M Database Inspector (cheetah)
|Not logged in. Login|
|Sat, May 17 2008||50||Women||
Yottam will have his minus ninth birthday today.
Nobody would believe me if I told them I wasn't scared.
But obviously I'm not.
This position game already won me a cool mill
times zero crustacean probability,
without my even blinking to dry the tears,
nor intending on the whole.
Sorry, guys, lucky all of us if for nothing,
and thank you expert killers for having
made this so easy a task.
Three plus one.
I am bettering my performance numbers by a factor
of three with each new hire.
And this is just the leftovers in this one.
Happy birthday Yottam.
Nekko will have a private room at the expense of losing
me and the rest of the apartment.
The Ray guitar seat neatly unfolds to the right number of
pieces, so its all very compact.
Such is life.
|Mon, Apr 21 2008||100||Infinite Technological Wisdom||
They ran out of numbers at the phone company.
|Fri, Sep 21 2007||100||Two and Two||
Together we stand - divided we fall.
There is safety in numbers.
Even gazelles know this.
Better safe than sorry.
|Sun, Jul 15 2007||1100||Adding||
Gauss was six years old when,
one day the teacher was fed up
with the paper airplanes, so she told the kids to
add up all the numbers from one to a hundred
while she is going out for coffee.
5050, he said, before she left for the door.
How did you know? she panicked.
Its simple really:
Add the first to the last, you get 101.
Add 99 to 2, still 101.
Add 98 to 3...
Add all the way to 50+51.
Counting 50 times 101 in all.
1+ 2 + 3 +...+ n = n*(n+1)/2
|Fri, Jul 13 2007||400||Functions||
The blending function is that which takes an apple
and turns it into apple juice.
You can also use the blending function on strawberries
and get strawberry juice.
But you can't blend oranges.
For clarity, we will call this function "blended()".
We use parenthesis, (brackets),
to show that a function acted on something
by writing like this:
and then we can write down the result:
blended(apple) = appleJuice
blended(x) = xJuice
but only if x is in the universe where blended() operates.
double(x) = 2x
can be drawn easily on paper:
Make a horizontal line from one side of the paper to the other.
Divide it into 21 parts by drawing short vertical lines
across the line, and number them from -10 to 10.
Lets call this drawing "The X axis".
The Y axis is vertical, and is otherwise the same.
Once you draw it, we call the drawing, "The Axis System".
If X is 5, than double(x) is 10,
so we draw a dot above the 5 on the X axis, (where x=5),
at the height where y=10.
double(-6) = -12 and is not on the paper,
so we draw all the dots from x equals -5 to 5,
and connect the dots with a ruler.
Together with the axes, we call this drawing now:
"The graph of y = 2x".
What would you blend to get absolutely nothing?
Well, if you put nothing in, you'll get nothing back,
that's for sure.
But is it that obvious that you cannot put a few ingredients
that would cancel each other out and you'll still get nothing.
For example if you put in the blender
matter and anti matter in just the right quantities?
The root of a function is the value of X where the value of Y is zero.
So at least one root of blended() is also zero.
Finding the root of a function is like solving an equation:
blended(x) = nothing.
What is x?
y = double(x)
what is X if y is zero?
y = 2x
0 = 2x
2x = 0
x = 0
But with the function:
y = 2x - 2
the root is 1.
So what is the root of y = x*x?
y = x*x -4 ?
Well if we look carefully, -2 is also a root of this function.
square(x) - 4 = 0
Is the equation to find the root of the function:
y = square(x) - 4
If in an function definition x is squared,
but no higher powers are there,
we call the function a Quadratic function,
and the equation a Quadratic equation.
I you draw the line of the function, the roots of the equation
are those where y=0, or when the line crosses the X axis.
We also use letters for the numbers in the definition itself,
and not to be confused with the numbers from the axes,
we take the letters A,B and C for the Constants in the equation,
and X,Y for the variable numbers from the axes
we originally marked X and Y in our drawing of the graph.
y = a*sqaure(x) + b*x + c
The quadratic equation to find the roots of
the quadratic function is:
a*sqaure(x) + b*x + c = 0
If all this down to earth mathematics
was a bit stressful,
remember at least that quadratic is not Quadruped,
nor Aquatic, which is more on the Oceanic side,
that math can predict the future,
that the suns will rise tomorrow,
in a galaxy, far, far, away....
