Wednesday, December 14, 2005

The UMC ER sucks.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Sleep will not come to me today.
I do not let it.
I do not mean to be dramatic.
I am adjusting to life in ways foreign to my experience.
I speak here, to vent.
First, and foremost, to vent.
You who read this, are reading steam.
This is my epiphany.
This is my emotion.
This is the exhalation of my hopes, my dreams, my fears, my anger, my pain.
This is my steam,
-- opinionated nothings.

Sometimes it helps to vent. Other times it is a delusional and unproductive waste of time. My heart told me to start this blog years ago, because someone out there would smile upon my 'brilliance', and help me hone this 'brilliance' to my heart's content, to allow me to achieve my dreams. Years later, my ego has been stripped of its mask, exposing the fool that lies underneath. Your ego is a thorn of many on a bush that contains the sweetest of fruit.
Why do I not understand? All analogies break down at some point.

What am I really doing when I attempt to write; when I attempt to communicate?
I certainly believe that I am a decent writer. But why can't I hope to accomplish anything through this straightforward communcation?

A grasp of grammar and a rudimentary understanding of prose makes an excellent writer, but such skills are in fact, a dime a dozen. A true writer has the ability to move emotions like flower petals in the wind; a true writer has far more than second-rate analogies and semi-witty-monologues, more than excessive drama, more than an important message. A true writer needs but a few words to engrave a thought into memory as surely as stone. A true writer works with the essence of what already lies within our minds, and brings it to the forefront, forcing our synapses to fire and propogate waves of belief into realization; as different and foreign to one another as doubt and certainty, we achieve unity of thought, a shared understanding forged within the uniqueness of billions of brain cells, reaching across all barriers to allow the very soul to speak and be heard.

A true writer need not write solely to vent, nor to be smart, witty, or simply to write something worthwhile. It's just to share the beauty locked within our minds; the truth of what we are -- of what we should be. This should not be a medium -- it should be a reflection of our lives. All things -- joy, pain, life, and death -- can be described across this channel of flowing spirit. The true writer is the thriving life, a seemingly effortless transformation of energy into beauty.

To write is to speak and to speak is to act, but action is not intent; speech is not intent. This change of structure, this discord of thought and harmony -- this is damage done.
The perplexity created by my mind prevents me from engaging in so many activities, and countless experiences - it truly gnaws at the way I learn, at my perception -- at my recollection. In my own life, the coping mechanism learn'd was to accept it as a worthy trade-off of problems faced by others - but this does not stop me from seeing it as a coping mechanism, nor as a truth. It is one shared by those acutely aware of all successes and failures, who judge harshly, and who unsuccessfully attempt to ignore the questions their hearts desperatly ask of inequality and circumstance, of pain and silence, desire and revulsion -- of motive.
I have observed the human race and its fellows of life on this planet for 26 years -- passively, actively, subconsciously, and intently. I have been given great gifts of understanding, and yet am still in great confusion, not just by my soul's oft-disrupted connection to the world. I have observed when I could not bare to call myself human, lest the overwhelming shame of the crimes committed by humans daily grab hold of my emotion, and I have observed when I believed myself superior, inferior, slower, faster, enlightened, retarded, active, and incapable. I observe now, knowing that I am human and equal ... and tired. Our foolishness, our rationale, our beliefs, our loyalties, our crimes, our justifications, our joys, our addictions, our hopes, our dreams ... Why ? ... I want you to be happy and just. I want you to be free, independent, creative, prosperous, and in good company. I want you to experience luck, love, and adventure. I want you to become wise, and intelligent. I want you to do what is right; to see what you're doing, do it well, and know that it's right. I want you to know that your mind is beautiful, amazing, strong, and capable of so much. I want you to know that your body is beautiful, amazing, healthy, strong, and capable of so much. I want you to revel in your excellence, your uniqueness, and your elegance, from your innocence to your sexuality, from your ignorance to your understanding, from your denial to your acceptance, from your birth to your death. No loathing, no lust, no repression, no degredation, no pedestals, no confusion, no presumptions, no dogma, no fear, no hatred, no suppression, no coercion, no deception; no evil. I want you to be truthful, committed, respectful, peaceful, ambitious, excited, subtle, blatant, healthy, active, and decisive.
I want you to be innocent. I want you to be happy. I want you to live beautifully.

My observance continues. The world moves on, and so do we all, the great celestial dance -- Kingsolver's heavenly bodies in motion, in orbit.

My confusion still humors me. My resolve still clothes me. My desire still fuels me. My love still improves me. God is still with me, and my faith in you always remains. I just want you to make peace with yourself, peace with those whom you've affected, peace with God, and should the opportunity present itself, to make peace with those who've affected you. Live a life worth living. It is all I ask of myself, all I ask of anyone, all I ask of everyone.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hm. Quick note to those of you testing out various Haloscan features with my account name ... I do have comment-approval turned on, so expect there to be a BIG delay between the time you post and the time you see your own comment if you're not using your own account name.
Sanity Break. I am thankful for my existence. Judge me not by my desire to stay sane. It is time well-spent.

You know, while I'm learning I might not actually be able to do anything I set my mind to, I've recently discovered something else. I enjoy the fact that I can devote myself in entirety to anything I set my mind. Nearly the same, but not quite.

A long time ago, I set out on a journey to learn more about religion, religious viewpoints, and I thought I had completed it: I am content that there are forces beyond my control working behind the scenes and at the forefront, and that the true test of a person is whether they can be the best person they can be, even without any definite evidence of higher powers. I am at peace with my belief, no matter what I choose to perceive or how I choose to act.

