U n ME

When I first talked to U,
I felt like I had known U for ever
Telling U my heart and U listened to me.
I bet U thought I'd never end.
Who would have thought
We would be the best of friends.

Over a period of time,
I got to know U,
A girl so charming and dynamic,
With a heart so true filled with LOVE.

I know U,
Like no one i've ever known
And sometimes I wonder.....
Why I am here, so far away from U.

I LOVE the way we talk,
It feels as there's only U n me
And nothing can make us apart.

Will it be forever?
I guess, I'll have to wait for a while
Sure is that we need
The blessings of the divine.

Time will reveal what lies ahead
But always remember what i have said.
Being with U has changed my life
And i really LOVE U so,
The feelings i feel for U
I am never letting go.

Remember me always
And I always will treasure U
and think of U and ME.

love U "L***"
-shonu

L***'r raag.................

raag koreche raag koreche,
amar l*** raag koreche;
o'ke ki je bollam jani na,
ö amar opor raag koreche.

bhalo bashe amaye sobcheye besi,
se je jani ami;
kintu ö ektu boku boku,
setaö jani ami.

ghum peleo ghumoye na,
tandra'ye kore goppo;
kokhono amaye off'ey daak'ey,
kokhono ki je sob böley.

chokh bondho hoye ashe,
tao je thake jege;
amar söb bok-bok shune,
r ki je aabi-jhabi bole.

kintu ekhon se raag koreche,
ebar ki korbo ami,
ke je amar bok-bok shunbe,
ke je amaye bokbe,
ke je onek ta bhalo bashbe amaye,
r ektu jed korbe.

rege jeo na tumi l***,
bolo ami ki je kori;
l*** chara shonu je eka,
setai sotti....

...LUV U ALWAYS... :-*
-shonu

Face Recognition Algorithms

Face recognition is an important topic in computer science these days, and there is a lot of active research. A computer finding a match between a driver's license photo and a ID picture from a database. This is one situation where image-matching software is pretty successful, since both types of ID photos are taken under controlled circumstances and with pretty good resolution. To simplify the discription of how this software works, let's look at this "best case": head-on views with good lighting and good resolution. We'll save the sketchy stuff for later.

We start with a database of many photos, and a picture P of a "suspect". We want to find the photo in the database which best matches P.

First of all, we have to "digitize" both photos into a comparable format. Let's assume the database photos are digital images -- say 800 x 600 dots or "pixels". We'll want to take our photo and scan it into digital format of 800 x 600 pixels as well. We have to decide whether to use color or greyscale for our pictures. Color often complicates things too much without adding a lot of useful distinguishing features. (You'd surely recognize a familiar face whether the photo is colored or not.) If either the database or the photo P is not in color, then clearly we can not use color.

OK, we now have a database and a photo P all digitized to 800 x 600 dots. For simplicity let's say we are using greyscales: from 0 (black) to 255 (pure white). We could naively compare a photo in the database with P, dot for dot, and take the variance: the sum, over all points, of the squares of the differences (between the two pictures) of the greyscale values at each point. (we square to make everything positive, which avoids "cancellation"). This variance is a measure of the total difference between the two pictures, but it is generally worthless, for two reasons.

1. Even if the two actual faces are virtually identical, if one is shifted over even a tiny bit, or slightly enlarged or distorted, lots of pixels won't match up. Small differences in contrast or shading or lighting can result in very large variances, even though the facial features (shapes) are nearly identical.

2. Checking through half a million pixels is slow.

Now we have to use some cleverness and some neat math. By researching faces and perception, we can come up with a list of many qualities that distinguish a face. Here are some: distance between the eyes; distances from the left eye (or right eye) to other facial features such as the corners of the mouth and hinges of the jaw; overall shape of the head using various measures; angles relating to the eyes, nose and ears; etc. etc. Some of these features can be measured by processing the pictures in various ways: accentuating contrast or finding edges, corners or curves. These can all be described as mathematical operations, some using ideas from calculus such as gradients and convolutions.

Anyway, workers in the field have come up with lists of facial features that can be isolated and quantified (given a number). For the sake of argument, let's say there are 300 significant features. We can fix some ordering, and, for any particular image, list them:

< f₁, f₂, f₃, ...,f₃₀₀ >

(where fn is the numerical value of the nth feature).

This list is sometimes called a face vector

So, instead of half a million pixels, we have associated to a picture a single "vector" with just 300 numerical "components" or coordinates. If the choice of features is a good one, matching the face vector of our photo P with the face vectors of the images in our database ought to give us good results.

But there is more. Some features are more important than others in distinguishing faces. It is hard to predict in advance what these features are, so we have algorithms for "training" or fine-tuning our comparisons of face vectors. This can be done ahead of time, since it just involves our database.

Start by looking at our collection of face vectors: one for each image in our database. We can take all of them and average them together. There are a number of ways of doing this, but the simplest is just to add them all up, component-by-component, and divide by the total number. As a simple example, suppose <>, <> and <> are three face vectors. Then their numerical average would be the vector

< (a+p+u)/3,(b+q+v)/3, (c+r+w)/3, (d+s+x)/3 >

The average of all face vectors in our database is called the average face. We now search through all of the face vectors in the database to find the one which has the largest variance (sum of squares of differences in coordinates) from the average face. The is called the first eigenface. It somehow picks out those qualities in our descriptions of the faces in the database for which there is the most variation. We now exclude the first eigenface and look at the remaining face vectors and repeat this process.

[Well, there are some technicalities here which I'm going to gloss over. The idea is to produce a collection of eigenfaces which are orthogonal or "perpendicular" to each other. This has a precise description in a field of mathematics called linear algebra. Suffice it to say that the procedure for producing this list of eigenfaces is a well-studied one, for which there are computer programs to do the job. By the way, the word eigen -- pronounced "eye'-ghen" -- is German for "characteristic"; eigenvalues and eigenvectors are concepts of great importance in linear algebra.]

So, we prepare in advance, from our database, a list of face vectors called eigenfaces, which are faces that basically vary from the biggest difference from the average face to the smallest difference from the average face.

OK, here's the last piece. If we take any face vector, we can attempt to express it in terms of the eigenface vectors. This is called "projecting onto the eigenspace". One again, finding the best way of doing this is a well-known technique in linear algebra. Writing a face vector in terms of eigenfaces, or projecting it, results in a sequence of numbers called that vector's eigen coordinates. There may be up to 300 of them, with the ones at the beginning the most important, and the ones at the end of less importance (since they represent facial qualities which vary very little in the database). Sometimes only the most significant eigen coordinates are used.

When the database is prepared, or when new photos are added to it, a "training session" recalculates the average face vector, the collection of eigenfaces, and the assignment of eigen coordinates to each photo in the database.

Here's how we do the matching. We take our unknown photo (already digitized), find its face vector (by constructing the list of 300 quantified features). We subtract from the face vector the average face from the database, then find the eigen coordinates of our photo. We now go through the list of eigen coordinates of database photos, and try to find a close match with the eigen coordinates of our unknown photo. How this match is made varies from system to system. Sometimes it is a simple variance check; in others it is done using various statistical correlation techniques. There may be special weights put on certain coordinates etc.

There is no "standard" face recognition or matching algorithm but rather many different ones, some more effective for certain types of images or databases than others. There is a lot more interesting math here than I've been able to convey -- I don't work in this field -- but it's a subject being actively researched every day.

Excuse Me - the untold saga

According to Collins Dictionary an excuse is ‘a reason or justification’ or ‘to make allowance for’. Perfect. We are so good at avoiding what needs to be done or allowing ourselves to accept less than we deserve that we even have a word for the act of doing so.

‘yeah but’…famous words! If you hear ‘yeah but’ train yourself to understand that an excuse is on its way. The excuse is coming any second now. Align the phrase ‘yeah but’ to a mental image of a large bright red flag furiously blowing in the wind.

Because a life of ‘yeah but’ is simply not good enough for you. A life of ‘yeah but’ means accepting an inferior path or a lesser quality of life. Free yourself today from ‘yeah but’ and notice how your life takes off around you.

Digging deeper, even worse than allowing ‘yeah but’ to enter the vocabulary is the curios amount of energy some people will use up in thinking up good excuses. We know that excuses lead to less than we deserve and yet some people will spend vital energy creating excuses.

‘I haven’t completed the project, what shall I tell my boss?’ ‘I forgot our anniversary is tomorrow, what can I say?’

