet, you're covered. This is, of course, assuming that you don't do the adding yourself.
  • Is the computer the end-all couch-potato maker?
    The answer to this question is an unequivocal "yes." Variety, as the cliche goes, is the spice of life: something that presents novel content on a regular basis will be highly addicting, and such is the case with the internet. But is this a bad thing? People have always had distractions; cave painting, pistol dueling, and arson to name a few. None of these require much effort from the participants, save the travelling effort. My point is that people throughout history have had the choice to remain sedentary, and while much productivity has much been lost from this, there isn't anything inherently bad about it. Anyone sufficiently interested in their own well-being will take it upon themselves to regularly exercise. Thus surfing the net should be regarded as simply a recreational activity, not as an obscene act to be vilified.
  • What if I'm disgusted by everything that I can find there?
    You must be new here. I have been on 4Chan and arguably seen the worst that the internet has to offer. However, being a product of my generation and heavy surfing, I am nearly immune to the negative effects of seeing things normally considered gross and appalling. If you're seriously offended by the things on the internet, just ignore them. That's not saying that illegal activities such as drug trafficking should be allowed, but grossness is just inherent in the ugly side of internet culture. You don't have to look at the pictures of polycystic kidneys or blatant pron if you don't want to.
  • Will there be a new social divide to conquer because of the limited availability of computers?
    This question could have been raised decades ago when the first alphanumerical room-filling computer calculators were made. Of course everyone can't afford to lease the ENIAC. But now, the power of a computer that used to fill hundreds of square meters is able to be compressed onto a silicon chip smaller than your fingernail. Moore's Law has a corollary: computing power will get cheaper and cheaper as the years go bye. Assuming this trend will hold true until 2022, the highest end computers of  today will be reduced in cost to around 1/32 of their cost today. In the future, though computers may be slightly expensive now, they will definitely be more widely available in the future, and thus there is no  reason to worry that the internet will cause a social divide.
Of course, I have a bias for defending the merits of the internet, but I see these arguments as having some degree of objective truth. </argument>

Sunday, November 6, 2011

On Trolling

I've often said that there are two types of people on the internet, the people who are horrible trolls, and those who aren't. But that sentence standing on its own makes it seem as if I think that half of the people in the net are mean-spirited bastards, and that's not true. However, to say that trolling is only a small problem is a gross understatement. It's like saying you'd like to visit a place where 49% of the people are completely rude and possibly homicidal, maybe even cannibalistic. Most non-trolls would agree that the world would be a better place if we could all just get along. At best, the trolls are slightly annoying. At their worst, trolls are completely unbearable. No amount of language filters can hold them back, and they will continue to plague the rest of us unless we can cut off their food source.
All trolls are known to thrive on the hate of the community. They relish when their ignorant comments get serious responses, and they bathe in the annoyance of all who they interact with. The act of "feeding the troll" is often considered to be detrimental to the health of the feeder, as they are left in an angered state and the trolls go merrily off on their own ways, after forcefully writing a few expletives and pejoratives, given. It seems the only way to stop the relentless advance of those who wish all others ill will in the internet is to put on a stone mask of indifference, but doing so comes with a price. If you actually get to the point where you are immune to the vitriolic language of a troll, you find that you have become so jaded that having fun on the internet seems almost impossible.
You may ask "how do we defeat the troll?" The sad fact of the matter is that you usually can't. No amount of reason will win you an argument with these monsters. If you stoop to there level and hurl insult after insult, the troll will surely panic and run, but you will also become a troll yourself. However, there is a quantum of hope for victory. Deep down, all trolls are actually just emotionally hurt and vulnerable people. If all else seems lost, try appealing to the inherent goodness of the troll. There is a possibility that you can convert them back into helpful members of the internet society if you do this. However, never be fooled, and never forget that most trolls have an extremely hard shell of cynicism surrounding them. Only attempt to convert trolls if you're sure you can survive their relentless barrage of insults.