My opinion has always been that there's proof enough without the need for faith - it's all right there in physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, anthropology, linguistics, even in the study of animal intelligence, even the 'unanswerable paradox' that is our own existence: "Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The Big Bang or the Universe? Earlier big bangs?" The quote that 'Matter always was and always will be' just doesn't fly with me - I just wish I knew who said it... Everything about this universe suggests intelligent design - not just humans, or even animals. Everything from coalescing electron fields that exist only when in contact with matter, to an event-driven universe, where nothing in our observable universe occurs without the presence of an electromagnetic wave. The studies of who and what we are, of what we represent, are just as important as what we strive to become, and what we strive to accomplish --

To believe that something is false because you don't understand may be as foolish as to think it is true for the same reasons, and to stay a decision because you don't understand is a decision itself, and by its own nature, a temporary decision. I don't understand higher powers - but I see evidence of their work everywhere - brilliance that no computer-simulation could ever hope to surpass - even the quirks of particle collisions alone in the real world is an elegant solution to a problem witnessed in almost all simulations and even hardware such as that cell phone in your pocket, the television you watch, and the lights at your school or office.
In this place, light particles are waves and ripples - just dips and divots of space in motion, as if spurred on - an unseen hand guiding threads of gossamer in an intricate web of existence.

I don't disagree with evolution or intelligent design -
I know evolution exists; I don't care about Darwin's theory.
I know God placed me here for a reason; I don't care about your proof.

I severely disagree with the idea that one excludes the other.

This is. My reality is energy perceived.

I see. My perception is energy received.

I think. My thoughts are energy, interpreted.

I decide. My decision is energy, directed.

I do. My action is energy, emitted.

I am. My existence shifts energy to all the right places.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Extended C.
Proof of concept, Work-In-Progress, Side-hobby, useful trick, or just plain wrong, it has started(alpha phase), and it (barely) works (currently only in gcc). Nothing more to be said here. (until I graduate in eight or nine months)

Friday, April 01, 2005

The Adieu. You knew this was coming.
This is it. This is goodbye. (To blogging.)
Only now do I understand both Katie and Netshade.
Only I have less to show for it. ;-)

There are more ways to have fun. Many more. Do I remove the blog? No. I've put too much useless energy into this, but it's energy all the same. I have many other projects to work on. If you ever see a new post here, it will be a great story, or someone else's story that I had to share, with proper permission.

Blogs are wonderful resources, but there are other means of writing and typing - no need even for a computer. I never use the grammar-checker, and rarely use spell-checkers anymore - when I do, I use google and could just as easily use a dictionary. All the rest regarding scripting, databases, and server-programming are things I can do elsewhere, from my own servers to those of good friends (Thank you SJ!) to my own php and cgi space at school.

Here are odd musings from the life of a young man, green behind the ears.
What emerges ?
The man who got his act together.

I'm a hyperactive individual with a slow brain. I'm smart, but not wise. I'm hip, but not street-savvy. I'm willing, but sometimes learning-disabled, and I'm certainly not well-read.
- but I will be.
I just need more time.
You know what?
This blog has sucked a lot of my time.
I'm taking it back.
Goodbye, sucker.
March Madness to April Fools: Back to Work
I got up, washed, chugged some soymilk, took some medication, harnessed the dog, (Leashes suck. I don't like pulling living creatures by the neck.) and we were out the door and under the windy April Fool's Sunshine.
I had my headphones on, listening to music from the early internet mod-tracking scene about '95-'00 .
The track on the cd changes to "Tangerine Fascination" by Necros/Andrew Sega.
(If you want to listen to it, I would've originally mentioned the Andrew Sega Shrine, but it seems to be down right now. Instead, you could try the Modarchive and search by author under Necros to get Andrew Sega's pre-2001 songs. He went commercial after that, and spread himself out on far too many cds and compilation works, in addition to his own cds. At any rate, Winamp will play modfiles, but I suggest Modplug Player)

So the song starts playing...
And I enjoy myself. I realize that regardless of my silliness, regardless of my success and mistakes, I'm back in the groove of life.

I thought about my younger years, when I sympathized with Peter Pan about not wanting to grow up ... one of my favorite songs back then ;-)

Now I realize that you never need to grow-up ... you simply need to sympathize with others, and manage your life before your life manages you.
So -
I'm back on track.
I may graduate sooner than I realized, maybe even in Spring '06.
I've got enough time now to devote to my classes and work.
I'm attempting to befriend new and fun people who actually have valid opinions far different from my own.
I'm having fun.

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Another Day, Another Writing Exercise
The "Ants go Marching" song no longer haunts me - I took the chance. :-) Dunno how I did, though. I was 'me', so I hope I caught it.

New writing exercise: action. In this writing exercise, to keep the "Watcher at the Gates" at bay this time, I give myself permission to use cliché and stupid plots.

A 'prologue' cutscene from the mindset of a James-Bond/Indiana Jones-type.

"My story? You ... want to know how it's going? You'd think people would appreciate good deeds these days. I've masked my face and body in earthtones ... yeah, like playin' make-up. I've taken numerous vaccines and now look like a fuckin' druggie with so many red dots on my arms ... I've continually trained for hours on end, and studied a language and society I'd never heard of just two months ago! I've been given the 'Gentleman's handbooks' on Survival, Emergency, and 'Suicide made Easy'. I've been given just enough resources to enter this god-forsaken country unnoticed, reach my contacts, make my way among sixty-fuckin'-thousand people, through seven god-forsaken rocks of green and black separated by waters infested with creatures that can swim up your dick and lay eggs, so I can can reach the main island and capitol city, to baby-sit a crazed madman - a dictator and sicko of the highest order, and then wait ... not one week, not two weeks, but a month! JUST so that in his greatest moment of triumph over the world ( and no sooner) I get to ... open his mind ... not by much, mind you, but I have it on good authority that 22 millimeters will do wonders for a nasty disposition! Generous as I am, with my "free your mind" attitude, I then expanded the minds of his generals, commanders, and puppeteers, too! Their minds were expanded all over that bastard's palace.


So, do I get a parade? Do I get flowers?   No.

I want me a drink, and 60,000 people want me dead. Go figure.

How's that for justice? It might've had something to do with their belief of his relation to some god, but that's a story for another day ...

