Long mails

Normally i would change the title from 'long mails' to the 'the art of writing long mails' but since i am no expert on that(not yet) current one is justified.
Why is writing long mails important?
A random bunch of people(of course you have experienced different lengths of mails in their life) would argue that they hate long mails. Mails are supposed to be concise,and to be point ,and if possible objective.Also it should be devoid of any information which can be logically deduced or is already known the receipient.
But this is also the reason for writing long mails. Nobody would read long mails back to back if they really have seen lot of mails in their life which also means that if you are a student,apprentice, employee, or anyone who wants to give up working and take communium with Dalai Lama must write long mail. It will help in later justifying the fact that what you wanted to say or what you are being asked currently is already in the mail and the questioner will not doubt that. Even if he does he will say 'where' pointing to your mail and you point out with a index finger the region on the monitor 7 inch measured from below of screen and when he say ' i dont see it here'.
'Well sir,you have to read the whole thing to get to it'.
This can be never be doubted in the history of mail writing.
So if we accept the fact that writing mail is important,especially long ones, you ask yourself ,'well,if the mail has to be long, i have to write something. how the hell should i know what to write'.
Valid question. In fact, the answer lies within your self,look inside,meditate.
Whenver you got asked a question in school about something you don't know , what do you do .
you write whatever you know.
This principle will work for almost anything.
Let's assume the point which the receipient expects the mail to be about is a singularity, that is ,it can never be reached.like a black hole or x=0 for 1/x, you just keep tending to it.Start by going around the point slowly and slowly, if you add an imaginary number, then you might as well go in spirals, that is recommended. As you pick up pace ,remember you don't have to go to the singularity, now you start moving away.
Surprise,you were on a saddle.
Just like a ball on a saddle starts going towards the minima ,then just slides away on either of the sides, that is precisely what you need.This conversation being metaphorical to a large extent must be understood in applied sense, just visualise how would you do it and pictures will start making sense.
To add more concrete stuff, also deliberately add wrong facts in your mail which you know are not true and the receipeint thinks that you must be knowing this but you have to use this benefit of doubt.
As you scribble deliberate-wrong facts ,the receipent's attention will be diverted to those one and he will start correcting you,if by any means,he starts reading the mail. then the wrongness will amass so much that he will give up and a ask you to be present physically.which would ineffect ruin the purpose of the mail.
Then there is a silver lining, make sure you are not present there at the very moment.
Just after a couple of days,his anger would reduce, will think of you a naive human (he couldn't be more wrong,could he?) and will start sympathazing your state and will give you more time to do the same stuff.
Well that's great ,ain't it.
Long mails prevent the people to express instantaneous emotions while reading something wrong/offensive which results in getting extra time, sympathy and perhaps another benefit of doubt.
On googling long mails, you will people selling softwares with the catchline tired of reading long mails,now hear them.
Don't you do that. gibberish writing on hearing will sound exactly as you want it to, mostly abusive.

Cartoons

This should have been the original title of Joan's book considering the fact that nobody used to care about evolution and its social consequences(anthropomorphizing evolution) before the 'selfish gene' theory of Richard Dawkins. He deserves attention and credit for introducing selfishenss in every dick and hairy's mouth. 

I doubt Joan would have even considered writing this book if it was not for Dawkins, so in every respect it must be Dawkinsian selfishness.I doubt Darwin even knew about it.

Something funnier

Many fellas would have watched the classic 'V for Vendetta' full of heavy sounding quotes which sound good and upon reflection even seem to have meaning to it.

This is a famous quote from the movie and there is also this idea of memes of richard dawkins which i consider to be his greatest contribution.Notice the similarities.

Read the bold ones if  for clearler matchings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)

Some things i remeber as funny from the QM book on BransdenJoachain

Look at how many equations have to used simulatenously to get one formulation of a Gaussian wavepacket.How could anybody expect anyone to solve it. 

Straw dogs: old and the new

A very good old classic movie was recently shot again and sold,typically to the consumer it would be exactly the same movie just having new actors and maybe a better camera. But there were so starking differences between the movies in terms of crucial events to shaped the story that i couldn't help not thinking about and i also made notes while watching the old one after completing the new one.
The story in short is about a couple who are well-educated and come to spend time in countryside of the lady who had had past relations there and how surroundings folks react to it.React to it is of course an understatement.

Points to discuss:

1. In old, the hero is american and it might have contributed towards his and Brit's hostility towards each other which is not the case in the new one as everyone is goddamn american.

