A recent strip from Dilbert that made me smile:
Having contracted viruses from both human and electronic sources lately, I know exactly where he’s coming from.
It’s worth noting that my electronic immune system worked a whole lot better than my natural one.
Your Quote of the Day comes from Brian Micklethwait who has a dodgy internet connection:
My internet connection is doing weird things, going on and off and on again and off again, for no apparent reason. I fiddle about with the connections, which sometimes seems to work, but this could be coincidence.
All of which is of some small interest, but then he bangs in a line like this:
Times like these remind me of how much my life revolves around times like these not happening too often.
Brilliantly put.
Indeed, we’re all dependent on difficulties not befalling us too often, but we rarely think about it that way until they’ve well and truly befallen us.
From Frederick Schoeman of Cape Town on Friday’s Cape Times letters page:
Satan’s Arithmetic
I believe that a couple of centuries ago, two mathematicians were demonstrating their numerical skills to the French monarchy when one of them stunned his opponent and the audience by reciting an algebraic formula and claiming it to be proof that “God lives”.
Could I borrow a leaf out of that man’s book and claim that, since the graph of world population growth over the past 1700 years looks like a serpent trying to slither up a wall, Satan is alive and thriving on human lust?
I’ve been doing some extensive research into Fred’s story, but the best that I could come up with was the the story of Leonhard Euler, who was a mathematician, but was Swiss, not French, and his presentation of an algebraic formula, claiming to be the proof that God lives. This presentation was made to another individual, Denis Diderot who was French, but was better known for his philosophical musing, rather than his mathematical prowess. In addition, this presentation was made in St Petersburg in 1774, in front of the Russian Empress Catherine II, rather than any French monarch.
Wikipedia tells us:
There is a famous anecdote inspired by Euler’s arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler’s second stint at the St. Petersburg academy.
The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great’s invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher’s arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman.
Diderot was later informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, “Monsieur! (a+b)^n/n = x, donc Dieu existe, répondez!”.
This roughly translates as:
Listen mate, a plus b to the power n, over n, equals x. That means God exists.
What do you say to that then, huh? HUH?!?
Allegedly, Denis failed to provide an immediate answer. Or indeed any answer:
Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress.
This sudden stage fright could have been due to Euler’s sheer mathematical brilliance.
Or, conversely, it may have been caused by Diderot’s incredulity that some Swiss bloke had successfully baffled him with bullshit by spouting some maths at him and pretending that it meant something that it actually didn’t.
Why not try something similar at your local supermarket this weekend? At the Deli counter, ask for some ham. When the lady asks how much you’d like, exclaim loudly (remembering to use a tone of perfect conviction):
“Madam! a x squared, multiplied by b x, plus c, equals zero, therefore I’m off to the jams and spreads aisle. What say you to that?”.
See if she can find an immediate answer.
When she can’t, she must ask her boss’s permission to leave the country and go back to France.
Either way, there’s a whole lot more detail, including eye witness accounts, right here.
Of course, the formula didn’t prove that God exists at all, although it later proved invaluable in predicting how long one would have to wait for the next bus to the St Petersburg city centre.
Nice work, Leonhard.
So, the first of Fred’s paragraphs proven wholly misguided, yet almost slightly true, we move on to his second.
The bit about the snake.
But before that, at this point that I’d like us all to stop and consider some stuff for just a second. Firstly, put yourself in Fred’s shoes. At some moment in time, Fred actually felt that there was a connection between his 18th century algebraic French monarchy court presentation story and a graph of world population growth over the last 1700 years. Personally, I can’t see it. It’s like me taking an excerpt from a book on the dinosaurs and somehow linking it to the recent downturn in Malaysian rubber production.
But I digress. The important point here is that Fred saw this relationship.