So, you know - I just killed the religious figurehead of sixty-thousand men, women, and children. Sixty-thousand. I could tell you "how it's going," but more interesting would be how I got out of this god-forsaken mess. And you know, Davids, that's a story you'll never hear UNLESS YOU GET OFF YOUR ASS AND GET OVER HERE! WHERE'S MY FUCKING TRANSPORT OFF THIS ROCK?! YOU THINK I CAN ENJOY THE ATMOSPHERE WHEN I LEFT BREADCRUMBS FOR THOUSANDS OF MURDEROUS HANZELS AND GRETTELS ?!     I SAID A.M. ! A.M. ! I HAD YOU REPEAT THE DAMN LETTERS! I'M OFF RISKING MY LIFE AND I'VE GOT A FUCKING ADHD POSTERCHILD AS MY LIFELINE?! WHERE'S THE JUSTICE?!"

Hmm, well that turned out well. How about the rest of the story? Let's do that from a different perspective! Whose? Take a wild guess!

... At that point, I turned off my radio. I could see that Agent '0055 was having his little prissy-fit, and I'd be damned if I was about to let him get the upper-hand and boss me around! No, sir. It was all his fault, of course - he knows those 12-hour clocks confuse me. And besides, his use of the Lord's name in vain was simply out of line. After that, I calmly ate my lunch, sauntered to my spiffy noise-cancelling hydrojet, left the naval base at 14:00h, saved him from certain doom at 18:00h, and we got back just in time to watch his favorite episode of "The Family Guy." I'd like to think he mellowed out somewhat after that. It's all about showing these bullies at work who's boss.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Unnecessary Trepidation

Life, happiness, pain, and suffering have ever been relative. As you may imagine, this translates quite naturally to the world of writing as well, with often humorous results. Topics relative to one person often end up meaningless to another, and points of elaboration cannot be trivially chosen. If you intend to take care in your writing, you may wish to analyze the positioning of your imagery, your drama, and your humor. For my narrative today, I give two perspectives of a classroom incident: one of simplicity, and another of high-quality verbose elaboration, which in my opinion can be considered a waste in time, energy, and semi-decent writing that could've been focused elsewhere. In other words, I think it's bs. And dangerous bs. A lot of masters created beautiful works on meaningless drivel this way, but many were also able to salvage it for more appropriate use.

True, it was an amazingly fun writing exercise in melodrama, and I heartily recommend it to you all,
so long as you clearly declare its purpose.

But overall, it is a warning: choose the emotional focal points of your scenes wisely.

#1: I got an 'A' on my Math 445 midterm!!!.

The summary below details a topic whose workload assisted me in nearly destroying my grades in other classes last year and this year.

      Today, in Cryptography, Professor Klaus Lux handed out our midterm results.

      Last year, in the same class (different teacher), this evil midterm mocked me with topics I could not comprehend, and cunningly convinced me to switch to audit while it taunted me, and told me to retreat while I had the chance.
      Now, one year later, I thank my lucky stars that I did retreat. But in that agonizingly long year, I was not idle; I eagerly plotted my triumphant revenge upon that midterm, and awaited the chance to carry out this deed of daring!

      This year, I stuck with the class, knowing I would be unable to change status by the time the midterm (the first test!) came around. It would be all or nothing! I knew my other classes would be in danger, but I felt ready for the challenge. I suffered through the classwork. I worked hard. My other classes faded to insignificance under the growing mountain of torcherous, mazelike terrain defined by the course material (Except the physics 182 lab course. GOD I LOVE that class! All jokes aside, I really do.) After armoring myself with abstract algebra and the foundation axioms of mathematics, I called Fermat, Euler, and Gauss to my right side, and countless mathmematicians from Ancient China who passed on the secret of the Chinese Remainder Theorem to my left! That fateful day, one week ago to the day, we waged war upon that midterm! Pencil versus paper, tooth and nail, graphite and erasor, I gave my all. In the end, there was no clear victor: the battle was over, but the waiting had just begun.

      For an agonizing week I did my best to bide time and relax. I gathered my energies, prayed, and caught up with all my other homework for the first time. (Thanks to an appreciated absence of math homework due this week. As a result, I'm about to finish all my extra physics textbook work for the rest of the semester!) I was approaching full circle and waited to cross the threshold past the landmark of my humiliating retreat last year.

      Before ending class today, Professor Lux took out the box of graded tests, searching through them as if checking each little monster was safely-restrained. - I easily identified mine on top due to the colored paper (This is why I use yellow legal pads to write my homework: it's easy to identify in a stack). To my horror, he then mentioned something about geography and briefly muttered my name under his breath. With a flourish, he tucked my midterm neatly away, imprisoned underneath his arm. He began calling out for students to pick up their tests.

      Name, after agonizing name, each student was called to claim an exam. And they did. They returned to their desks, packed their bags, and left.
One student remained uncalled.

      My test, I silently screamed. What about my test?!

      I knew I left out the final step in the fourth problem: across the battlefield, Fermat shouted ample warning to me, but I didn't understand until it was too late.

      I knew I was in over my head at the fifth problem: Euler had abandoned me far earlier, believing his services were required elsewhere.

      I began to worry if I had missed something even more dangerous; some final trick that the midterm had deviously crafted just for this occaision.

      Instantly, I recalled the incident at the testing center - it flooded my thoughts with volumetric depth and taunting clarity: I exceeded my time limit, and was compelled by policy (and the helpful staff members at the testing center) to sign suspiciously 'legalese'-styled paperwork explaining my predicament. Sure, they attempted to sooth my fears. Sure, they told me that this tradegy occurs often - so often they couldn't even count... they sympathized, they explained that only the hardest of hardass teachers would attack the grade resultant of a student's extended testing time.

      As it turned out, I was ... inconsolable. (Blatant "Kill Bill Volume #2" reference. Watch Kill Bill ! Great pair of movies right there!)

      I wondered if the score was zero. I wondered whether my score was simply so bad he didn't want anyone to see it, and would talk to me about it after class. Maybe it was just an accident, he forgot to hand it to me... And maybe not.