I realise that sometimes there is a need to bend truths. I realise that sometimes it is appropriate to change the story a little in order to not hurt other’s feelings. What I am getting at here is our internal truth. Our authenticity. Our core being.

Given the choice of putting the energy into the doing or putting the energy into the justification and rationalizing, doing the doing wins hands down every time.

We even go to the lengths of judging and awarding merit points for excuses. Hence the phrases ‘good excuse’ and ‘poor excuse’. How come it matters whether an excuse is good or bad? An excuse is an excuse. If we are not living to our best - does it matter whether our rationalization is good or poor?

The challenge today is to free yourself from a life of excuses. Step up if you have to. Hold yourself accountable to a higher standard if you need to. Do whatever it takes to eliminate ‘yeah but’ from your vocabulary.

Once we stop making our own excuses we also stop making excuses for other. It is inevitable. A good example is a relationship. We all know someone who tolerates more than their fair share in a relationship. Some of us are guilty of doing this ourselves.

Take this classical yet familiar case. He doesn’t ring when he said he would. She says ‘he’s probably busy’ She comes home in an angry mood and takes it out on him. He says ‘work is very demanding’. He is physically violent. She stays because ‘I know he loves me’.

Having mastered the art of not making excuses for ourselves or for others, the next level is to not accept excuses from anyone else. The challenge tomorrow is to free yourself from the excuses of others.

Behaviour creates behaviour. If you ‘make allowances’ for others, they learn that allowances are made. If you hold others accountable, they learn to be accountable. If you do not accept excuses - others around you will stop offering them.

As I type this I can hear my ex boss saying ‘don’t tell me why you haven’t done it, tell me when it will be done!’

There’s no excuse for excuses!

Missing someone DEAR

It is lunch break, I am sitting with my friends in the canteen and waiting for Chintu da (our canteen boy) to bring the lunch. A whole lot of halla-gulla is happening all around, jokes are being cracked, discussions are going on. The place is as lively as always. But something is not the same. I get, its something to do with me. I am missing her, feeling empty, i can feel the big void within me. I remember the song "bheed mein bhi hum tanha rahe...aankhon ki talash jo hai woh hai tera chehra...ki bin tere..." from the movie 'Aggar'. The song truly echoes my current state.

Have u ever missed someone and felt terrible because u think that he/she doesn't miss u? Missing someone is a terrible but at the same time, sweet feeling. U will be sitting around wondering if u meant anything to him/her. Thinking if he/she ever cares about u. Rushing to the phone once it rings or a sms drops hoping that it's him/her. Sitting in front of the television but thinking of him/her, missing the final episode of your favourite show. Looking out of the window hoping that he/she will surprise u by appearing downstairs (not in my case as its long distance ).

Laying on your bed, thinking of the last time u were out together or talked to each other. Thinking of how nice it will be to sit under the stars, talking about everything, your dreams, plans, future. Logging on to the internet hoping to see him/her online. When u realise that he/she isn't online and did not return your e-mail, u will start worrying if he/she is okay. Missing someone is a way of growing up i guess. It exposes u to loneliness. It teaches u how to cope with being lonely and let u know that there is actually a feeling known as emptiness.

Sometimes it feels good to miss someone. U know that u really care and u indulge in the feeling of loving/caring for him/her. But missing someone and not knowing if he/she is feeling the same is terrible. U feel as if u are being left alone. So if u miss someone, tell him/her and let them know. At the same time, ask if they miss u. Don't let the feeling of missing someone become jealousy or paranoia. If u are the one being missed and u know it, let the other party know. If u miss him/her too, tell them. Don't let them wait.

As for me , i am feeling terrible.
Well, what are you and me waiting for then !................

Rohit Bhaskar
28th September 2007

Friendship - Hurt - SORRY - HOPE, I miss HER

There is this theory, that you can't help who you fall in love with. What I used to think was total bullshit until she came along. I was Mr. Play -it -safe. Mr. Always-Busy. I never let a girl get close to me; I kept a distance. Until she came along. It was more than a quarter century of years, never been in love, never even had a short-term relationship. Until she came along. It just started with friendship phones, e-mail, specifically saying electronic communication. Got in touch with her after a long long time. Yes, we knew each other but it is just for record. Maybe we were destined to meet once more in life and this was the time. We were so comfortable with each other, shared our joy, problems and much more. As time passed by the feelings inside me started to evolve and take a different form. Yes it felt beautiful. She changed everything, she gave me something I never had before; she made me feel important and worthy. Yah, I am the hopeless type. She was always right. My views were changing. I started to see life with a different and better perspective. I never told her my new feelings for her, perhaps was afraid of losing her, losing my dear friend. I was still making up my mind and waiting for the right time. Then suddenly I did something wrong. I am still not so clear what. Yah, I know I am dumb. She has stopped communicating. She doesn't even check my mails or maybe she checks, she never replies. I know I have hurt her, hurt her really very bad. Some of my friends suggested I write a letter to her, but don't send it. This way I would be free to get out of my emotions. But I dont want to get out of it. This absence of hers has created such a void in my life, now i know her true worth. I know she was the truest of true friend, full of life, never demanding and very caring. Will she ever forgive me and come back into my life. I HOPE.

My whole life is taking a different course and I am trying my best to hold it here. But it is only SHE who can help me.
Please come back, Please reply,


Rohit Bhaskar
27 September 2007

GOD is Great........... my PRAYERS have been answered. I LOVE U my ANGEL.........

I am the happiest man on this whole universe.
( Don't dare to say no, 'coz I am....). a bit of my atti....

Fun apart, yesterday was the happiest day of my life. After all the dark days, yesterday was the day filled with sunshine and love. My ANGEL sms-ed me. Oh, i cant describe how happy i was to read the sms ( thanks to the techies who developed such a great tool called cellphone). It was a msg that a friend wrote to other wishing BIJOYA DASHAMI ( a bengali way of life after Durga puja). Although i had feelings for her still my reply was a friendly one. Then we kept msg-ing and msg-ing and its still on as i am writing this post. I have a feeling that she is also in LOVE with me. Keeping my fingers crossed..............

So, wud be concluding this post here as U all would be thinking "what am i doing here".


bye....................

Quantum Hype

One of the things i would really, really like to see some day is a working quantum computer. Quantum mechanics is deep magic that nobody really understands, but we have learnt a lot about how to use it during the last century–including its application to some kinds of computation. As you surely know, the most outstanding quantum algorithm is Shor’s prime factorization, which allows factoring a number N with a time complexity O({(\log N)}^3). That means that we go from exponential to polynomial time when going from classical to quantum for this particular problem (and related ones: the Wikipedia article on QC gives a pretty good survey; see also David Deutsch’s introductory lectures). I’m stressing the last point because there’s a widespread misconception that quantum computers will be able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. Not so. On the contrary, experts are almost sure by now that this won’t be the case (note, by the way, that factoring is not NP-complete).

The most recent examples of such bogus claims are the reports on D-wave’ demos of their ‘quantum computer’, which are surrounded by piles of hype. So please, before taking them at face value, see Scott Aaronson’s The Orion Quantum Computer Anti-Hype FAQ (more here here here). Scott Aaronson is an expert in the field and the author of a PhD thesis under the title Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World (for a less technical introduction to quantum computing, see his nice Quantum Computing Since Democritus lectures). For an executive summary, here’s the first entry in the FAQ:

*Q: Thanks to D-Wave Systems — a startup company that’s been in the news lately for its soon-to-be-unveiled “Orion” quantum computer — is humanity now on the verge of being able to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time?
* A: No. We’re also not on the verge of being able to build perpetual-motion machines or travel faster than light.

The old rule applies: no silver bullet. But, of course, their limitations notwithstanding, quantum computers would (will?) be an interesting challenge for us programmers, and we do not have to wait for the hardware to play with them: see this Brief survey of quantum programming languages, or a more in-depth description of how an imperative quantum programming language looks like, although, if you ask me, functional quantum languages like QML are nicer. Simon Gay has also put together a comprehensive Bibliography of Quantum Programming Languages.

Finally, if you’d rather write some code, there’s André van Tonder’s Scheme simulator (which will work with any R5RS scheme), and a QML simulator written in Haskell. Haskellers will also enjoy Jerzy Karczmarczuk’s Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: a functional framework.

Happy quantum hacking!

Excuse Me - the untold saga

According to Collins Dictionary an excuse is ‘a reason or justification’ or ‘to make allowance for’. Perfect. We are so good at avoiding what needs to be done or allowing ourselves to accept less than we deserve that we even have a word for the act of doing so.