2. Openness of starring actress without minding the environment they were living in could be a major source of how events turned. like she didn't use to wear a bra which made the construction workers of their garage ogle her which she being a city girl must have known about.

3. Hero's suposedly intellectual stand on these activites,which suggest he was incapable of taking actions because he was afraid of burly countryside folks and also because he being a city guy couldn't confront things directly,he had to indirectly get to the point. this is amply reflected in his inability to ask the garage-fixing folks about the murder of their pet cat and not being clearly able to refuse the offer of hunting made by garage folks.

4.  His supposedly knowing of his lesser part of manliness made his have a ego trip to agree to go on a hunting trip which he knew he couldn't manage and he unable to say no, got along the guys to make them feel that he was closer to them which country folks knew was rubbish.

5. The rape part is a key sequence in the movie and it is entirely different in the two movies although schematically the same. The essential differences being that the first rape by her bygone era boyfriend was not against her wishes,eventually she came to enjoy it which is justified by her expressions and also the statement 'hold me' in the old movie. while it is not so in the new movie because she was more on her husband's side that in the old movie. And hence she resisted the rape more forcefully and also was not taken aback when the second person came to rape her.exactly opposite of which happened in the old one where she was very surprised when the second person came. 

6. The different support level of women in old and new movie is clearly an indication of the level of understanding between the couples. IN the old movie, she was vying for attention and also had nothing to do which made her available more so compared to the new movie. In the old one, the husband being a physicist was more apart intellectually from the actress and they had a sort of mutual distrust between them which is reflected in the last sequence when the actor asks her to take jeremy to upper floor and shut the door which she refuses to do and insists on giving up jeremy.Exactly opposite of this happens in the new movie in which the actor and actress casted as a writer and tv actress respectively allows them to professionally respect each other and also understand each other better. This we see in the part when the actor explains her the meaning of straw dogs in the new movie which is not there in the old movie.Also in the climax,the actress complies the actor which results in handling the situation more harmoniously compared to the old movie.

7. Being a small countryside the people have smaller thinking horizons which leads them to object to anyone which is against convention like everyone likes football so even the non-interested that is the actor and actress have to go there and when the author argues about his ill-faith in bible,village folk gets angry.

8. Coming to question of why the actress did not tell her husband about her rape.

1. It maybe because of her firm belief that her husband was incapable of any manly action that is doing something physically. And he would start yelling at her or something like that.. this is shown in the part in which he comes back from hunting and his wife says that he is a coward.

2. Other reason might be that she did not want her husband to get hurt.

3. In the old movie,she would not tell because she enjoyed the first rape but this reason does not work for the second movie.

8. The climax of the movie amply reflects the mob mentality in the countryside folks who cannot think above what they have not seen.

I like the new movie more than the old one because there are less logical inconsistencies in the new.

wiki pages might shed some more light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Dogs_(1971_film)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Dogs_(2011_film)

Sunshine: the movie that couldn't have been more wrong

Yesterday i saw sunshine,a movie directed by Danny Boyle the star director of Slumdog Millionaire. There were so many scientific inaccuracies in the film which i listed out and some which i read from wikipedia a while ago. The fact is,despite that,the movie seems to keep you glued till the end although it is disheartening to notice that the key parts of the story were based on so simple science portaryed wrong.
The plot is simply that the sun has somehow burnt out and humans are facing winter and hence someone decides for some people to go to sun and ignite it using fusion bombs. Of course,the chances and low and everything like that.

If anyone does not want to read the whole thing the summary of the movie's response is
1. no zero gravity in space
2. effect of sun's gravitation
3. in the end when the docking between icarus 1 and icarus 2 is faltered, the human beings which go out are not blown out like bubble gums which they should because there is no pressure outside and body internal pressure must expand the body.
4. the space suits are gold colored why the hell should they not be white to reflect maximum sunlight and keep them cool.
5.Psychologist is himself mad.
6. i didn't expect it from danny boyle.
nice things
7.they take logical decisions.

The bewildering thing that happens in the movie is that the entire movie is about a spaceship which is in space(no suspense whoa!) and there is no zero gravity. That;s so awesome to observe that in some parts of the spaceship you will get hints of zero gravity like in the aisle these people travel by a toy cycle attached to the ground, but in every other part of the spaceship humans are sitting on the table,sleeping ,having lunch but not floating,even water is liquid there and the food is not frozen. So cool, huh?