      After most of the other students left, save my fellow kinsmen of the classroom, I walked up to the teacher and asked about my test.
      He looked up at me, startled. "Oh, right! Sorry, you were at the far side of the room, and I had thought to hand it to you after calling someone closer ..." He began shuffling through the much smaller stack of papers.
      With a smile and a quick exhalation that bordered upon hyperventilating, I huffed, "No worries."
      He pulled my test out of the small pile of bloodthirsty, papercutting beasts, and handed it to me, folded so the score wouldn't be visible to others, and resumed packing his lecture materials.

      I accepted the paper thankfully, and found it inanimate in my hand - no papercut, no surface marks save the scars of grey and black where my pencil had struck. I unfolded it to reveal a mysterious set of symbols: the capital greek letter Sigma (summation symbol) followed by '103P' in fine red ink.

      Spontaneously, Professor Lux pointed to the extra-credit problem on the bottom of the first page, where he had encased some of my text in red parentheses and chuckled, "Well I had to give you some credit for this one, eh?"

      I hesitated. "Um, this ... what ... this can't ... does this mean," I rambled, as I usually do if I lose focus on my thoughts. Intuitively, I felt I knew what the symbols meant, but the still-skeptical symbol-reader in me needed full clarification before any emotions could safely dance across my face.
      He turned to me in contemplation, maybe with a raised eyebrow or maybe just a grimace, as though I were a grossly-incorrect math statement. Then he smiled at me. Grinning, he read the digits back to me, "Well, this is a one, this is a zero, and this is a three!"

      My score: one hundred and three. Out of one hundred.

Houston, we are "go" for launch.

[/end hilarious writing exercise]

Monday, March 28, 2005

On Meaningless Matters...
You'd think there were some things so easy to understand that anyone could apply them. If you're actually right, then optimism is not one of those things.
There's finding a bright side to anything, and then there's categorizing people and things into good or bad, regardless of intentions or results, simply so that these "optimists" can ignore the 'bad' stuff.

The latter also show up often as loudmouths, people who cut you off because they 'already knew what you were going to say', those afraid of trying out new things because somehow they've managed to connect it with tempting the devil with their soul... yes, even people like that still exist.

Everything from Modern Medicine to Multimedia comes with a balance: you can choose to ignore them, to try and get the most from them, or to simply investigate for yourself - and if you do research, I commend you, but be careful: there are always multiple angles to any story, no matter what your research tells you.

Do come to me with your opinions. I love opinions. Don't come to me with idiocy. I hate idiocy, and I hate loudmouths. I will respect your views. I won't bite, but if you're going give me your opinion, then tell me it's your opinion.

Whoever you are, wherever you are, strike up a chat with me if you wish.
I will be brutally, but faithfully honest, from now on.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

It'd be nice to socialize with those of different ideas, opinions, cultures, and gender. How and why am I chained to geekdom ?

My graduation plan. No jokes, please.
Fall '05: CS 440 & 453 (AI & Compilers)
Spri '06: CS 433 & 452 (Graphics & Operating Systems)
Fall '06: CS 460 (Databases)

Dave Matthews' Band song "Ants Marching" is stuck in my head, and the lyrics attack me with relevance that the composer never intended. So many interesting people and personalities, so many chances, and such little notice; so many destinations with the wrong directions; so many free-rides, often going the wrong way.

I just think things should work properly.
Like Mr Dyson.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

On Preventing the Re-Invention of the Wheel:
Thoughts on Object-Oriented Programming.

Abstract: Alan Turing described us humans as Universal Turing Machines since we can simulate all other Turing Machines using just pen, paper, and some time ... Thus we are at the top of the top of computational models, and we can show that the UTM can extend its own boundaries beyond that of standard Turing Machines. Intellectually, we don't fully understand what our limits are because the possibilities are extended by advancements in science. I think there's a way to turn that boundary into a variable by treating concepts as hypothetical machines (For instance, a conjecture that relies on an unsolved problem), where we can flesh them out and see what we would need to do to make these machines real.

A whole lot of people have studied and created machines more powerful than standard Turing machines. Even Alan Turing himself gave examples, and there's already a large body of field-work on the subject. My goal isn't exactly the same idea although it does coincide often:

Purpose: provide and refine a simple, elegant structure that extends the application of Computability Theory ( and 'Hypercomputation' ) to Abstraction Theory, using 'concepts', conjectures, and proofs in a useful fashion (which often gives highly mnemonic and re-usable results). This structure can thus be restated as: a practical system to measure, refine, approximate, derive, and classify hypothetical/ abstract/ imaginary concepts and algorithms into facts and objects.

Current background reading:
Theory of Mathematical Evidence, Computability Theory, 'Hypercomputation', Abstraction Theory, (soon)Artificial Intelligence, and most importantly, yet surprisingly, Object-Oriented Programming - this is the basic idea, I suppose.

Eventually, although it may need 'refinement' and many exceptions, I want to be able to apply abstract algebra (groups, fields, polynomials) to any given concept. (Side note: it really hurt my brain just to type that last sentence in.)

You can even use this towards refining completely paradoxical and silly ideas into something that actually gives astonishing truth-statements and properties about such trivial ideas.

I will formalize two versions: a version that allows full application of Computability Theory, and a version that's quick and easy to use in a less mathematically-sound fashion.

At last, the Punchline! The joke is that the quick and easy version of this system is object-oriented programming! It's a paradigm many programmers have been working with for the past thirty-six years! Ha ! To use these tools, we simply need to program in our favorite object-oriented programming language or pseudocode - but from then on, it gets tricky: The second half is actually the study of Compilers (& Turing-Completeness), Abstraction, Discrete Mathematics, Mathematical Evidence ... the list goes on, and we must also ensure that we use standard operators and define them using the axioms of mathematics as a guide. In short, we must utilize Computer Science.