‘yeah but’…famous words! If you hear ‘yeah but’ train yourself to understand that an excuse is on its way. The excuse is coming any second now. Align the phrase ‘yeah but’ to a mental image of a large bright red flag furiously blowing in the wind.

Because a life of ‘yeah but’ is simply not good enough for you. A life of ‘yeah but’ means accepting an inferior path or a lesser quality of life. Free yourself today from ‘yeah but’ and notice how your life takes off around you.

Digging deeper, even worse than allowing ‘yeah but’ to enter the vocabulary is the curios amount of energy some people will use up in thinking up good excuses. We know that excuses lead to less than we deserve and yet some people will spend vital energy creating excuses.

‘I haven’t completed the project, what shall I tell my boss?’ ‘I forgot our anniversary is tomorrow, what can I say?’

I realise that sometimes there is a need to bend truths. I realise that sometimes it is appropriate to change the story a little in order to not hurt other’s feelings. What I am getting at here is our internal truth. Our authenticity. Our core being.

Given the choice of putting the energy into the doing or putting the energy into the justification and rationalizing, doing the doing wins hands down every time.

We even go to the lengths of judging and awarding merit points for excuses. Hence the phrases ‘good excuse’ and ‘poor excuse’. How come it matters whether an excuse is good or bad? An excuse is an excuse. If we are not living to our best - does it matter whether our rationalization is good or poor?

The challenge today is to free yourself from a life of excuses. Step up if you have to. Hold yourself accountable to a higher standard if you need to. Do whatever it takes to eliminate ‘yeah but’ from your vocabulary.

Once we stop making our own excuses we also stop making excuses for other. It is inevitable. A good example is a relationship. We all know someone who tolerates more than their fair share in a relationship. Some of us are guilty of doing this ourselves.

Take this classical yet familiar case. He doesn’t ring when he said he would. She says ‘he’s probably busy’ She comes home in an angry mood and takes it out on him. He says ‘work is very demanding’. He is physically violent. She stays because ‘I know he loves me’.

Having mastered the art of not making excuses for ourselves or for others, the next level is to not accept excuses from anyone else. The challenge tomorrow is to free yourself from the excuses of others.

Behaviour creates behaviour. If you ‘make allowances’ for others, they learn that allowances are made. If you hold others accountable, they learn to be accountable. If you do not accept excuses - others around you will stop offering them.

As I type this I can hear my ex boss saying ‘don’t tell me why you haven’t done it, tell me when it will be done!’

There’s no excuse for excuses!

Likelihood and Impossibility - A Mathematical Approach

"This one may be more philosophy than math, but... Is it true that any occurrence, however unlikely, does have a percent chance of occurrence above zero?" This is a very good question and is closely related to how mathematics reflects the "real" world. In particular, what is the meaning of "probability" or "chance" when there are infinitely many possibilities. Basically, the real world as we currently understand it does not comprise an infinite number of "things", though it is plenty complicated enough. It is not at all clear that the universe is actually infinite in extent or time: we simply don't know and may never know.

Quantum mechanics (QM) is one of the most successful scientific theories ever propounded: it has passed every test that scientists have thrown at it. Yet central to QM is the idea that energy does not flow smoothly, but is broken up into discrete "packets". Recent experiments and theory in QM also suggest that space and time itself are similarly discrete and not infinitely smoothly flowing.

Yet, traditionally, the mathematics that we use to study the world is based on calculus and other theories which use "smooth" concepts like continuity and differentiability. Consequently, mathematical techniques and their "result" must be applied and interpreted carefully. We'll come back to physics later, but let's look at a simple example from the world of mathematics and numbers, which is supposedly less complicated.

Suppose you are asked to pick a number from 1 to 10. If you are restricted to whole numbers, then there are only the ten choices 1, 2, ..., 10. The chances of my guessing your number is 1 in 10 or 1/10. Suppose now that you are allowed to choose either whole numbers or fractions. Then you might choose, say 3/19 or 1357/589 etc. What is the likelihood that I guess your number? Technically it is 0! There are infinitely many different numbers you might choose, and I only have 1 guess. Yet, it is clearly possible that you chose 1357/589, and that I guessed it. What's going on here?

This is a good example of how mathematics must be applied carefully in order to make sense. What does it mean to "choose" a number here? How much time do you have to make your choice? If you have only, say, 5 minutes, how many digits could you think up or write down or type, or otherwise specify in 5 minutes? There is certainly some limit in size for the numerator and denominator, so there are really only a finite number of numbers that you could realistically choose in the 5 minute deadline. Even if you were allowed a day, or a week, or a year, or your whole lifetime, there are only a finite number of numbers you could specify with total accuracy simply by giving the digits of their numerators and denominators. But wait: there are other ways of specifying whole numbers. We could use "exponential notation". For example, there is the whole number 10⁶⁸⁴⁷-1: a number consisting entirely of "9"s: namely 6847 of them. That's a pretty big number written quite economically. Let's call it N. Now we can take N and raise it to the N^th power: N^N. Wow: that's pretty big yet easily written. Clearly we can continue to raise increasingly larger numbers to increasingly larger powers. Furthermore, we might come up with even more clever ways of denoting larger and larger numbers more and more efficiently. Now how large a number could one come up with in 10 minutes, or a week, or a lifetime?

Mathematicians have, in fact, played this game. My friend GS tells me that, in a coffee house a number of years ago, he and some other friends, including a few very prominent mathematicians, tried a competition: each would write, on a sheet of paper, the largest numbers he/she could express. After a time limit of 10 minutes or so, they would compare papers and try to estimate the largest number expressed, which would be The Winner, and the smallest would be The Loser. One mathematician, in order to avoid being The Loser, simply wrote: "GS's number, whatever it is, plus 1." Some other mathematicians also tried cutesy tricks. The winner, GS claims, was an artist who had simply spent the 10 minutes writing, in minute script, hundreds and hundreds of digits...

believes in the ingenuity of the human brain, so he/she thinks that there is no limit to the size of the denominators or numerators, so there are infinitely many numbers that one could think of. Does this make the probability of my guessing your number 0? Not necessarily! The reason is that even though there are infinitely many possible numbers, they don't all have equally likely chances of being selected by you. Which number is more likely to be the one you think of, 3/16 or 10⁶⁸⁴⁷ - 1 divided by 16889²²⁶⁰¹+17? The more complicated the number, the more unlikely it would be that you thought of it. Really complicated and bizarre fractions have vanishingly small probabilities. Thus, no particular rational number (fraction) has 0 probability, and the probabilities of all (infinitely many) choices still add to 1. Note that it is possible for infinitely many numbers --- in this case probabilities --- to have a finite sum. For example:

 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1/2n + ...   =  1

OK, now we come to a harder question. Instead of just considering fractions (also called rational numbers -- and remember we allow numerators to be bigger than denominators, so 1006/197 is allowable), suppose we consider all the real numbers between 1 and 10. So now we could have numbers like pi and the square-root of 2. You can think of real numbers as being decimals that go on forever. Here are some examples.

pi = 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383280... sqrt(2) = 1. 4142135623 7309504880 1688724210 ... 7/3 = 2.3333333333 33333333333 33333333333...

It turns out that many real numbers such as pi and sqrt(2) are not rational; that is, they can't be written exactly as a fraction. So, even though pi is approximately 22/7 (or, even better, 314159/100000), it is never exactly a fraction. On the other hand, fractions can always be written a decimals, but they always, eventually, repeat. For example

172/35 = 4.9142857142857142857142857... where the digit pattern 142857 repeats forever.

So, among the real numbers (infinite decimals) between 1 and 10 there the those that represent rationals or fractions (i.e. those that eventually repeat) and those that aren't (i.e. infinite decimals that don't become repeating). So here is the question: You think of a real number: What's the probability that it is rational?

It turns out that there are infinitely many rationals and infinitely many irrationals (non-rationals) between 1 and 10. Does that mean that the odds are "fifty-fifty" that the number you think of is rational? To answer this, we have to find some way of determining if one of these infinities is "bigger" than the other. What could "bigger" mean?

Experts in probability measure the size of sets by using a rather complicated construct called the "Lebesgue integral" (pronounced: luh-baig' integral). According to this measure theory, the size or measure of the infinity of rationals between 1 and 10 is 0, while the measure of the collection of all reals between 1 and 10 is 9 (= 10 - 1). Thus, the measure of the irrationals must be 9 also, so that the probability of chosing an irrational number = (measure of irrationals)/(measure of all reals) = 9/9 = 1. It therefore follows that the probability of selecting a rational is 0.