Even if we were to assume that the movie starts from a place where spaceship is very close to sun and hence sun being very gigantic has its own gravitational field,then sun must be at the bottom of where these people stand quite comfortably as is the with people standing on earth but it is fascinating to see people seeing sun from the window of spaceship sitting on a bed evidently shown by the spaceship psycologist Dr. Searle.

So far these kind of inaccuracies do not affect the movie's story as such because the whole movie could be assumed to be following those scientifc facts mentioned above but the turning point comes here.
When Icarus 1 and 2 are docked and suddenly the locking mechanism fails the two ships are seperated but then there are four people in Icarus 1 and only one suit in there,so in principle only one can go and one is required to stay behind because of the need to open the door.Now there are two points i would like to discuss, let's start with what i prefer.
No it would be better discuss the story as it is chronologically.
When the discussion inside the ship comes to who would wear the suit, their are two claims, one from the captain of the ship and other from the physicist onboard.The other two support the physcist's claim because he is required to conclude the mission in its entirety by dropping the bomb on sun but the captain insists that he wants the suit.
Here it becomes funny when he says that him being the captain of ship order the physcist to remove the suit and nobody gives a fuck to that.
Now coming to discussion on why these people require suits. Not because there is no pressure outside and hence their body would expand like a bubble gum and explode but because the temperature outside is -273 degree celsius. Now agreed the temperature outside is low but its not absolute zero its 3 kelvin not 0 kelvin as they thought. So the whole agenda in the ship became to protect them from coldness. And they tried to wrap as much insulation around them. Did they not realise that for heat flow you require something to conduct the heat through by convection,conduction or radiation. Surely the body is not radiating heat so fast if it is, and since there is no air in space there cannot be any possible conduction or convection.
And importantly if they could even manage to escape temperature differential which i guess one of them did,they did not burst under the effect of internal body pressure being equal to the pressure exerted by our atmosphere on us.if danny boyle could have only read the wikipedia page on space suits.

Now coming to good points about  the movie
there was no love affair although the wiki page on film tells that danny wanted one but physicst which he was consulting with thought it would be too  embarassing to have a love affair in space.These people are going to save humanity.
Also there was psychologist on board who had the purpose of being the heads on people in place and i doubt he was good at that since he himself was messed up and wanted to see the sun in full brightness and recommended it knowing that it is dangerous.
There were lot of logical talk in the movie which is apparently very rare.When the decision was to be made on who will take the suit to survive other people not being selfish allowed the physicist to do so.
Surprsingly there was only one physicist on board.
There was an earth room in the space ship which simulated earth for people when they were told to do so by Dr. Searle.

Of models

Any sense of abstraction associated with a physical reality will qualify as a model. Note that this is not a definition of a model or even coming close to encompass all the different things meant whenever the term ‘model’ comes up (Certainly not the Standard Model in physics).

 A simple example would be to think of a city which has some islands within it which are connected by bridges.  This diagram itself suggests an abstraction of reality which is why we would call it a model. Abstraction plays a very important role is sciences namely it help think about specific aspects of the given problem without referring to un-meanigful details irrelevant in the given context. For the given system the problem is “Starting from any landmass (A,B,C or D) can we commute in such a way so as to cross each bridge only once and come back to the starting point (zero displacement).”

Now before moving on,the reader must herself try to do so. A better diagram for the given problem would be another level of abstraction so we make a new diagram. Will it simplify things. Maybe.

Starting from A ,we can choose 2 paths,one to C or to D, from C we can go to B or D and from D we can go to B or C. A to C to D to A will leave B untraversed.hence we must go to B.From B we must go to C and the only choice left is only other bridge we untraversed from C to A which we choose and come to A. we missed bridge B to A. After trying several such paths, we discover an important thing that if we leave from one landmass(vertex henceforth), we need at least two bridges(edge henceforth) one for going out and one for coming back. this criterion is obiously satsifed by every vertex. But we notice a new difference here,that starting from any vertex if we randomly choose edges(previously untraversed ones) and keep on travelling,from a vertex having odd number of edges we can always move out from it and never come back.Let’s take some random paths A-> C->A->D,A->D->B->C->A->C, we can never come back to A now, since A has odd number of edges.

So at least in the given problem,we can say there does not exist any such path as required by the problem.

This is also known as Konigsberg Bridge Problem and was solved by Euler. Hence we demonstration the need and use of model to solve physical problems abstractly.

A model incorporates some fundamental phenomena underlying a given problem and tries to answer questions based on it or simply check if it matches the observations. Not all the times, especially in biological systems we know the underlying phenomena leading to the current observation. Hence it becomes important to choose to up to what level of details must be ingrained in the model and what kind of questions can it answer).