Keep Up the Good Work.
|Sat, May 12 2007||100||Stanley Jordan||
In his Master Sessions Video, Stanly Jordan talks about
how mistakes and stress correlate,
and if you make mistakes when you practice,
usually caused by stress, then the natural stress
later to occur when on stage or recording,
will make the same mistake repeat on stage.
The solution, he says,
is simply not to make mistakes when praticing.
This is easy to achieve, he continues,
all it takes is patience:
never play any faster than the speed
where you are sure you will
not make a mistake.
This system works of course really well.
I am nevertheless trying to improve upon
Stanly Jordan's thoughts and this system:
The stress-mistake correlation is rather a simple
Pavlovian response of muscle memory systems.
When you practice and make a mistake,
there is always a reason in the brain to have
caused it to direct the fingers to make this exact mistake.
Stanley Jordan noticed, that you only make mistakes
when stress comes along,
like when the phone rings, or the cat suddenly snarls,
or the music you are practicing with - just paced up a bit -, too fast for your fingers.
You are practicing, and you have already made that
particular mistake, representing a specific piece of noise
that you heard when you first made it,
which you will identify if you ever hear it again,
and you will hear it again, if you are stressed again,
all else also being the same,
so, don't make the mistakes when you practice
and you will not be able to repeat them when you are later stressed, he concludes.
But if you can hear the same mistake the second time,
not having followed Stanly Jordan's instructions to avoid it,
it means, from Stanly Jordan's accord of years of experience,
that it takes only one time, not two, for the mistake to occur,
for our muscle memory systems to record this mistake
with accuracy and be able to repeat it when conditions
And this recording,
Stanly Jordan does not suggest how to prevent in full.
Mistake will continue to occur forever,
much less thanks to Stanly Jordan,
and hopefully even a wee bit less with this.
While Stanly Jordan points out the correlation
between mistake and stress,
and despite his otherwise usual infinite attention to detail,
in this case he is missing, I beleive,
some very improtant relevant details:
The individual mistake which occurs at a particular
timepoint in the music,
occurs with stress occuring at that same point in time,
and the timing of the surrounding split seconds
are all that is relevant.
You are not generally stressed for appearing on stage
and will overall make more mistakes.
Muscle memory records this particular
exact mistake (as I claim, with a single occurance),
as a result of the stressoccuring,
which can not possibly be unrelated to the content of the music itself.
This is why the stress finds its way to occur
at that particular instant in time in the music.
It is only when you recorded the mistake more
times than the non-mistake that the the misake will occur without stress.
This will happen if you are stubborn to repeat a mistake 'until you get it right'. You never will.
To quote Stanely Jordan: slow down until you always
get it correct,
and speed back up only as fast as you can always keep it correct, until you get it right.
But Freud tell us, that when your are stressed
is when your subconcious takes over,
which is why you make mistakes only
when you are stressed.
He is not wrong of course, and none of this
contradicts any of the above.
But it tells us something new and useful:
Who says that if the subconcious takes over
bad things will happen?
Maybe with some understanding, we can harness it?
After all, this is what psychologists have been
doing since Freud anyway,
and musicians since the first time caveman shot his arrow
from inside the hollow echoy skeleton of a mamooth,
or something like that.
Stress, first and formost, causes the quick and agile
subconcious systems to act,
faster than what it would take a more controlled operation.
Freud calls this Pavlovian response, when extreme: a trauma.
Meaning to say:
you will automatically and uncontrollably forever be stressed,
without any logical reason,
by that which happened to have occured in the time vicinity
of the traumatic event.
I must add that if the traumatic event itself is very short
and can be stamped with a single timestamp,
then the potential variety of correleted surrounding events
for the systems to record is very small.
But our subconciousness is partly many millions of years
old and partly a mere two million years in early
stages of development.
It encompasses many primitive and ancient systems, and
this happens to be one of them.
The way our subconciousness knows to tell degrees of
traumatic events apart is simple: it doesn't.
it responds traumatically, or Pavlovianly,
to the event, to the dgree of its illtemper.