It is hard to find an intuitive explanation for this. Is it saying that it is impossible to pick a rational number at random from all the numbers between 1 and 10? Or, equivalently, is it certain that any number you do pick will be irrational? Either of these assertions is clearly nonsense.

This is a good example of the necessity of asking questions correctly and understanding what the issues are. What does it mean to choose a real number (infinite decimal)? How can you specify all the infinitely many digits that go into it? The answer is: You need an algorithm or recipe to generate the digits. There is a difference between talking about all of the reals between 1 and 10 and actually choosing or constructing one of them. Some, of course, have names, like pi. Some are constructed or calculated by explicit algorithms such as sqrt(2). Rationals, being simply quotients of finite whole numbers, can simply be "written down." Once we start talking about actually constructing or choosing numbers, Lebesgue theory no longer applies and the probability of choosing a rational is by no means clearly 0. In fact, the problem of how individual reals can be constructed is so complicated that it is unclear to me whether it is even possible to come up with an answer to this question. I do know, though, that the likelihood of coming up with a rational is not 0. Just try it!

This blog is getting long, but let's return the original question: is anything impossible?

What does "impossible" mean? It could mean "self-contradictory". For example, it is impossible to find an odd number that is divisible by 2. Likewise, you can't find an isosceles triangle (two equal sides) that has three unequal angles. Basically, the definitions and logic of mathematics are set up so as to make these things impossible. But the world doesn't work with quite the precision of mathematics. When the witches tell Macbeth that "no man of woman born" can kill him, he thinks all is well until he finds that MacDuff was from his "mother's womb untimely ripped" -- i.e. he was delivered by caeserian section, not "born" in the usual sense. So we have to define our terms, and what impossible can mean in the "real" world.

Is it possible for a car to drive into a 10 meter thick concrete wall and emerge undamaged from the other side? Well, actually it is, although the probability is very very very very small. A car is made up of atoms which are in turn made up of even smaller, "subatomic" particles. By the laws of QM, a tiny enough particle can not be considered as occupying a particular region of space at a particular time, but only has a probability of being anywhere, or even somewhere, at a particular time. It isn't that we are too clumsy to measure: it is literally true that it is in many places simultaneously with different probabilities. In fact, this has been tested by experiment. A bunch of electrons are placed near an insurmountable material barrier --- the equivalent of a concrete wall. However, each has a tiny probability of actually being on the other side of that barrier. Although the probability is small, there are so many electrons that there is a real likelihood of an electron from their company appearing on the other side. An lo, in fact, electrons are actually detected on the other side of the barrier! This is a well-known effect called "tunneling" and actually has applications (try searching for "tunneling electron microscopes" to see how they work). So, it is (remotely) possible that the individual particles in a car could tunnel through and appear, fully formed, as the "same" car on the other side.

As George Gamow pointed out in his famous book "One, Two, Three...Infinity", it is possible (though fortunately highly unlikely), that all the air in your room will happen to migrate, through random collisions of air molecules, in some corner near the ceiling, leaving you suffocating in your chair. He actually computes the probability, which is tiny but non-zero, of this happening. Will also asks if it isn't possible that the probability of a coin coming up heads is not actually 1/2, since it can either come up heads, tails, land on edge or simply "float away". Yes, this is correct. Tails and Heads have pretty nearly equal likelihood, though, while landing on edge is very unlikely --- tiny probability --- and simply floating away, like the air collecting in a corner of a room, has very very very small likelihood. There are even other possibilities: the coin, a quarter, may, through some weird QM transactions, morph into two dimes and a nickel. The total of these other strange possibilities is so small, though that the likelihood of Heads (or Tails) is still very close to 1/2, as repeated experiments have shown. In fact, over this my lifetime of coin-tossing, no toss has ever resulted in anything other than Heads or Tails, though once a dime rolled under the sofa and, mysteriously, didn't surface till months later, when it reappeared as a nickel ...

Units: teras, centis and nanos

Inches? Feet? Miles? No: scientists and mathematicians don't use these units. There's nothing morally wrong with them, it's just that people who do technical work need to speak the same language in order to avoid misunderstanding. The metric system is the internationally agreed upon system of units, based on the meter, the gram and the second and powers of 10. However, the most common units of physics are the meter, kilogram (thousand grams) and second (the "mks" system) or the centimeter (1 hundredth of a meter), gram and second (the "cgs" system). Since scientists study quantities varying over a very wide spectrum of sizes, they often use the following Greek prefixes to express units most appropriate to their work:

tera  = 1 trillion = 1012
giga  = 1 billion  = 109
mega  = 1 million  = 106
kilo  = 1 thousand = 103
hecto = 1 hundred  = 102
deca  = ten        = 101


deci  = tenth      = 10-1
centi = hundredth  = 10-2
milli = thousandth = 10-3
micro = millionth  = 10-6
nano  = billionth  = 10-9
pico  = trillionth = 10-12

For example, for your doctor, the distance from your elbow to the beginning of your fingers is probably best expressed as about 30 centimeters. The meter is too large a unit. On the other hand, distances between cities are best expressed in kilometers.

The diameter of an atom is somewhere around 1/10 of a nanometer, while the diameter of a carbon nanotube (see previous blog) is about a nanometer --- not too surprising.

Distances and times are sometimes used interchangeably. A "light year" is the distance light travels in 1 year: approximately 9500 terameters or 9.5 petameters.

In one second, light travels 3 x 1010 centimeters, so in 1 nanosecond (10-9 or 1 billionth of a second), light travels about 30 cm, or about the distance from your elbow to the base of your fingers. If someone asks you how long your arm is, you could say: "a couple of nanoseconds." (See joke at the end of this blog.)

A decimal calculation like multiplication or division is called a floating point operation or a flop. A modern supercomputer can do a trillion of these in a second: a teraflop. For this many operations per second, keeping the distance that light (or an electric field) must travel to a minimum is significant. That's one reason why chip manufacturers keep striving for ever smaller sizes: the bigger the chip, the greater the distances that have to be covered by its electrical signals, so the slower it runs.

Joke

A do-it-yourselfer goes into a lumberyard to buy some wooden studs for building a toolshed. The proprietor asks "How long you want 'em?" The purchaser says "Oh, at least 50 years."

Positive Thinking - does it really work?

Personal Development can be easy! There are postions, pills , tapes, CDs, techniques and pre-made affirmations and of course the ‘biggest seller’ of all positive thinking.

We have all heard about the “power of positive thinking” but does it really work?

The quick answer is yes and the long answer is no!

What do I mean by that you may well ask? Well your thinking does create your reality but it’s your predominant thinking that does this not just spouting a few affirmations for a few minutes a day and thinking that everything is going to magically sort itself out! The main reason why people fail to use the power behind positive thinking is because they do not fully understand the concept. If you take a barrel full of rotten apples and then just toss some fresh succulent apples n on top of it what happens? Yes, you guessed it, the nice fresh apples soon become spoiled. This is exactly what happens to most people’s positive thoughts when they first try to use the power of positive thinking for their own personal development.

They fail in to utilize their God-given power of thought to its full extent. Think Positive by all means but do it right! Your subconscious mind is very much like the barrel and it is filled with rotten apples (negative thoughts) by throwing fresh apples (positive thoughts) on top you just make it worse because you are setting yourself up for failure. You need to change your beliefs at a deep level.

Basically everyone has self doubt, just to a lesser or greater degree. When we meet apparent failure we set up a thinking process in the subconscious mind which plays like a record on loop saying “you can’t do it” or “you just aren’t good enough” when we encounter a similar situation. This causes yet another “failure”. Thinking positive does work but only if it is used correctly.

Identify your weaknesses and begin to change them. Why are you thinking negatively? There must be a reason. I am sure you can give me hundreds. Look at the negative thought and believe and change it. Why aren’t you good enough? Challenge the belief. Perhaps it has validity. If it does then change yourself so that it is no longer true!

Contrary to popular “new age thinking” some negative beliefs are true! “I can’t run a mile in four minutes” is probably not negative thinking - its more than likely realistic! If you want to run a mile in four minutes you need to change that belief through a physical training program! The negativity that comes up from that may be “I can’t put in the time involved to get into that type of physical shape”. This type of negative thinking is just that - negative thinking. If you really want to run a four minute mile you will find a way to make the time.