This is why I'm a programmer.
And it's also why I love C++ and SML ;-)

Friday, March 25, 2005

I'll lead a "real" life when my school gives me a bit more of the "real" time it steals from me ;-)

In the meantime, while I commute to and fro opposite corners of town, I'll continue to study and make weird, unprovable conjectures on the side.

In fact, after some time, I've reformulated my thoughts on the possibility of machines beyond Turing ...
let's call them Transcendental Machines with the following properties:

1.) A Transcendental Machine (TDM) (if it exists) recognizes/decides all languages recognizeable/decidable by Turing Machines, (regular languages, context-free languages, Turing-recognizable languages) and at least one or more non-Turing-decidable/recognizable..

2.) While TDMs can recognize and simulate Turing Machines (TM), The opposite is not necessarily true. As far as modern Theory of Computation is concerned (and as far as it should be concerned, realistically), the Turing Machine is the most versatile model of computation. But ironically, if TDMs do exist, then Turing Machines (and thus humans) may not be able to direcly detect them ... or even prove their existence as a certainty within Turing-recognizable rules).

3.)Due to the fact that I'm exploring these possibilities, I'm forced to accept the possibility that a Turing Machine can still indirectly describe higher-level machines, and that given the proper resources, perhaps a Turing Machine could even simulate a TDM.

4.) There may be even more higher-level supersets of machines than TDMs: These would be considered TDMs of Order 2, Order 3, etc - but there is a catch: while such a conjecture is easily plausible, the main problem with TDMs is that the set would hold rather large subclasses of various machines that recognize/decide wildly varying sets of Turing-unrecognizable/undecidable languages, each unioned with all Turing-recognizable/decidable languages. In such a case, ordering of sets would by necessity, also make sense on a per-subset basis, although some TDM classes might even be uncountably infinite.

In general, let us temporarily assume there exists a being/machine (who can do what we can't, essentially) who can determine the existence of integer roots from a multi-variable polynomial in the set of real numbers, given a finite time limit (preferably a short one) - then we have an example of a transcendental machine.

Regarding giving such an unwieldly name to these machines, I feel justified due to the definition(until someone gives a better name :-D after all, these machines may already have a name), since the term "transcendental" has also been given to a specific set of irrational numbers such as pi. The preliminary name was "Chaos Machine" but such a name conveys the scientific notion of a Chaotic system as described by Chaos Theory, which can be recognized by Turing Machines.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

I just thought of something rather interesting regarding Turing machines and God :
well, actually, I've been thinking about it for a long time, and have some interesting facts for you all regarding the Universe from a computational standpoint.

But first:

1. The question of whether or not God exists is not Turing-solvable ... i.e. we cannot truly prove or disprove God's existence from a scientific perspective. Ever.

2. Regardless, We can still conjecture certain properties of God and/or the Universe based on either of the two assumptions of God's existence.

3. In fact, I have many such conjectures; the majority of which I shall release at togehter (at a later date), and continue to add on incrementally, but not now. For now, I leave this interesting tidbit:

Read the note if you're either unsure of what a Turing Machine is, or if you believe the human brain is not a Turing Machine. Otherwise, skip down to the good stuff.

Quick note before I begin: I must aid setting the record straight: Turing Machines are NOT machines per se - they are computational models. They are just descriptions of one particular class of computational measurement, and in fact, they are at the very top of the heirarchy in regards to computational power -- the most beautiful and spectacular model of which is the human being.
In other words, to suggest a human is not a Turing Machine is actually ludicrous and self-insulting, since a Turing Machine (TM) is considered a TM if and only if it can simulate the operation of any other full TM or TM code (where the "code" is an algorithm ... what's an algorithm? A cooking recipe is a perfect example, as are directions to get from one place to another, any set of instructions, or list of daily chores, etc.)
In short, the classification of the Turing Machine in the mathematical sense is obviously broad: we sometimes lose sight of the usefulness unless we confine our related discussions to specific sub-classes. This lays the foundation for the ideas organized below. You should now at least have a basic understanding of Turing Machines. (If not, just google-search for Turing Machines)

Now we may begin:

We have two possibilites: God(and/or similar being(s)) exists, or God does not. We shall explore the ramifications of both possibilites. Let us start by assuming that the first possibility is true:

If God exists, then regardless of the fact that God's existence cannot be verified or refuted, our standard definition of God easily fits the computational model of a Turing Machine. At the same time, God would then contain an extension to the standard model that allows recognition of all possible Turing Machines. (Most likely something even more exotic than the Quantum Turing Machine) What's more, it's easily possible that God's processing scope extends far beyond that of a Turing Machine, for it's obvious that if God were a standard model, then God could not conceivably create a contradictory event such as an attempt to lift a rock that was created specifically to be unliftable by God.

But then, if God is not Turing-recognizeable as we assume from our standard description of God (since the mind of man might not be fit to understand the wisdom of God), then not only would there exist other computational models of "higher order" that encompass and extend the model of a Turing Machine, but simply by the nature of a Turing Machine, none of these models of computation could be directly/ completely understood, detected, or simulated by any normal Turing Machine, and thus they are all infathomable (!but not completely!) by mankind ! (And actually, to some extent, the topic of how much (if any) must a person know about an object before they can consider themselves able to simulate its output is arguable (yet unsolvable, once again, as-predicted)

This description of our Deity-in-question does allow such a process as parodoxical actions to occur: the reasoning here is that God and/or similar beings who also may or may not believe in/ know for sure / question the belief of God made the underlying framework of our reality. Our notions of computation and Turing Machines is based on our perceptions of the environment in which we interact. Thus, if logical structures exist beyond these perceptions, we may not be able to directly perceive them. If you feel so inclined, this can be considered a nonscientific generalization of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

More will come later.

I've already taken away too much time from my studies.

Good night.
At last ! I have found the mathematician's !
MAA online ! Go there !

