Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid

... finally finished.

The introduction to the book, by the author, misleads the reader into thinking the book is going to cover a diverse number of topics that don't have much to do with each other.  The author himself claims that he is not really sure if there even is a central idea to the book.  This isn't to say that the topics weren't diverse (they were) or that he wouldn't at times ramble confusingly (he did), but the connections he draws and the picture he paints of HOW WE THINK (obvious main idea by end) are brilliant AND easy to comprehend by people who don't have backgrounds in mathematics.  Though really: everyone's got a background in mathematics.  Math describes everything.  (That was sort of a corollary to the main idea.)

I liked the book so much (and thus pursued its complete read-through) probably because the ideas were in line with what I already believed about the world.  Of course I recommend it -- because I think others should be gently exposed to the idea that we are, on some levels, automatons with "no" free will, and this book accomplishes this with finesse.

And Hofstadter is a good teacher.  He's a little corny, and his puns can be horrible.  But he doesn't draw attention to much of the wordplay he puts in the book -- he tosses it in like spice, and the reader is rewarded for being awake and paying attention but doesn't lose much if they zone out every once in a while.  I predict that if I reread it right now I would find much I missed the first time around.  (Haha, but I'm not going to do that.  If I ever attempt to read it cover-to-cover again, it'll be at least a decade before that happens.)  He clearly cares that his ideas are clear.  This is a picture book: there are 152 figures, and an uncounted number of diagrams, throughout the 742 pages.  It's not an easy read, but it's not insurmountable by high-school graduates.  Or even high-school students.  Gosh, wouldn't it be great if this were required reading???  Yes.

I'm going to go find some chocolate now.

What I learned from Game of Thrones

Reading Game of Thrones books has now consumed at least sixty hours of my life so I better have come up with some good lessons right? Here are all three of them:

I guess this is lesson number four!

1. If you punish someone, have the guts to carry out the punishment yourself.

2. If you have a dungeon, make it underground with no light or sound, or high in the air with only three walls and a downward-sloping floor.

3. Everyone wants something; destroying people is only a matter of finding out what they want.

That's about it. The most important lesson George R. R. R. R. Martin teaches us is this: If you make a decision based on anything other than the most rational way to achieve your stated goal, you will lose. By lose I mean die. If your victory isn't worth sacrificing your love and honor to cold calculation, why are you fighting for it?

Twisted, I know. 

 The most ridiculous thing I hear about Game of Thrones is that it's a great treatise on political intrigue. Next time you hear this, correct your friends with these simple facts:

1. Westeros is a feudal society; the modern world is not. The peasants and farmers and knights swear fealty to the lords, and the lords swear fealty to the king. That type of sovereign system doesn't exist anywhere today. In the books there is no parliament, system of checks and balances, electoral process, or anything else that is a hallmark of modern government. Even most authoritarian regimes look more like democracies than they look like Westeros.
2. Wars of succession do not typify modern politics. Total war with multiple factions trying to obtain power is now the exception rather than the rule in modern politics. Unless you are trying to claim that Mexican drug wars and Somalian civil war represent typical contemporary politics, don't pretend that you are learning about modern politics by reading this series.

The common denominator between the politicians in the Song of Ice and Fire series and modern politicians is that both groups covet power. But since the types of intrigue used to obtain power have changed completely since the 1100s, and life and death are now rarely on the line, there is no merit in comparing fact to fiction.

So if you're reading the books, just follow my lead and admit that you got sucked in by what happens to each of the individual characters as their tale unfolds. This is basically Ye Olde Dayes of  O'ur Lyves and I can't wait for my story to come on.

Post Script: If you like the show or the books, I think you'll like this too. But there be spoilers!

More on the Tree

I think I have a solution.  So I looked it up -- I began at Nado's helpful site and... what was there didn't match my formula.  And it is complicated because it has to separately define 4 terms... I guess it's legit but I'm dumb and want things to be elegant even when they're not.  So I also googled the problem and found another solution.

I had thought my issue was that I needed a formula that I could use to build the flip-tree, so I ignored that mental rule and just wrote a formula that described the tree but which cannot be used to build it.  Which I guess is cheating.  But oh well!  I think I could have eventually reached this other formula online had I stayed calm following my breakthrough, reinstated my rule, and tried again, which makes me happy.  The best thing about the effort I put into this is that I learned how to go about solving these sorts of problems.

If you're interested, I'll leave my solution and the other solutions in the comments.

Onward to more GEB!

Searching for Sugar Man

They said he killed himself onstage.

Finished his last song and shot himself in the head.

One final statement against societal injustice.