In your life in general you may wish to yourself as a winner and negative thinking gets in the way. You can combat this through a correct personal development plan. Identify your negative beliefs and begin to change them one at a time. Don’t just ignore them and ramble a load of affirmations and vague positive thoughts. Tackle them and kill them at their root. You can eliminate negativity from your life but you need to empty the barrel of rotten apples first. Then when the barrel is clean you can fill it up with positivity and your life will be transformed.

The Conscious and Subconscious Mind

As we all know, we have only one mind. But that one mind consists of two distinct parts; the conscious and the subconscious mind.
Your conscious mind is the reasoning mind. It is this phase of mind that chooses. For example, you choose your friends, job, car, house, etc. You make all your decisions with your conscious mind. On the other hand, without any conscious choice on your part, you breath, your heart beats, etc - yes, without any conscious effort. That is taken care of by your subconscious mind. More on this duality later. Let's try something interesting.

Now sit at your desk and make clockwise circles with your right foot. While doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change direction!!

Simply amazing, isn't it?

According to a professor ( i forgot the name), "our conscious mind is really very, very limited. Try thinking of two words at the same time - not one after the other, but at the same time. You'll find that's impossible, too. Or try writing one word with your right hand, while simultaneously writing another word with your left.

Consciously, you can only do one thing at a time.

You can only think about a clockwise or anticlockwise motion on the same side of your body, not both simultaneously.

However, you can train yourself to do this - circling hand and foot in opposite directions simultaneously - just as you can train yourself to pat your head and rub your stomach. It takes about 30 minutes' training for most people.

The problem is very similar to juggling. If you try to think consciously about what your hands are doing, it's impossible. Only after it becomes an unconscious action - after a few minutes' training - can you actually juggle".

As you can now see, once you train yourself repeatedly, your subconscious does the trick without you "consciously" knowing it.

Through countless experiments, psychologists have clearly proven that the subconscious mind does not make the selection and comparisons that are necessary for a reasoning process (which is the function of our conscious mind). But it has the unlimited power to make your dreams come true. Our subconscious mind will accept any suggestion, however true or false. It just takes you at your word. If you think you can never win, your subconscious mind will prepare you well for that defeat. Your subconscious mind just makes what you believe true. Our subconscious mind is like a bed of rich soil that will help all kinds of seeds to sprout and flourish, whether good or bad. If you sow thistles, will you harvest figs? Certainly not. Whatever you think using your conscious mind leads its way to the cause. If you take charge of your thoughts, subconscious will take care of the rest automatically.

I found a nice example that shows the difference between our conscious and subconscious mind. The conscious mind is like the captain at the bridge of a ship. He direct the ship and sends orders to the crew in the engine room. The crew control the ship following the orders. They themselves don't know where they are going; they just believe in what the captain says and executes it - they don't talk back to the captain. It is like your subconscious mind. The ship would go on the rocks if the man on the bridge issued faulty instructions. If you repeatedly say to yourself, it is impossible to find a good job, your subconscious just takes you at your word and makes sure that you are not in a position to be employed for a good job. You'll walk through life experiencing the lack of a good job. As you can see, our own negative thoughts dig the grave yard for us. It is time we mentally prepare ourselves to reach whatever we desire to have in life.

I am more than convinced that the law of life is the law of belief. A belief is a thought in your mind. Think good, and good follows. Think evil, and evil follows. You are what you think. It is rightly said that change your thoughts, and you change your life!!

Something About Prime Numbers

Rekindling my liking for Maths, I thought of taking a tour of prime numbers! I wanted to find out the largest mersenne prime number. I ended up browsing through many prime number sites and gathered a bit of information.

The beauty of prime numbers is elegantly shown by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic: every positive integer greater than one can be expressed uniquely as a product of primes, apart from the rearrangement of terms (Examples: 15 = 3 * 5, 150 = 2 * 3 * 5 * 5). This theorem was formulated by Euclid way back in about 350 BC. When thinking about axioms in geometry (learned way back in secondary school) it is this person that comes into mind. In fact, he is often called as the father of geometry.

There are infinite number of primes. It can be proved in a few lines as follows:

Assume n is the highest known prime number.
Lets define m = (2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 19 *...*n) + 1 (i.e. multiplication of all the prime numbers up to n plus 1)
Now, if you divide m by any known prime number, the reminder will always be 1.
So m is a prime number.
Obviously m > n.
So this contradicts our assumption.
Conclusion: there are infinite number of primes.

There is an interesting subset of primes called "Mersenne Primes" (named after the French philosopher Marin Mersenne). Mersenne primes have this special property that the value is equal to one less than a prime power of two. In mathematical terms it is equal to (2^n - 1) where n is a prime number. The smallest mersenne prime is 3 (2^2 - 1). Successive ones are 7 (2^3 - 1), 31 (2^5 - 1), 127 (2^8 -1) and the list continues.

Until the 20th century, only a handful of mersenne primes were found. Most of the known mersenne primes were discovered after 1950. Mathematicians have so far found 43 mersenne primes altogether. The 43rd one was discovered in December last year. This was discovered through the GIMPS by Dr. Curtis Cooper and Dr. Steven Boone, professors at Central Missouri State University. The number is (2^30402457-1). It has 9152052 digits! The GIMPS, Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search, is an on-going distributed computing project on the Internet. In fact, the last 9 mersenne primes were all discovered by the mathematicians at GIMPS.

Although there are infinite number of primes, it is not known whether there is an upper limit for mersenne primes. The game is still active searching tfor he next mersenne primes. In addition to making history, you can earn a lump sum! The Electronic Frontier Foundation is offering a $100,000 award (really huge amount in Indian rupees) to the first person who discovers a ten million digit prime number.

This reminds me about one of the quirky tests of Google. They put up a billboard on Route 101 that read, in its entirety "{first 10-digit prime found in consecutive digits of e}.com". No Google logo, no recruiting pitch. Just the equation. The curious who solved it (the answer is 7427466391.com) and went to that web page and started their first step towards becoming a Google employee! Math can really pay you off!!

Data mining and "Neural Nets"

The phrase "data mining" doesn't refer to anything specific, but rather to a collection of techniques that enables one to go through a very large collection of data stored on a computer to find patterns. This is very different from simply going through the data and asking for examples of a particular correlation or statistical relationship (e.g. How many owners of Fords traded them in to buy Chevrolets?).

Data mining is not so much a mathematical idea as a collection of computer science techniques, some of which have mathematical origins, usually in statistics but also in combinatorics (study of arrangements and selections from finite sets of objects), mathematical logic and mathematical linguistics. If the data is numerical in nature, other math techniques may be drawn in as well, such a pattern recognition, Fourier analysis and autocorrelation (sophisticated mathematical techniques for analyzing images and sound patterns).

The first step in data mining is to prepare the set of information or data base. This can be most anything, but it has to be storable on a computer in a readily accessible way. This data base can consists of spreadsheets, standard data-base files, tables, text, even pictures, sounds and charts.

Next, you need software that can find patterns by comparing all sorts of aspects of the data. For example, you can have a chart of the India, with some states colored blue and others red. You can also have tables that list states, their populations, divorce rates, frequencies of teenage pregnancy, average income, education, number of licensed motor vehicles and state flowers. The software then scans the chart and the tables and tries to find correlations. For example, it may -- in fact it does -- find that states colored "red" the highest rates for divorce and teenage pregnancy, for example, while state flower correlates with nothing interesting. No one has "asked" the software to find these correlations or lack of correlation: it simply looks through all parameters, checks all possible relationship with the data, and reports the strongest correlations it finds.

How does the software do this enormous chore? It uses very sophisticated techniques involving analysis of existing links in data, statistics, and algorithms from a fairly recent (several decades old) field called "Artificial Intelligence" or AI. One of the developments in AI is a simulation of how part of our nervous system, including the brain, works. This simulation is called Neural Networks, Neural Networking, or simply Neural Nets.

The basic physical building blocks of our thinking or cognitive system are cells called neurons. These are like nodes in a vastly complicated interlocking web. They are connected to each other by physical wiring, which transmits impulses that are both electrical and chemical in nature. These connections transmit signals of varying strength or level which go from one neuron to another. When an input signal to a neuron reaches a certain high enough level or threshold, the neuron responds by sending out a signal to other neurons to which it is connected. Thus, a stimulus of sufficient strength to one neuron (say a detection of the color red in some area to which it is connected, perhaps a region in the retina) will result in a cascade of signals to lots of other neurons, eventually to those in the brain. The interconnections of the neurons in the brain then allows us to string together many of these signals into parts of a pattern which our memory may link to form a thought, such as: "I am seeing part of a fire engine" or "that's blood!" In the case of the human mind, we are only beginning to understand how this data is processed: it is nowhere as simple as was hoped early in the development of the subject.