Much like Staley Jordan says Staccato and Legatto are
merely digital words in the language to describe
two randomly selected numbers from a scale of one to ten
in a convenient but ineffetive method -
in my view -
traume, a simple pavovian response and the stress-mistake
are dgrees of similar behaviour of similar systems
in our brain.
The new trick I am trying is based on
harnessing denial as a tool.
I am trying reverse psychology on my muscle memory
I am trying to train myself so that
whenever I make a mistake,
I immidiately stop everything, as if in panic,
and follow this rule as religiously as practical,
especially if I was recording until a second ago.
I am trying to make my subconciousness deny the mistake
ever occured, with a long thought process to match
and fight the muscle memory recording sequence,
by mimicing extra stressthe second I noticed
the mistake had occured.
From the elevated excitement from the beafed up evnt of the mistake, I expect to help eliminate, at least to a dgree,
the recording of the mistake.
It is also hard for such a mistake to be recorded in muscle
memory because there is no correlation sequence.
If there is absolutely no note in history that has ever
been recorded by muscle memory to follow the mistaken note,
then the mistake itself is at the far end of this muscle
memory sequence and its recorded strength must be very weak.
Since Stanly Jordan's system already insures
that if I combine the two systems it is statistically
improbable to make the same mistake twice,
and as the first and only recording is very weak,
it is less likely that such a mistake,
having been more lighly recorded,
will reoccur on stage
So whats the big deal,
all musician stop playing and start over when
they make mistakes almost all the time.
The difference is in the detail.
Almost is simply not nearly good enough.
If you practice casually without paying much
attention to these details, and set some other standards,
you might make, according to your set standards,
say 10 mistakes an hour on average,
and for nine of them you will stop and start over,
just like I am describing here.
You are not doing a 90% job at all.
You are merly recording about a mistake an hour
in your muscle memoey systems,
and having recorded this information over years,
by now your entire musical arrangment is woven
with recorded mistakes hoping for the stressful
event to appear in their lucky recorded moment in time,
or otherwise a competitor mistake will sprout and win instead.
I can't really say this is a discovry.
My habbits of how to react to mistakes
are a subject I have been toying with for some time now,
and every time I put on Stanly Jordan's master video
again I make sure I am by the computer when the part
where he talks about the stress-mistake correltion comes
on, trying to dig yet another minute detail from his elaborate description of vast experience.
This is also why it is hard for me to measure or report
how well this theory at all works.
This is how I try my best to practice most of the time,
with a very strong conviction it betters my learning speed.
I believe by now I have enough experiemnts to support this conviction.
|Mon, Feb 26 2007||100||Number Enhancment Omen||
Numbers are your friends if you give them the respect
I take from gut feel the average to be five fifty,
being midway between ten and one.
Say I first found her at seven.
The easiest RI task is to keep her at five fifty at all times.
The public works for you.
Tommorow there will be more clicks pulling your way.
You can delete cookies out the wazoo and
get there by the end of the hour, or do nothing
and die happy knowing that sufficient time has passed,
and sufficient cookies and clicks,
and Gauss and his theorm are making sure you
have lazily achieved your goal.
|Thu, Jul 13 2006||100||Braces||
We use braces to hold teeth and other things together.
With acorns, we can brace the acorns with a bag to hold them together.
If we had 3 in one hand and 5 in the other,
we put them in the bag,
we have 8 in the bag,
we give half to a friend, so we give out 4:
3+5 = 8
8/2 = 4
For this we don't need braces or a bag.
If we didn't count them first,
and did not know that a=3 and b=5,
we can assume we did by giving the numbers names:
3+5 => a+b
8/2 => (a+b)/2
We use the braces to show that a and b are
closer together then the 2,
and so this writing means:
first add a+b, then divide the result in 2.
We also agree that division and multiplication are always
closer than addition and subtraction so we don't have to write
braces all the time.
Also, while 2*3*4 is clearly 24,
2/3/4 could be 1/4 of 2/3 which is a 1/6,
or it could be 2 divided by 3/4 which is more than 2.