It's time for the Oscars baby! I'm sure every picture up for Best Documentary is absolutely smashing but you owe it to yourself to take 80 minutes and watch Searching for Sugar Man, the true story of Detroit's recalled-to-life folk hero Sixto Rodriguez, better known as Sugar Man.

Rodriguez recorded two albums in the early seventies that flamed out quicker than abandoned Detroit buildings on Devil's night. They were failures everywhere except, as it turns out, for a little while in Australia and apparently in South Africa. There he was nicknamed Sugar Man (the title of the first track on his debut album) and his music became part of the rallying cry to end Apartheid. It was said that even Steve Biko was a fan of Sugar Man.

Student leader and anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa, killed in police custody

No one knew the first thing about Sugar Man, except he committed suicide onstage and wrote marvelously philosphical, electric trippy lyrics like

Cause I lost my job two weeks before Christmas
And I talked to Jesus at the sewer 
And the Pope said it was none of his God-damned business 
While the rain drank champagne

My Estonian Archangel came and got me wasted 
Cause the sweetest kiss I ever got is the one I've never tasted
Oh but they'll take their bonus pay to Molly McDonald,
Neon ladies, beauty is that which obeys, is bought or borrowed

Those are complex, man. Eventually two amateur music sleuths decided to find out the truth once and for all about what happened to Sugar Man. This is the story of their detective work.

Wanted: Cute, mysterious musician with righteous indignance

Curiosity peaked, I downloaded Rodriguez's two original albums and am impressed. His lyrics are psychedelic but almost always meaningful, and he skillfully produced many styles of music. Listen to "I Wonder" for a catchy bass line, "Only Good for Conversation" for Jimi Hendrix-style guitar wailing, and "Silver Words?" for a humble and charming love song.

Okay STAHP HERE IF YOU DON'T WANNA NO SPOILAS

I said STOP in the NAME of LOVE

STOP DOES NOT MEAN TRY HARDER STOP PROCEED ONLY IF YOU WANT SPOILERS STOP YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED STOP

.............WHOA, heh, he's not dead after all.

He's in Detroit. Doing construction work.

Never saw a penny of South African record sales.

Has no idea his songs helped end Apartheid.

omfg SERIOUSLY??? Get the guy onstage!!!!

And that is just what those South African music sleuths did. They flew Rodriguez to Johannesburg for a series of sold-out concerts and this sweet sixty-something musician got to bond with fans who grew up on his songs. It must have been like finding out John Lennon is alive and well and that he'll be performing in your town this summer. 

<----- Happy Sixto

This was in like 1998. Rodriguez continues to be alive and well and is touring all over the world. He gives most of his proceeds back to his community in Detroit. Watch this movie if you want proof that fairy tales exist in real life.

Trees with Nonsensical Leaves

So I haven't moved forward in GEB for, like, two weeks or something ridiculous like that. Because I'm stuck on this one part. Hofstadter's cool because he sprinkles the text with try-it-yourselfs, and until this one on page 137 I've been successfully completing all of them. And I'm not going to be defeated now.

Here's the problem:

There's a recursive tree of whole numbers which can be represented by a function G(n). The number tree looks like this:

following the basic pattern (remember, it's recursive) which looks like this:

where (b) is the second iteration of the tree. (You put a G-tree at every place where it says G on the tree you currently have to get subsequent iterations.) Bored yet? But wait! There's an equation, G(n), to go with all this!

G(n) = n - G(G(n-1)) for n>0

G(0) = 0

If you input a number from a node on the tree as n in the equation, you get its immediate predecessor for G(n). So G(9)=6, etc. And this describes the G-tree.

Here's the dumb hateful tricky part:

Draw the numbered tree the same way, but number the nodes from right to left instead of from left to right.

Now find the function G'(n) (which describes the new "flip-tree").

OMFG I CAN'T.

That's all. I need to sleep now.

A Note on Translated Science

I've been reading Scientific American articles for years -- Savannah can tell you if you don't believe me.  I carried them (rather pretentiously, yes, I know) around in my backpack in middle and high school, and I really was reading the articles... but yeah, of course, it was also kind of my thing, the nerd thing that I got a rep for, and I liked that.  I talked about being a quantum physicist when I was eleven.  I was that kid.  (Though I think I did understand to a degree what I was talking about.)  (More or less.)  (More than the kids who picked on me for it, anyway.  Hah.)

In college I dropped it for a while but picked up the habit again after my parents purchased me a subscription (all my own!) for Christmas one year.  I try to read them cover to cover, and in my pagecounting book list I estimate I read about 70 or so pages per issue.  I highly recommend them for light reading -- seriously!  Because they're not issues of Science or Nature, or any other genuine peer-reviewed journals.  They're science for laypeople.