Neural Nets is an attempt to make a miniature nervous system on a computer. Regions of the computer's memory are set aside as neurons, and certain links are programmed to connect them. These links are assigned numerical "thresholds", so that they will allow connections through neurons only when enough "evidence" (stimulus) has build up from the data to exceed this threshold.

Here's an example. You have a database consisting of facts about a commercial garden. For example, the layout of the rows (type of plants in each), the spaces between the plants in the row, the insects found in various places and the frequency and type of irrigation and fertilization. Also, the date of maturity of various crops, last year's data from the garden, the cost, yield and health of each type of crop planted as well as other economic data. We then turn our data mining software loose on this data base. It may make various crops and/or conditions into neurons, with connections to each other based on position in the garden, fertilizer, or economic variables. Statistical correlations built on numerical data determine the signals sent on these pathways, and possible thresholds are tried. The system can then see which signals move through which pathways and which are filtered out because they don't meet the threshold conditions. The resulting flow of signals enables the system to "draw conclusions." For example, it may "deduce" that more profit can be made by putting more fertilizer into tomatoes; or it may decide that growing eggplants near potatoes is good for the potatoes and bad for the eggplants (eggplants happen to attract potato beetles). We don't necessarily know which pathways -- hence which deductions -- will emerge from the flow of signals in this complicated system; however, the system will report back to us exactly what happens, and give a complete statistical analysis of the relationships.

This whole set-up is somewhat problematical in the case of solving a particular crime. It usually takes quite a while to prepare the database for data mining, and the algorithms have to be fine-tuned. This may take from weeks to years, depending on the data and the sophistication and accuracy required.

Finally, one must remember that any sufficiently complex system will have "bugs": things that make it go wrong, giving unpredictably false answers and/or correlations. Remember "Jurassic Park", the system that couldn't fail and the dinosaurs that simply couldn't reproduce because they were all female? Of course that was just a movie...

AI and the RANDOM Factor

Any particular test of intelligence is destined to be biased towards certain abilities. This article searches for a new method to establish sentience by means of randomness instead.

The Random Test

This essay is about how one could determine sentience (The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness) in an AI by means of an experimental method. The most well known test to see if an AI is actually sentient is the test devised by Alan Turing a.k.a. the Turing Test. This test is based on a simple assumption. An AI can be called sentient if he is able to converse with a human and the human cannot tell he is talking to an AI or another human. I will talk in this article about Turing�s Test, why it is flawed in some aspects and how a better test can be made on a different hypothesis. I will then describe a possible test to determine sentience through this new hypothesis.

Turing's Test

This test fails to achieve its goal for various reasons. The first problem being the assumption on which this test is based. Sentience is defined by the ability self-reflection: �I think therefore I am.� The test assumes that to be able to reflect on your own actions you need a certain quality of language to be able to name and understand the abstract construct that is self-reflection. This works because Sentience and Self Reflection have a 1 on 1 relation. However measuring self-reflection by looking at the language level is debatable. For all we know dolphins might have self-reflection yet their language, while extensive, isn�t on the same level as that of a human.

The second problem is the fact that either of the two results reached (pass or fail) can have two causes. If the AI passes is this because of the present sentience in the AI or the lack of skill in the human. Same goes for if the AI fails, is the AI really not sentient or did the human not know for sure and just guessed. The test is done by multiple humans so the effect of this problem is only minor. Yet the human factor still makes this test uncertain and open to much debate.

This test fails not only because of the human factor but also because of the way of measurement. Therefore we need to move away from the ’sentience equals self reflection’ argument and try to find another means of determining sentience. I believe I have found this in the concept of randomness.
Alan Turing

Randomness as a sentience measurement tool

The assumption I make here is that only a sentient being is capable of understanding the concept of randomness (Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically ). Hence you get the same 1 to 1 relation as mentioned above. I think I can make this assumption for two reasons. The first reason is that the binary language of the computer doesn't allow for the random concept. Every programmer knows that getting a number that is truly random rather then derived from some basic input is impossible. Only an AI that surpasses its basic programming and achieve a higher level of being would be able to make a truly random choice.

The second reason is that the random concept cannot be acquired through learning, training, conditioning or programming. Hence there is no way to produce true random results by using a trick or pre-established knowledge. The only way you can make a true random choice is to make a decision based on nothing.

My definition of non-sentient intelligence is as follows:
The ability to perform one or more different action(s) in response to determined stimuli without interference from a third party.

My definition of sentient intelligence is:
The ability to perform one or more different action(s) without interference from a third party or any form of determined stimuli.

In short, sentience is the ability to do something for no reason at all which makes the random concept the perfect way to measure it.

The Random Test

Because the AI to be tested for sentience is still a computer this part will be relatively easy. The only thing we have to do is to present the AI with a selection of X numbers and let it pick out a random number Y times. This will give a string of numbers as output. If the AI uses a preprogrammed random() method then at some point the string of numbers will start repeating itself.

More shrewd random() methods will take a very high Y before the repeating becomes clear. It doesn't even have to be the whole string that is repeated but certain key numbers that keep showing up at regular intervals. The real test is to discover a pattern. If a pattern (besides Normal Distribution) is found then that is the proof that the randomizing is hard-coded rather then spontaneous.This test needs to be run multiple times with varying X. If a pattern fails to show up in one test doesn't mean one isn't there. Extra tests with other X might show a pattern more easily. Also the tests can be compared to each other, which might reveal the pattern almost immediately.

Of course there is always the possibility that an AI is in fact sentient, gets bored with the task and stops completely. Yet stopping the test is automatically a failure because it�s very easy to mimic that in a normal program. Fortunately the chance of this occurring before a possible pattern is determined is slim in my opinion. After a result is determined a human programmer can still examine the code of the program. This is an extra insurance to see if a negative result is actually negative. It cannot be used to determine if a positive result is true because nobody knows what code from a sentient AI would look like. Therefore checking out the code is not part of the test nor should it be.

Conclusion

The big advantage the Random Number test has over the Turing test is that it minimizes human involvement. A simple program can be constructed to check the output of a candidate for specific patterns. It�s also out of the question that a result can mean two things. If a repeating pattern is found the AI is not sentient. If not, a breakthrough is achieved.

Controlling the Emotions.............

Yesterday was the first leg of the Mental Maths Championship and being last year's champion I was there again to test my skills. To my surprise I couldn't concentrate and kept losing my focus every now and then. Someone was popping into my head. Yes, I am talking about HER, the one I wrote in my last posts.

My life is in a very very different state at present, I guess it will be for a long time if all goes like this. It is full of emotions, various types, one of them being very strong. For the last few days I let my life flow with the emotions. For once I wanted my emotions to take control of my life, did a lot of things that can never be termed wise and mature. Right now there is this great tussle going within me about what to do. Put a self-control on my emotions or let them take me to the places i have never been? This is really tough, but I guess I have found the answer. I got to control my emotions and not let it take a toll on my rest of life. She is gonna be my source of strength from now, this is what she would have liked. The feelings for HER are so strong, its gonna remain with me for whole life.


Something about emotions and controlling them........My Views
Emotions are part of a management system to co-ordinate each individual's multiple plans and goals under constraints of time and other resources. Emotions are also part of the biological solution to the problem of how to plan and to carry out action aimed at satisfying multiple goals in environments, which are not always predictable.


Managing emotions: Handling feelings so that they are appropriate; realizing what is behind a feeling; finding ways to handle fears and anxieties, anger, and sadness.

We experience certain emotions from engaging in positive and negative actions throughout life so when stimulated again we know how to react.

Emotional intelligence does not mean giving free rein to feelings; rather it means managing feelings so that they are expressed appropriately and effectively, enabling people to work smoothly toward their common goals.

Transformation from being Stubborn to Perseverance, SHE changed me

The last four months were quite a learning experience for me. A lot has changed within me. For the better of course. The way i think, talk, view things etc. One such great change is my transformation from a stubborn to a persevering one. Never knew that she can have such a great effect on me.
Thank YOU my friend, I miss YOU.....................