Whew ... long time, no post. I have two midterms in two days (yes, they're a few weeks late - why don't you go and tell that to my professors? I'm sure they'll listen with open ears ;-P )

After sharing horror stories about evil past-professors (Fall registration is near), some fellow students and I derived the following academic life lesson:
"Some people should not be teachers, and some teachers should not be people" :-)

Monday, February 28, 2005

Welcome !

Today's post:

Quantum Turing Machines and N/P
Group Theory and Math teachers
A Hacker Update

I read an interesting paper on quantum mechanics from the Bulletin of Symbolic Logic last night, (but whenever I read about the subject, I have salt grains handy: although the authors obviously knew what they were talking about, and even though a few sections of text were out of order, the ramifications of their discussion and the research it presents just seems too encompassing and too leading: I wanted to scream out, "SAY IT ! SAY YOU THINK P=NP ! IF THIS IS TRUE, DOESN'T IT MEAN NON-DETERMINISTIC TURING MACHINES CAN BE CREATED DETERMINISTICALLY?! DOESN'T THIS MEAN NP COLLAPSES TO P?! ALL NP PROBLEMS COULD THEN BE REGARDED WITH NEW ALGORITHMS TO ACT IN THIS FASHION AND SOLVE IN POLYNOMIAL TIME ! It doesn't make sense ! If I were to reference that paper alone, or EVEN the most quoted generalization to arise from Quantum Mechanics (an object can occupy two spaces at the same time) I could make the claim of a new Turing Recognizable machine that allows itself to take multiple paths down a decision fork, and still call such an action ONE transition! The equivalent standard Turing Machine has the choice of handling one path at a time, or handling each path step concurrently, but this "Quantum" machine would be capable of handling more than one at a time! Wouldn't that allow O(n^n) complexity to become O(n) if one takes steps to ensure that the computational load is balanced when an algorithm branches? After all, the number of paths the algorithm must take would simply become ONE for a Quantum Turing Machine... And I can certainly think of many NP-Complete problems that would become P, much less ONE, which is all that's needed to prove P=NP.
BUT... Something's wrong. That paper was simply a well-researched study on information already well-known... published in November of 2000, (Well, it was also written by the individuals who actually introduced the idea of quantum turing machinges.) By all accounts, even someone just one year into their math major should be able to prove P=NP with that much to go on. Certainly, Quantum Computing has been proven to be a very attainable reality. What's missing? Why aren't we basking in the glory of powerful computing? Except for the fact that the new technology is going to take a while, and the question of whether the underlying system that controls the physics of our universe really represents the same non-deterministic model that our universe does, I don't know. I wish I could say for sure about the proof, but there's something more than just continually refining our methods of analysis. I will read more on it, and hopefully find out why no one with dedicated interest on the subject has yet proven it, with or without a Quantum Turing Machine Variant.

--- UPDATE: My fears are confirmed: Apparently, there are many papers written about the subject, and even about running non-polynomial time algorithms in polynomial time, but no actual "proof" per se ! It's bizarre ! By all accounts, shouldn't the people who introduced the concept and the people who proved it possible be given an award? shouldn't we consider P=NP ? Shouldn't we be researching the ramifications and applications now ?! What the hell is going on ?!
To give you an idea, here is one of MANY papers discussing the matter in detail... fortunately, this one gives a slightly better insight into why there isn't 'exactly' a proof yet: Here
Just search for Quantum Turing Machines and P and NP at your favorite search engine for more information.

I will be posting simplified and condensed facts, theorems, and observations in Group Theory and modular notations continually throughout the rest of this season.
Why ?
Algebraic Structures are not hard to understand!


Math teachers must spend less time PROVING concepts, and start teaching them! Every math class I've had, the teacher spent the majority of time on proving concepts before teaching or even explaining them ... which gave little time for teaching ... even in classes where the teacher gave examples and practice, more time was spent in proofs. Give in-class practices, examples, and reasonably-useful reminders for the students to work through.(read: for the STUDENTS to work through - not copy off the board) Proving is done in proofs and AFTER introducing the pre-requisite concepts ... prove it after your audience is familiar with its use. Yes, we students appreciate what you have to offer - but we think you have much more potential within you - at the very least, as much potential as you believe resides in us.

Hacker update: Mozilla's Firefox can be used not only as a wonderful browser and webmaster tool, but also to edit forms (locally! Not remotely!) on a page, even with a secure connection ... essentially, you can use Firefox tools to bypass client-side verification without disabling javascript.

Now I know what most of you are saying already: "You fool! I've been doing that by simply downloading the page to my hard drive and editing it there!"
That won't work when the server has a secure connection, when you need to log into an account to input your data, or when the server checks if your local copy's address matches its own.
But The DOM Inspector will.
In fact, it's not all that suprising. It'll only be a matter of time when the first browser comes along that allows you to completely, dynamically, and easily customize the page that gets sent to you concurrently while you're connected to its host server.

Thus, for those of you who think client-side verification is nifty, for those of you (for whom my dislike is strongest) who think you can discourage people from viewing your html source code by using annoying little tricks that simply annoy people who are just trying to view your website, for those of you who think you can password-protect or encrypt your pages using client-side javascript, stop hallucinating. If it was important to someone who knows what they're doing, they've already gotten what they needed from your site. There are many ways to access that data, and your safest bets are to stay away from form submittal (you can still use them for input retrieval, although there are now safer methods), use xmlhttp, and a nice compromise between client-side and server-side processing of data: don't let the client computer verify important info- instead let it take care of xml serialization and de-serialization, let it take care of everything possible that relates to the client's visit to the server except secure data, and required data that can be falsified - use a direct connection to the server to verify that stuff. This will all be covered in detail at with example sourcecode on how to secure submit forms and maintain heavy client-side processing as a best-case. (For best compatibility, one should always maintain the worst-case scenario: full server-side processing upon detection of an old browser)

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

New Life Lesson ! ^^

"Everyone has sociopathic tendencies on some level."

Take it any way you like it.

Oh, and while you're at it, do check out Something Positive to get your recommended dose of side-splitting anti-social behaviors. I came across it a few days ago and can't stop reading it. The author is simply hilarious.