The information is mostly accurate but should be taken with a grain of salt.  SciAm's popularity resides in its ability to stimulate creativity.  It's daydream fodder.  It's sci-fi, with just enough of reality to be worth talking about at the water cooler of an office building.  It's meant to educate the American people!  Lift our standards of general knowledge!  It's supposed to change our culture and make us all more critical and analytical about everything in our lives, and also allow us to live a little, vicariously through the scientists who are doing these neat experiments.

But it's not entirely factual, as I mentioned.  If you read it, don't tell your friends about what you read as though it's all true.  This magazine doesn't give you the numbers, or the statistical analyses, or accurate predictions about how and when the results of these experiments are going to change our lives.  It's just fun.

And everyone should read at least one article a year.

*two pennies clinking*

Andi's watch list

Here is a list I will continue to update of movies I am greatly looking forward to watching.

Rogue Trader (1999)
The true story of the investment broker who singlehandedly bankrupted one of the most prestigious trading firms in the United Kingdom. Co-written by Nick Leeson (the guy who did it), and played by Ewan McGregor from the same time period as Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Part of me wishes I had movies on this list that were here because they're great works of human achievement. The other 99% of me just wonders what McGregor is going to look like talking mortgage-backed securities with his shirtsleeves rolled up.

Also this trailer looks like it was filmed in the 70s.

 
The Brothers Karamazov (1958)
Fans of Russian literature, Yul Brynner, and William Shatner, rejoice! A drop-dead adorable pre-Star Trek William Shatner plays Alyosha Karamazov, a would-be monk who spends most of his time putting out fires in his community - most of which are caused by his irascible father Fyodor and hotheaded brother Dmitri (Yul Brynner). Will I ever see this movie? Depends on whether or not I can finish the book first!

Update: this movie is amazing. It grasps all the important concepts and plot points of Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel, squishes it into 2 hours 20 minutes, and, astonishingly, leaves you blanketed with warm fuzzies the way Captain Kirk gets avalanched with tribbles. Yul Brynner's performance is outstanding. I had no idea what to expect but his portrayal of Dmitri can be summed up by that quote about how nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as real strength. And smoldering good looks.

Treasure Island (2012)
The book of the same name is the quintessential adventure story, tied for first with The Three Musketeers. And I love Eddie Izzard on principle because he ran 43 marathons in 51 days with only five weeks of training. He is my foremost living inspiration for lacing up the trainers and hitting the streets. This movie is bound to be enjoyable even if not a top ten favorite.

Allow me to add that my second greatest living inspiration to run is a nemesis of personal acquaintance.

2. The Three Musketeers (2011)
Lo and behold, it must seem like I only care about tales of adventure! I do love The Three Musketeers more than almost any other adventure story, but I want to watch this film for the actors, not the plot. If you want to see a  3M movie that sticks well to the story and perfectly conveys the camaraderie and jollity of Dumas' famous tale, watch the 1973 version with Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Frank Finlay, and Michael York as Athos, Aramis, Porthos, and the puppy-lovable D'Artagnan respectively. Go watch and fall in love!

I've heard the 2011 version is nothing like the books (lame. why do you want to add flying ships and 10,000 tons of gunpoweder? to ruin a perfectly good story). But who can resist Matthew Macfadyen playing brilliant, wry Athos? Like Darcy went rogue. And oh look, Ray Stevenson is here to play Porthos, it's like getting a second helping of our much beloved Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome FOR FREE. And Percy Jackson--well, Logan Lerman, whatever--is playing D'Artagnan! If this movie captures the esprit de corps of the novels and gives us anything remotely following the books I'll be happy, because adaptations of famous books usually get people to go read the books, and that is always a good thing.

For example, did you know you can buy copies of Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights (and maybe Pride and Prejudice) in Twilight motif? It just goes to prove that saying about how bad things come with silver linings.

3. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)

I was in high school when I read this book so I don't remember it much except being enchanted with the descriptions of life in the deep, sleepy American south. I'm betting this movie can bring it to life. I've enjoyed disliking Kevin Spacey in every movie I've seen him in (except in Beyond the Sea; that was such an about-face that I feel obligated to mention it because I was flabbergasted I could actually like the man). John Cusack will forever have my heart for voicing Dmitri in Fox's Anastasia (which premiered the same year this movie did, incidentally). And I am very interested to see Jude Law playing a presumably smoking hot young rapscallion. Bring on the peach cobbler and sweet tea!

Update: it starts to drag in the middle during a long-winded trial, but not to be missed. Jude Law was compelling but it turns out the star of the show is Lady Chablis, a cross-dressing actress who stars as herself in both the book and the movie and who outshines everyone in a ten-mile radius.