Modelling becomes useful when large numbers of rules are required to play a game and a human would mess up very soon in remembering all the details and how she should play.

“Mathematics is the sharpest tool of rational thought. While there is not always a mathematical solution to every problem in biology, the discipline of mathematics provides practice in clear thinking: expressing one's assumptions, testing them out, and predicting their consequences. Biological problems seem sooner or later to yield to mathematical formulations.”

-          Richard Gordon.

References:

1.       http://nrich.maths.org/2484

2.       http://life.biology.mcmaster.ca/~brian/biomath/careers.theo.biol.html

16th May 2013
Day ended by doing nothing productive. It;s a bad feeling of course that you think you have contributed nothing to your intellectual or professional life. I will meet priya tomorrow, perhaps to get cleared on where we stand regarding the model 2 's polymorphism and its stabilty which refuses to be solved by conventional computing methods. So far, our results are quite consistent with those of kokko and jennions. And we might be a bit ahead of them in the sense that we get some quite cool results like all females desert while male cares.We also see that that mammalian system care/desertion pattern cannot be derived as a result of our model. Which means that there are some additional factors at play regarding that like maybe sexual selection of what we initially thought but kokko seems to give an addtional factor called adult sex ratio,the number of males in a population to that of females. We know at a given instant, whichever sex is more in number is selected to provide care ,this bias can be due to OSR or ASR. Bias due to OSR is transient and eventally it leads to no bias as a result selecting for egalitarianism while the bias due to ASR is permanent and hence leads to sex role divergence as we see today.
Anyway, i watched this movie called 'primer' yesterday, its on time travel but in a more scientific way. the director,writer,producer and actor is the same person. isn't that fascinating and yes an engineer.
  

I completed season 7 of how i met your mother and also episode 1 of hannibal.
   
i also watched the serbian film which is apparently banned in a lot of countries. Indians dont even have a viewpoint on it. philosophy of knife is very bad quality and the style of movie does not make very good sense. its a 4 hour long movie.

It is the summer of 2013 in IISER pune and nothing fun is apparently going on in my life except that i am in the middle of completing research for the topic which will eventually lead to publication. I have lots of work to do or i think so.
Results are out and there is nothing incredible about them.Mediocrity does not pay and never will.
I am reading the paper of kokko and jennions which i find really a textbook. Lots of things going on there. once you read the whole thing you will question yourself,is this what they mean or is this what i understand and the good news is , there is no way of knowing except discussing it and priya, my guide, seems a lot busy these days because of the fact that she does not reply to my mails quickly if she ever does.
But these whole point of taking effort to do things sucks.
I worked very hard crapping a lot of subjects during my 12th standard, and of course i topped my school but the point is i crammed. and don't really have a good understanding of physical or mathematical concepts.
This developed my aversion from taking effort to do something. And it worked quite well till eve of exams before i got into trouble but still i managed.
Quite a few days back i came across an article in time of india editorial page(http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=pastissues2&BaseHref=TOIA/2013/05/06&PageLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01203&ViewMode=HTML) that effortlessness is the natural characteristics of a human or something like that, but they said that effortlessness can only develop by taking effort, you do it until you get it naturally. Doesn;t the same work for cramming.
But anyway i got the gist of it that you need to work hard to get things right. But i don;t know why i can;t do that. Something is wrong with me. There's a glitch in my system.
Its like even if i like something i put it away , i got this logic that there will be plenty of time for this shit. Just enjoy right now.It would be fine it was till that.But when i enjoy like watching movies or shit like that,studies come to my mind.
IN essence, i am never at peace, i don't know what to do.
And perhaps never will be.
Because of my rebellious nature and hating everyone.
I have taken this initiative that i am gonna solve a new problem each day.
like today's problem is from kd joshi book who i have already started hating.
The problem goes like this
A rational point is a cartesian pair where both the abscissa and the ordinate are belong to the rational number  set.
If a circle of radius 1 is given and 3 rational points inside it, prove that there are infinite rational points in it.
My logic was simple,although it does not match with the answer at the back.
my answer was since the two points are inside the circle,we can always find a new rational number between two rationals and hence similiarly we can find infinite rationals and hence there are infinite rational points in the circle.
The answer at the back is quite meaningless to me,it says about drawing two lines which interesect at the center of circle and from center's coordinates you can always find a rational point.
And i plan to solve this esdale problem given on kokko's website.