The hell of my own devising... unfinished of course... ;-)

Democrats, PETA Members, Goths

Circle I Limbo

Militant Vegans, Meat-eaters

Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

General asshats, Republicans

Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies (and their children)

Circle IV Rolling Weights

People who subjectively prove God exists, Those who tie quantum physics too deeply into self-help

Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

The Pope

Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Those who whore out their religious beliefs

Circle VII Burning Sands

People who fear their souls are in danger for trying new and non-threatening activities. (AKA books, music, games, thinking)

Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

Gaybashers, Fools who invoke my wrath, George Bush, Creationists, bigots, zealots, faith-healers,
Rapists, Murderers, and those of unresearched beliefs.

Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

Friday, February 18, 2005

Updates !

Today is Friday, and it's raining once again, but this time, it's rather enjoyable. I've just finished cleaning the office and have my books ready to go ... if it weren't for the fact that my ride isn't here, I'd be gone by now. But all is well.

Cryptography class is in one hour ... it's funny ... two years ago, my neighbor let me borrow a book on error-coding, but it was way too advanced for me at the time, even though I understood the basics of modular arithmetic and binary operators. One year ago, I took Cryptography, along with too many other classes, without realizing how much time they all would take ... and thus, still didn't understand what was going on...
But this year, I understand it! Two years, and I finally understand this book on error-coding ! It's crazy. ;-)

Just the random thought for the day. At any rate, I'll have more updates later, but there's thunder and lightning out ... so I'm shuttin' down.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

I finally got a new backpack ... one I can tote around on wheels instead of my back ... I weighed that sucker with all my standard school and work items inside, and it came out to a full quarter of my body weight ! Man. 1/4th my body weight... ONE QUARTER!!

You know the recommended limit is 1/10th of your body weight? Of course, very few people follow that rule, but 1/4th is ridiculous. So my back feels better already.

Also bought a new math book ... fun stuff on advanced number theory.

GO OUT AND READ THE BOONDOCKS COMIC STRIP ! BUY THE TREASURY ! Author Aaron McGruder is brilliant and hilarious.

Now back to the schedule I go !

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Oh yeah, baby ... Guess who's playin' at my school tomorrow?!
The Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, headed by Wynton Marsalis!

I originally went just to get tickets to celebrate my dad's birthday, expecting to spend a good $66 ... but they had so few seats in trio at good spots (or even cheap spots) that it was either pay a shitload and sit in the far back, or pay $30 more than a shitload and get into the orchestra pit! So ... I bought the three Orchestra Pit seats! ORCHESTRA PIT, baby! RIGHT THERE! In front!

And my dad doesn't even know! (No, he doesn't read the blog, and besides, his compy got fried (literally ... it smelled like rubber tires in that room... :-D ) and he's still repairing it)

Monday, January 17, 2005

Happy MLK Jr Day !
End the idiocy and stupidity!
Celebrate the dream!

Note to self: don't try any more poems.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Run amok, ye who enter my domain! It is of nothing spoken, for all is explained! No sound! No speech! All is expressed for All to see.

When one side says yes, another says no,
And the sad truth says the answer's twenty-fou',

You see in the mind, not truth but "facts", more oft than not -
When humans debate, such is the plot;
boil down translations and the crowd still roars. What still remains when you set all aside? The same bottom line, sung on both sides:
"My facts
              Are better
                              Than yours."

Science is a process - a method of understanding, describing, enhancing, and always further developing our knowledge and applications of the Laws of the Universe. We will never fully have a true Law of the Universe.(erm, well there may be divine intervention on that topic one day, but until then...) All we have are approximations. Even when we do have a fully unified system for all of Science, it will be a theory. Why? BECAUSE A THEORY ISN'T A HYPOTHESIS. IT'S A WORKING DESCRIPTION OF SOME ASPECT OF REALITY! IT'S NOT the same as the word used in polite conversation, and that's something that some people don't get.
Case and Point:
Einstein's Theory of Relativity encompasses (and can calculate to a higher degree of accuracy) Newton's Laws of Physics. How interesting. (They aren't really laws) And Einstein found the key that shows the beauty of how such an incredibly accurate system as Newton's can be derived from one single, powerful equation:
E = mc2

So what's my point? Don't look for your facts; look for the facts, and look for all opinions. Ask "them." Ask about "them." Talk with "them." Your "side" doesn't mean jack if you don't know who or what the "other side" is.

Remember: Nothing is certain except death and prime numbers. So it is written - abre los ojos.

Monday, January 10, 2005

A friend posted these links on his site. I thought I'd share, since they're for a good cause. Donate.
Interesting article about why you should donate to the Salvation Army rather than the Red Cross ... I can't make an informed opinion with my little bit of information, so I won't say what's right or wrong, but I'm still going to donate. Won't you? If you're wondering about the validity of the link, just check the domain name.

Also, I usually flat-out hate stuff like this, but: from another friend: "If there is at least one person in your life whom you consider a close friend, and whom you would not have met without the internet, post this sentence in your journal."
Yep. I know. Sappy, infective, and almost clique-type reaction, coupled with a pleasing dopamine-response in the brain, but... oh well.
Near and dear... I have friends in this category as well.

However, there are also several people near and dear that I have neglected in real life ... by simply not mailing a damn letter to them. Here's what can happen: You feel guilty, and more guilty as years go by. They give up contacting you at some point, and move on with their life/lives. They forget about you. You, however, don't forget about them, and it tears at you. Just because you didn't send a damn letter. Go out and get in touch with that friend in Washington, maybe in Brazil, in Maryland, in Anchorage, in Ohio, in Portland, in Singapore. Do it before you regret not doing it sooner or at all.

Now, back to my next set of ramblings.

I just bought some new books on mathematics that will make interesting reads. I'll let you all know if they're any good ... after all, if *I* can read this stuff and learn from it (e.g. the person who takes an average of slightly over 5 hours to complete a 2-hour final exam) then chances are in your favor that you can, too.