DEFINITIONS
Perseverance - To go on resolutely in spite of opposition, importunity, or obstacles; to remain unchanged or fixed in a specified character, condition, or position; to stick with something, especially something difficult or challenging.
Being stubborn - Bring unreasonably or perversely unyielding; mulish; unyielding and not open to reason; performed or carried on in an obstinate or rigid manner; difficult to handle, manage or treat.


COMPARISONS
Going forward vs. Stonewalling
Working toward something vs. Refusing to do something
Having a positive goal vs. Having a negative goal
Making something happen vs. Not permitting something to happen


Someone has wisely quoted:
"The difference between perseverance and obstinacy is that one comes from a strong will, and the other from a strong won't."


KEY POINT
It's good to persevere, and not good to be stubborn. When you persevere, you are working toward a positive goal that's attainable. You are flexible and creative in pursuing possible alternatives toward your goal.

When you're being stubborn, you're either being negative to yourself (refusing to give up when you should), or to others (refusing to do what they want or to give them what they want), or to something (being in denial and refusing to face the facts).


BENEFITS
When you persevere, you make things happen. When you're being stubborn you just stop things from happening. Persevering accomplishes something. Being stubborn accomplishes nothing.


Rohit Bhaskar
29th September 2007

Supercomputers and Nanotechnology

Many problems we regard as needing cleverness can sometimes be solved by resorting to exhaustive searches, that is, by using massive, raw computer power. This is what happens in most of those inexpensive pocket chess computers. These little machines use programs much like the ones that we developed in the 1960s, using what were then some of the largest research computers in the world. Those old programs worked by examining the consequences of tens of thousands of possible moves before choosing one to actually make. But in those days the programs took so long to make those moves that the concepts they used were discarded as inadequate. Today, however, we can run the same programs on faster computers so that they can consider millions of possible moves, and now they play much better chess. However, that shouldn't fool us into thinking that we now understand the basic problem any better. There is good reason to believe that outstanding human chess players actually examine merely dozens, rather than millions, of possible moves, subjecting each to more thoughtful analysis.

In any case, as computers improved in speed and memory size, quite a few programming methods became practical, ones that had actually been discarded in the earlier years of AI research. An Apple desktop computer (or an Amiga, Atari, IBM, or whatever) can do more than could a typical million-dollar machine of a decade earlier, yet private citizens can afford to play games with them. In 1960 a million-bit memory cost a million dollars; today a memory of the same size (and working a hundred times faster) can be purchased for the price of a good dinner. Some seers predict another hundredfold decrease in size and cast, perhaps in less than a decade, when we learn how to make each microcircuit ten times smaller in linear size and thus a hundred times smaller in area. What will happen after that? No one knows, but we can be sure of one thing: those two-dimensional chips we use today make very inefficient use of space. Once we start to build three-dimensional microstructures, we might gain another millionfald in density. To be sure, that would involve serious new problems with power, insulation, and heat. For a futuristic but sensible discussion of such possibilities, I recommend Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation (Falcon Press, 1986).

Not only have small components become cheaper; they have also become faster. In 1960 a typical component required a microsecond to function; today our circuits operate a thousand times faster. Few optimists, however, predict another thousandfold increase in speed over the next generation. Does this mean that even with decreasing costs we will soon encounter limits on what we can make computers do? The answer is no, because we are just beginning a new era of parallel computers.

Most computers today are still serial; that is, they do only one thing at a time. Typically, a serial computer has millions of memory elements, but only a few of them operate at any moment, while the rest of them wait for their turn: in each cycle of operation, a serial computer can retrieve and use only one of the items in its memory banks. Wouldn't it be better to keep more of the hardware in actual operation? A more active type of computer architecture was proposed in Daniel Hillis's Connection Machine (MIT Press, 1986), which describes a way to assemble a large machine from a large number of very small, serial computers that operate concurrently and pass messages among themselves. Only a few years after being conceived, Connection Machines are already commercially available, and they indeed appear to have fulfilled their promise to break through some of the speed limitations of serial computers. In certain respects they are now the fastest computers in the world.

This is not to say that parallel computers do not have their own limitations. For, just as one cannot start building a house before the boards and bricks have arrived, you cannot always start work simultaneously on all aspects of solving a problem. T would certainly be nice if we could take any program for a serial computer, divide it into a million parts, and then get the answer a million times faster by running those parts simultaneously on that many computers in parallel. But that can't be done, in general, particularly when certain parts of the solution depend upon the solutions to other parts. Nevertheless, this quite often turns out to be feasible in actual practice. And although this is only a guess, I suspect that it will happen surprisingly often for the purposes of artificial intelligence. Why do I think so? Simply because it seems very clear that our brains themselves must work that way.

Consider that brain cells work at very modest speeds in comparison to the speeds of computer parts. They work at rates of less than a thousand operations per second, a million times slower than what happens inside a modern computer circuit chip. Could any computer with such slow parts do all the things that a person can do? The answer must lie in parallel computation: different parts of the brain must do many more different things at the same time. True, that would take at least a billion nerve cells working in parallel, but the brain has many times that number of cells.

Three Reasons of NOT Having the Relationship of Your Dreams

Some people have the relationships of their dreams, but most people don't. Most people are secretly suffering and settling -- stuck wishing things were better without much chance of change.

What's the difference? What keeps people trapped in dead end situations?

There are three main reasons why people don't have the relationships of their dreams.

Reason #1: Blaming their partner for the problems. "It's all their fault!"

The first and most obvious reason is blaming their partner for everything. They think, "If my partner would only change, things would be perfect." This is such an easy trap to fall into, but if you think about it, it's very dis-empowering.

Why?

Because it implies that your future and happiness depends on somebody else changing. And when you think about how hard it is to change your own behavior (as in dieting, quitting smoking, working out, etc.) you start to realize that this strategy is not going to be very successful.

Reason #2: "People know what to do, but they're not doing what they know."

Some people don't have the relationship of their dreams because they are not willing to do the things that they know would help transform the relationship.

This is often a spin-off of reason #1. After-all, "It's their fault, why should I change?" It also may be because of past programming, conditioning and baggage. But whatever is stopping you, you may be unwilling to lead the transformation in your relationship.

Reason #3, "You are willing to change, you just don't know what to change."

The last reason you might not have the relationship of your dreams, is that you don't know what to do.

You don't have the tools, skills and training to deal with the emotional, impactful and important issues that come up in relationships without taking it personally or making it personal -- without attacking or defending.

Doctors learn the language of medicine. Attorneys learn the language of law. Plumbers learn the language of pluming. And couples need to learn the language of compassion and understanding for relationships.

You may not have the specialized skills you need to listen effectively so your partner really wants to talk openly and vulnerably with you.(Most people don't. not even doctors and lawyers. Look at their divorce rates!)

Or, you may not have the skills that will allow you to talk in a way that your partner will really want to listen and understand you.

AI and the World of the Future

In the evening we friends were discussing AI. As the black coffee from large beer mugs started to pour in, it was getting more and more interesting. A whole lot of different ideas and views surfaced. It was really a great time, one of the best coffee time chats in a long long time. Few of the points that I inferred..........

Intelligent machines may be within the technological reach of the next century. Over the next few generations we'll have to face the problems they pose. Unless some unforeseen obstacles appear, our mind-engineering skills could grow to the point of enabling us to construct accomplished artificial scientists, artists, composers, and personal companions. Is AI merely another advance in technology, or is it a turning point in human evolution that should be a focus of discussion and planning by all mankind? The prospect of intelligent machines is one that we're ill prepared to think about, because it raises such unusual moral, social, artistic, philosophical, and religious issues. Are we obliged to treat artificial intelligences as sentient beings? Should they have rights? And what should we do when there remains no real need for honest work, when artificial workers can do everything from mining, fanning, medicine, and manufacturing all the way to house cleaning? Must our lives then drift into pointless restlessness and all our social schemes disintegrate?

These questions have been discussed most thoughtfully in the literary works of such writers as Isaac Asimov, Gregory Benford, Arthur C. Clarke, Frederick Pohl, and Jack Williamson, who all tried to imagine how such presences might change the aspirations of humanity. Some optimistic futurists maintain that once we've satisfied all our worldly needs, we might then turn to the worlds of the mind. But consider how that enterprise itself would be affected by the presence of those artificial mindlike entities. That same AI technology would offer ways to modify the hardware of our brains and thus to endlessly extend the mental worlds we could explore.

