we could be
ELEMENTS OF COORDINATE GEOMETRY
End of story.
Yesterday I was quite low. I had for long had lost the sight of things to do while still alive, my dearest friends are all deciding to leave country and also few are displaying painfully strange and inexplicable behaviours etc. It was all bad and then I almost instinctively receded to reading Digital Communications from John G Proakis, a beloved and quite captivating book and it lead me to read probability again, with a fresher outlook, maybe the one with no where else to look. While going through this book from Athanasios Papoulis, first thing I noticed was how the author wanted the reader to first of all be able to see that talking in terms of probability is not a loss of definiteness. He, then, tried to relate to quite relatable definiteness of mathematics of averages and means. But, I guess, the author had been a science student all the while and hence failed to understand that the first thing the reader might need to work on would be what he understands from the very words: phenomena, definiteness and average. Or maybe the author was quite too clever and hence kept the confusion floating at the surface so as soon, lost in the struggle of getting the things intuitively, the reader begin to see definiteness with a shadow of randomness!
Numbers are simple, operations are everything but simple when one tries to conceive them intuitively. Averaging is an operation which may produce a number that is not even existing in the collected samples. Take the example of two groups of kids with ages 5 and 2 which makes the average age to be 3.5! Even funny is when number of people comes out to be a fraction when averaged! Anyway, you get the point—averaging is an operation and does not have to make much practical sense like Fermi Energy level in extrinsic semiconductor at thermal equilibrium. The theory of probability works on this very thing: what we get from the operations of averaging, all the kinds which tend to a constant when the number of observations is increased. Before we begin, we must understand that probability also generates a definite result, just this is a definiteness which does not ignore the existence right before we began observing value to right after we concluded the value and found it, hence, definite—it is about understanding indefiniteness as an inherent part of definiteness. When put in language like this, this seems to be like dating a ghost. Let me assure you that it is not… this is more like recognizing the person from his shadow only. Yeah, profoundly beautiful a notion this is. And it all is rooted in what we understand from “reaching a constant value” as the number of observations increase and the operation of average which tends to constant values remains somewhat constant even when sub-sequences are considered.
I know my understanding is not yet complete. But, it already is feeling like I am finally on the verge of clearing all the veils and breaking out of skewed understanding of definiteness. I am also pretty excited that now when I will read information theory and Error correction coding and all those fun digital things again, I will be overwhelmed with how easy and intuitively obvious the most dreadful mathematics of computing and electrical engineering could become!
The first innovative bicycle path in the Netherlands will be paved with light stones that will charge during the day and emit light during the evening. The path will run by the home that Vincent van Gogh lived in from 1883-5.
“I think it’s intoxicating when somebody is so unapologetically who they are.”
– Don Cheadle (via psych-facts)
There are so many friends of mine who cannot really call a thing wrong or right because they have themselves stuck in the “perspective argument” according which nothing is absolutely right or wrong and everything is mere personal point-of-view. I wouldn’t call this stupid to save myself from being seen as fundamentalist or grumpy old ass, but, well, I cannot understand this either. I believe in an absolute right or wrong, I may or may not be there, but it is there. And when everyone has to make a choice eventually basing upon his or her understanding solely[‘cause this argument already establishes that there are infinite choices, nothing can be wrong or right, I dunno why they just don’t take the words out of dictionary], does it even matter whether he calls others wrong or right? The point has always been acceptance and humility for eachother’s opinion and NOT to take away the whole right and wrong away!
I do not go by my feelings mostly for this same reason. Look, I don’t really care what most believe or understand, I have to be right. I mean it’s not like I disregard my feelings, I used to a lot, but don’t anymore—I have been talked to understand how detrimental and limiting this is—I just keep sticking to apt usage of words so as my thought leads me to a logical conclusion. Our thought is what we talk to ourselves, how we sense the intensity of each moment and we can either act upon talking to ourselves or plainly instinctively. So, the charade that the world is today, purely instinctive actions are thought to be psychopathic.
… I only try to say what I truly truly believe and mean and in as simple words as possible, it ensures that I will not be lost in bullshit and noises and “perspective argument.”
“There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”
– Earnest Hemingway (via shooting-for—the-stars)
a little light