For those of you who care, here are some of my somewhat more-favored NP-Complete problems (well - there are many other incredibly interesting problems and much more than those on the page, but these are just a subset of the most well known problems that are primarily housed in mathematics and the storage/interpretation of numbers) taken from an Annotated List of Selected NP-Complete Problems as maintained by Paul E. Dunne, a professor in the Computer Science Department at the University of Liverpool:
Number: 9

Name: Comparative Divisibility [AN4] 3

Input: A (strictly increasing) sequence A=< a1,a2,...,an> and a (strictly increasing) sequence B=< b1,b2,...,bm> of positive integers.

Question: Is there an integer, c, such that Divides(c,A)> Divides(c,B), where Divides(x,Y) (Y being a sequence of positive integers) is the number of elements, y in Y, for which x is an exact divisor of y?

Comments: You may think that this has an obvious fast algorithm, and, indeed the algorithm in question is obvious: what it is not is efficient. Consider: how many bits are needed to store the input data (assuming, without loss of generality, that an>=bm)? How many steps, however, is this `obvious method' taking in the worst-case? It is important to realise that representing integer values in unary is not considered to be a `reasonable' approach (the number 250-1 requires 250 digits in unary but only 50 digits in binary).

Number: 11

Name: Quadratic Diophantine Equations [AN8] 3

Input: Positive integers a, b, and c.

Question: Are there two positive integers x and y such that (a*x*x)+(b*y)=c?

Comments: The comments regarding Problem 9 (Comparative Divisibility) are also pertinent with respect to this problem. Again, there is an `obvious' algorithm that, on the surface, appears to be efficient and is seen not to be so only once one compares the input size (space needed to represent the input data) to the actual computation time in the worst-case.

Number: 53

Name: Quadratic Congruences [AN1] 3

Input: Positive integers a, b, and c.

Question: Is there a positive integer x whose value is less than c and is such that x2==a(mod b), i.e. the remainder when x2 is divided by b is equal to a?

Comments: The comments made with respect Problem 9 and Problem 11 are also relevant with respect to this problem.

Number: 57

Name: Simultaneous incongruences [AN2] 3

Input: A set of n ordered pairs of positive integers {(a1,b1),...,(an,bn)} where ai<=bi for each 1<=i<=n.

Question: Is there a positive integer x such that: for each i, ai does not equal the remainder when dividing x by bi?

Comments: As with most number-theoretic problems, the comments regarding Problems 9, 11, and 53 apply.

School starts in One day !

Friday, January 07, 2005

Happy New Year's Day. 2004 was the first year in many that felt somewhat like a full year - an eventful one.

'tis good tidings and a busy schedule that bids me to write my updates so few and far in between - didn't a buddhist once mention that the spaces between the notes make the music ?

More Random Thoughts For You All:
Infinite sets are fun, and even weirder are infinite sets derived from non-repeating irrational numbers such as pi ... in fact, for those of you who know of Edmund Landau's notation for the Prime Counting Function (pi(x)), here's an interesting rationalization (read: rationalization, NOT a proof) for his use of that particular symbol:

Take an irrational non-repeating number such as pi, and treat that number as an infinite sequence - one that can be written as a partitioned set of strings, where all strings in the set hold a trait in common. In particular, assume each string to represent a prime number, created by appending digits from pi (as found in the sequence) into the current result until the result is a prime not yet counted, whereupon it is added to the count, and we move on to the next string of digits. Since this set can be represented as the set of all prime numbers, we may order this set, starting with the smallest prime - thus giving us a mapping of the set of prime numbers to the set of positive integers.
We may call this function (when it is found at last) "The xth Holy Grail of Mathematics" where x is a variable (after all, there are far more than just one of these in mathematics) .
But less dramatically, since we have shown that the sequence of digits from pi can be associated with the set of all prime numbers, we can all (or maybe just all of one person) sleep more easily knowing that there is some justification in the use of the symbol pi as the Prime Counting Function (pi(x)). (which is simply a function that gives the number of primes less than a given integer.)

Even weirder: Take a second number in that category of irrational non-repeating numbers, such as phi ( for the function phi(x) ), and partition its equivalent sequence in the same manner as shown above ... we now have a 1-to-1 mapping from one set to the other, showing them to be of equal size ... bizarre, eh ? Just what meaning could this hold for phi and pi ? Well, as you will see below, my conjecture is that it doesn't prove anything, because we can map these irrational numbers in any function that we want ... allowing the range of phi(x) to be the set of all even numbers, and the range of pi(x) to be the set of all odd numbers ... then of course, the set of all positive integers must be equal to the union of these sets phi and pi, thus showing them to be subsets where the positive integer set is equal to the partition { range(phi) , range(pi) } !
This is just idle wondering.

Something a little more concrete (and perhaps more productive), but not by much:
Now here's something more concrete (and redundant) I've been wondering about for awhile:
Using an array of logarithms, where the lookup is based off of the index of the array, how does a computer's built-in multiplication compare to the equivalent via logarithm addition and lookup ? And what about treating these numbers as logarithm polynomials ? And what about programming structures created for arbitrarily large numbers? (grouped with modular arithmetic and bit-shifting, too?) How does it affect prime number verification ? Especially coupled with the knowledge that all prime numbers above ten have a least significant digit of 1, 3, 7, or 9 ?
If you haven't yet guessed by my overly specific questions, I'm going to find out. I know it's been done many many times before by other programmers, but I haven't been able to find in-depth results online anywhere - hence, I'm going to experiment and post the results. Just keep in mind, it's another project added to the stack (the stack that should be a queue)
and, if you-know-who is willing, then it may just get done. After all, I had so many projects I wanted to finish before the start of Spring semester, which now looms over the hills less than a week away.

Happy New Year, everyone ! And remember :
A good teacher makes boring stuff exciting, and a bad teacher makes exciting stuff boring
(I didn't create this particular aphorism; I heard it from someone else and had to share.)