You might ask why this essay mixes both computers and psychology. The reason is that though we'd like to talk about making intelligent machines, people are the only such intelligence we can imitate or study now. One trouble, though, is that we still don't know enough about how people work! Does this mean that we can't develop smart machines before we get some better theories of psychology? Not necessarily. There certainly could be ways to make very smart machines based on principles that our brains do not use, as in the case of those very fast, dumb chess machines. But since we're the first very smart machines to have evolved, we just might represent one of the simplest ways!

But, you might object, there's more to a human mind than merely intellect. What about emotion, intuition, courage, inspiration, creativity, and so forth. Surely it would be easier simply to understand intelligence than to try to analyze all those other aspects of our personalities! Not so, I maintain, because traditional distinctions like those between logic and intuition, between intellect and emotion, unwisely try to separate knowledge and meaning from purpose and intention. In The Society of Mind, I argue that little can be done without combining elements of both. Furthermore, when we put them together, it becomes easier, rather than harder, to understand such matters, because, though there are many kinds of questions, the answers to each of them illuminate the rest. Many people firmly believe that computers, by their nature, lack such admirable human qualities as imagination, sympathy, and creativity. Computers, so that opinion goes, can be only logical and literal. Because they can't make new ideas, intelligent machines lie, if at all, in futures too remote for concern. However, we have to be wary of such words as "creativity." We may only mislead ourselves when we ask our machines to do those things that we admire most. No one could deny that our machines, as we know them today, lack many useful qualities that we take for granted in ourselves. But it may be wrong to seek the sources of those qualities in the exceptional performances we see in our cultural heroes. Instead, we ought to look more carefully at what we ordinary people do: the things we call common sense and scarcely ever consider at all. Experience has shown that science frequently develops most fruitfully once we learn to examine the things that seem the simplest, instead of those that seem the most mysterious.

Missing someone DEAR

It is lunch break, I am sitting with my friends in the canteen and waiting for Chintu da (our canteen boy) to bring the lunch. A whole lot of halla-gulla is happening all around, jokes are being cracked, discussions are going on. The place is as lively as always. But something is not the same. I get, its something to do with me. I am missing her, feeling empty, i can feel the big void within me. I remember the song "bheed mein bhi hum tanha rahe...aankhon ki talash jo hai woh hai tera chehra...ki bin tere..." from the movie 'Aggar'. The song truly echoes my current state.

Have u ever missed someone and felt terrible because u think that he/she doesn't miss u? Missing someone is a terrible but at the same time, sweet feeling. U will be sitting around wondering if u meant anything to him/her. Thinking if he/she ever cares about u. Rushing to the phone once it rings or a sms drops hoping that it's him/her. Sitting in front of the television but thinking of him/her, missing the final episode of your favourite show. Looking out of the window hoping that he/she will surprise u by appearing downstairs.

Laying on your bed, thinking of the last time u were out together or talked to each other. Thinking of how nice it will be to sit under the stars, talking about everything, your dreams, plans, future. Logging on to the internet hoping to see him/her online. When u realise that he/she isn't online and did not return your e-mail, u will start worrying if he/she is okay. Missing someone is a way of growing up i guess. It exposes u to loneliness. It teaches u how to cope with being lonely and let u know that there is actually a feeling known as emptiness.

Sometimes it feels good to miss someone. U know that u really care and u indulge in the feeling of loving/caring for him/her. But missing someone and not knowing if he/she is feeling the same is terrible. U feel as if u are being left alone. So if u miss someone, tell him/her and let them know. At the same time, ask if they miss u. Don't let the feeling of missing someone become jealousy or paranoia. If u are the one being missed and u know it, let the other party know. If u miss him/her too, tell them. Don't let them wait.

As for me , i am feeling terrible.
Well, what are you and me waiting for then !................

Rohit Bhaskar

Friendship - Hurt - SORRY - HOPE, I miss HER

There is this theory, that you can't help who you fall in love with. What I used to think was total bullshit until she came along. I was Mr. Play -it -safe. Mr. Always-Busy. I never let a girl get close to me; I kept a distance. Until she came along. It was more than a quarter century of years, never been in love, never even had a short-term relationship. Until she came along. It just started with friendship phones, e-mail, specifically saying electronic communication. Got in touch with her after a long long time. Yes, we knew each other but it is just for record. Maybe we were destined to meet once more in life and this was the time. We were so comfortable with each other, shared our joy, problems and much more. As time passed by the feelings inside me started to evolve and take a different form. Yes it felt beautiful. She changed everything, she gave me something I never had before; she made me feel important and worthy. Yah, I am the hopeless type. She was always right. My views were changing. I started to see life with a different and better perspective. I never told her my new feelings for her, perhaps was afraid of losing her, losing my dear friend. I was still making up my mind and waiting for the right time. Then suddenly I did something wrong. I am still not so clear what. Yah, I know I am dumb. She has stopped communicating. She doesn't even check my mails or maybe she checks, she never replies. I know I have hurt her, hurt her really very bad. Some of my friends suggested I write a letter to her, but don't send it. This way I would be free to get out of my emotions. But I dont want to get out of it. This absence of hers has created such a void in my life, now i know her true worth. I know she was the truest of true friend, full of life, never demanding and very caring. Will she ever forgive me and come back into my life. I HOPE.

My whole life is taking a different course and I am trying my best to hold it here. But it is only SHE who can help me.
Please come back, Please reply,

Saying SORRY, the magic word

How many people can say the magic word 'SORRY' easily? Not many I guess, certainly not me. Is it just an admission of guilt? Maybe not. Maybe there are other human emotions at play here. Maybe it also depends on power structures. For some, pride and ego come in the way, of even recognizing that hurt has been caused.

How many of us can say sorry to a child? The ability, or lack of it to do so, might tell us a lot about ourselves. Some find it easier to say sorry to their superiors than to their children, or, those lower in rank in the hierarchy. I've seen this 'failing' commonly among patriarchs or even matriarchs, for that matter. It is easier for them to ask God for forgiveness than to ask for forgiveness from the person concerned. So, it is fear to expose any weakness, or the soft underbelly, that prevents a 'Sorry'.

For some like my friend, it is safer to show that they are sorry, in deeds than in words. He will realize that in his anger he has caused hurt. So, he will put his arms around whoever has borne the brunt at that time, and say in a cajoling voice, "Come on yaar, let's go for a drink!" Or, "Come on yaar, let's go out, ple-e-ase?" Not comprehending why the other person is being, in his eyes, childish and mean in not dropping the issue and going on. After all, a peace offering is being made..! If they cared for him, wouldn't they accept? Of course, its useless telling him that they care for themselves too! "Childish, who me?.."

Yet another kind of person will not say 'sorry', because he/she feels justified for having done whatever has caused the heartburn. A sort of self-defense. "This will show him that he can't just fool around with me!" For them "A compromise, yes. A sorry, no!"

There is also this often very sorry business of being 'sorry' in politics. Sorry for the historical wrongs, one people might have inflicted on the other, either for political supremacy or economic gain. We have Tony Blair saying sorry to the Irish for the English indifference during the potato famine; Bill Clinton apologizing to the African-Americans for slavery -- both highly commendable. John Howard refusing to say 'Sorry' to the Aborigines for past injustices by the earlier colonials. Queen Elizabeth refusing to apologize for the Jallianwalla Bag massacre, on her last visit to India and the Duke even going so far as to suggest that the numbers have been exaggerated! Wonder what the motive was there.

Then of course the mother of all sorry is to tell sorry to a person you care the most for but hurt him/her somehow. Maybe a fight, quarrel, showdown, misunderstanding or by any other means you hurt him/her knowing or not knowing. At first there is this thought that comes into the mind, "who'll break the ice". Even thinking that is not so appropriate as from when did self ego started to play role in true relations, whatever be the name. You take the first step. You try your best but never get any reply. You are never told whether you have been forgiven. You try and try but no answers. Some lose faith and move on in life. But is this what you started it all for. No, not me. We forget the word "HOPE". It is the only strength and source of power that keeps everything ticking at its pace. You say sorry to a person because you know that person means a lot to you. You don't get any replies because your deeds have reduced your worth. But how so ever small does it get, you hope that one day there will be a reply, you will be forgiven and everything will become like before. You feel liberated and happy by knowing that at last all that effort put in help reduce the pain that you caused to someone so dear.

So, I urge every human being to say 'SORRY' and see if it liberates you or makes you feel small.