ChapterZero

Starting with Cal II, I have had a vague feeling that I’m missing my basics. That is, I can understand how to use the tools of calculus, and even understand some nontrivial results, as well as reach them independently. But with every new thing I learn, I feel that much further away from my mathematical basics. It is no longer possible to look at an equation and see what it means and how to resolve it intuitively. I’m too far away from vanilla derivatives and integrals for me to doubt my grasp of them; I should be able to use the without thinking about it. In a perfect world, I would remember all the reasoning that went into bringing me to the level of mathematical involvement that I’ve reached. But of course, I don’t; otherwise, I wouldn’t be writing this, would I? Now I’m in differential equations, and I find myself in a quandry. There is so much more I would like to know, both in the world of math and outside. And all that knowledge seeking will of course require reading. Should I take the time to secure my foundations before I move on, or should I keep pressing ahead hoping that my mathematical understanding doesn’t fall apart around me? I think it is time that I force myself to review the basics. Even if only the not-so-basics, like the techniques of integration, and the logics of limits– the two things I seem to have the most trouble remembering. I would hate to find that after 4 years of college, all I succeeded in doing was turning my mind to a mush of unconnected and arbritrary techniques. Hence, I will return to the theory and not study any other math (other than school-related) until I have it where I want it. Indelibly imprinted on my brain.

Which brings forth a related question that has been nagging me for quite a while, and I only take this occasion to bring forth? Is it true as it seems to me that the type of undifferentiated, random, cursory technical reading I do actually is negatively affecting my ability to concentrate on, think about, and remember anything for more than a few seconds? I think that this is a true effect– perhaps caused because when I read, I can glance over a pivotal argument or theorem and see how it was done, without having to put any effort into deriving it myself. When I in turn have to solve a problem of my own, two things happen: 1) I get frustrated, thinking it should be easier than it is, and 2) my brain feels full with the wool of others’ thoughts. So much so that I can’t differentiate them from one another. The answer to my question, whether I have it right or wrong, is of course to stop reading for a while, give my brain a rest. Maybe that is all it needs, time to recuperate and integrate new information. But can I do that?

Frankly, I don’t know and don’t care. How can that affect my life? Ok– that’s not fair, lots of things I am interested in don’t directly affect my life. Either way, I am reading a book on it currently. Of course, the author’s contention is that God created the universe. I always wonder when I read books like these, what do the authors mean when they say ‘God’? Is that automatically the Christian God, or just an intelligent being of unlimited power? In the latter case, I have no response except to say that it’s possible, and perhaps to be desired. In the former case, my response is, what about cosmology supports the Genesis story? Either this author has a talent for facetiousness, or he actually thinks they can be reconciled:

After around 300,000 years, atoms began to form as the universe further expanded and cooled. Until then, darkness was upn the face of the deep; but as atoms formed, more space was created and photons were set free to illuminate the universe for the first time; and suddenly, after 300,000 years or so of darkness, there was light.

Hmmm… is that chockful of biblical allusions, more specifically to Genesis, or am I imagining things? What ever the case may be, the book is certainly entertaining.

Semantic Satiation - occurs when you repeat a word so many times it loses all meaning. Strangely enough semantic satiation occurs quicker in smarter people.

Semantic Generation - occurs when you repeat a nonsense word so many times that it gains meaning. Probably occurs quicker in people who think they’re smart :). Examples abound … the most prevalent in my mind right now is ‘grok’.

Well that was all the meaningful content I can think of. Now you get to hear me whine on about how I’m never going to be able to make all the changes I’d like to the site. Last weekend I spent 6 hours working on a design which started off as crap, became moderately good, then fell back to its origins. Enough ranting, as no one is listening but I. Surely the first thing I’ll do when I redesign is join the undefinable ribbon campaign.

Oh my god (well spoken– just kidding :).

I usually try to refrain myself from giving excerpts of books I’m reading, but in this case the excerpt is self sufficient and well worth the giving. I’m reading The Menopause Industry: How the Medical Establishment Exploits Women, because my mother and I had a conversation about the hormone replacement theraphy she is on. I was surprised by the fact that she (a nurse!) hadn’t heard of the alternatives: wild yam, dong quai, etc. So I went to the library on campus today and checked out several books for her. This one in particular caught my eye because of the air of radical journalism it carries. So here’s the excerpt:

The great advantage men have is that our culture allows two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man …. A man does not grieve when he loses the smooth, unlined, hairless skin of a boy. For he has exchanged one form of attractiveness for another: the darker skin of a man’s face, roughened by daily shaving, showing the marks of emotion and the normal lines of age.

There is no equivalent of this second standard for women. The single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on having clear skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a defeat. No wonder that no boy minds becoming a man, while even the passage from girlhood to early womanhood is experienced by many women as their downfall, for all women are trained to want to continue looking like girls.

While I don’t agree with the last sentence: I find it doubtful that ‘many women’ think of their passage to womanhood as ‘their downfall’, I think the overall message is sound. That explains why so many women think Mel Gibson only gets more ‘distinguished’ with age, and why there’s a large market for ‘age-defying’ cosmetics. What’s sad is that I subscribe to this delusion also. I think we all do.