So we use braces:
(2/3)/4 = 1/6
2/(3/4) = 8/3 = 2 and 2/3
(exactly (4*4=16) times the first result, guess why?)
so, 3+5 is 8 and 2 times 8 is 16.
2*(3+5) = 16
When multiplying 2 added numbers in braces,
its like adding the multiplication of each of the numbers.
2*(3+5) = 2*3 + 2*5 = 6 + 10 = 16
the same is true if we had braces with two added numbers
on the left, like this:
(4+2)*(3+5) = 4*3 + 4*5 +2*3 + 2*5 = 12 + 20 + 6 + 10 = 48
(a+b)*(c+d) = a*c + a*d + b*c + b*d
(a+b)*(a+b) = a*a + a*b + b*a + b*b = a squared + 2*a*b + b squared
so 65 square is really just
(60+5)*(60*5) = 60*60 + 10*60 + 25 = 70*60 + 25 =
= 7*6*100 + 25 = 42*100 + 25 = 4200 + 25 = 4225
or, if a number ends with a five, to square it,
take the left part, multiply by the next number up,
write down the result from the already memorized
table of multiplication, and write down 25 to the right.
5*5 = 25
15*15 = 225
25*25 = 625
35*35 = 1225
45*45 = 2025
55*55 = 3025
65*65 = 4225
75*75 = 5625
85*85 = 7225
95*95 = 9025
105*105 = 11025
|Mon, Jun 05 2006||200||Soap 6||
Billy, let me tell you a story.
During the war, this guy Herbie and I became friends.
Well, Herbie fell in love with a wonderful Italian girl, Carla.
Thinking of Carla is what got him through the war.
Well, Carla died and Herbie nearly fell apart.
He stayed in. Drank. I've never seen anyone so miserable.
And then one day Herbie came to me, and he said:
Chet, life must go on.
And Herbie went on.
A few years later, he fell in love with another woman,
married her, and they went to Jamaica on their honeymoon,
and she ran off with a steel band.
But Herbie went on.
He married again, and this time, at the wedding reception,
his bride left him for the caterer.
But still, Herbie went on.
His next wife ran off with his partner
who ran off with his business.
But still, Herbie went on.
Because, you see, Billy, he knew that
there is a whole world out there.
He knew that somewhere,
around some corner,
he would find happiness.
I feel like a jerk.
I mean, look at Herbie.
A lifetime of disasters.
I had a week with a thirteen year old shrimp with lips.
And I'm gonna throw my life away?
Good boy, I'll see you at breakfast.
Where's Herbie now?
Oh, he's in a... mental institution.
Yes, he just sits in the corner, talks in numbers,
and makes lovely baskets.
But, I thought, well I thought, he always goes on?
Well, Billy, please.
There's just so much going on a man can do.
|Wed, May 24 2006||500||Video Processing - TAU||
Short association break in the flow,
(and yes, I know it doesn't seem like flow to you just yet):
I just remembered in accuracy the event where another student caught a professor
in a mistake, it was hilarious, it went like this:
the students said, "you are wrong, because this and that, etc"
the professor, being very smart and quick, immediately replied,
"you are right of course, I had just thought of it three seconds before you said it",
the student, most instinctively replied
"and I thought of it six seconds before I said it"
almost as if saying,
"get real, we're all mathematicians here,
Freud doesn't count or knows how to,
only numbers do"
and every student in class was literally laughing out loud, and so was the professor.
incidentally, this was also in the first semester, when none of us can
be even thought to be named mathematician later in life,
so the entire conversation was in fact totally Freudian.
anyway, where was I:
From Evolution theory,
it is implied,
with a bit of added recent-now-ancient research,
that mankind has advanced to a ruling point,
thereby since continually increase in numbers,
unlike most of the rest of nature,
which is ecologically stable -
much like a virus in an epidemic,
which is about as rare.
The net result, from an evolution standpoint,
is that this very advanced state is now frozen in mid time.
On one single documented historical occasion,
evolution slipped through the time continuum,
and did some work.
Some mutations have benefited by
the fact that their near equals perished.
If Hitler naturally selected the Jews to make evolution experiments on,
he succeeded: Evolution works, and is proven clinically.