Secondly (and still in Fred’s shoes), Fred sat down and wrote to the Cape Times about it. That is, not only did he feel that the connection was a valid one, he felt it was worth sharing – not just with his friends (although I have no idea if he put it on his Facebook wall) – but with the general population of Cape Town and surrounds. While he was typing (or writing – who knows?) away, he still thought it was a good idea to sent it through to the letters page. When he addressed the envelope or entered the email address (ctletters@inl.co.za), he remained under the impression that the not only did his observation make complete sense, but that it was so important that 268,000 readers should be informed of it.
And then, once his thoughts arrived at the Cape Times office, at a time when sharks, rugby, racial issues, politics and cellphone masts (What? – Ed.) are at the forefront of all of our minds, Fred’s letter was one of the seven best that was received by the local rag that day.
Yes. Really.
But onto the serpent thing. I had a good luck around on the internet and the best graph I could come up with to illustrate Fred’s serpent against a wall thing was this one:
Obviously, you can ignore the bit before 311 AD, as Fred didn’t consider that when making his serpentine comparison.
Personally, I felt that it was a bit of a stretch, but then I’m no expert on what exactly a serpent trying to slither up a wall looks like. That’s why I searched for “a serpent trying to slither up a wall” on google images.
This was the best that I could find:
Which seems to suggest that human population exploded upwards, remained almost static while traveling back and then forward again in time, before increasing almost exponentially, peaking and then dropping off to the current number. That aside, we shouldn’t overlook that fact that
…it’s gripping onto that brickwork because Satan is thriving on human lust.
A few points, if I may be so bold:
Firstly, algebra cannot prove the existence of God. Theologians might have their own reasons for why this may be, but mine is probably more simple: that he doesn’t exist and that it’s awfully difficult to prove the existence of something that doesn’t exist – algebraically or otherwise.
Secondly, unless I’m missing some big chunk of causality here, an alleged incident in a “Parisian” court chamber 200+ years ago doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that “Satan is alive and thriving on human lust”.
Thirdly, I do still quite like the idea of an algebraic duel:
Sir, you have insulted me and I demand satisfaction. Meet me at 6 o’clock tomorrow morning and bring a blackboard.
No calculators.
Fourthly, what does Fred want us to do? Not breed? Adam and Eve bred. Mary and Joseph bred (sort of). Hey, Mr and Mrs Schoeman (Snr) bred. Are these also examples of human lust upon which Satan is thriving?
Fifthly, any line graph looks a bit like a snake on a wall.
Any block graph resembles the Manhattan Skyline.
Any pie chart has the appearance of… well… a pie. Deal with it.
Sixthly, get your historical facts right if you wish to make a good impression on those reading, but remember that…
Seventhly, just because you think something, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to write it down and send it to the Cape Times.
Lastly, just because you think something, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to write 1300 words on it on your blog.
Remember this - the post where we told you that the Daily Mail was horrendously inaccurate in its description of the fatal shark attack in Fishhoek back in January 2010? (If you haven’t read it yet, you really should.)
Well, they’re at it again over the latest shark attack at the same beach. And yes, I assure you that it is the same beach. This despite their highlighting of Hout Bay as being where the attack took place – note the words “Hout” and “Bay” there in the circle:
It’s an easy and understandable mistake to make though. After all, when you type “Clovelly Beach” into Google Maps, it actually takes you immediately to Hout Bay, 25 km away from “Clovelly Beach” and on the Atlantic Seaboard, rather than to “Clovelly Beach” in Fishhoek on False Bay.
Wait. No. It doesn’t do that at all.
I guess that we should congratulate them on correctly identifying South Africa though, even though there is a big hint in the name.
www.6000.co.za
More Logic From Lewis
We’re not huge fans of the self-titled “Human Polar Bear”, Lewis Pugh, here at 6000 miles… as you may remember from such posts as Do Some Fracking Reading from earlier this year. Pugh’s tactics to get people onto his side rely on emotion and irrationality rather than any sort of logic – which is an unnecessarily juvenile and unhelpful approach to what are (or should be) important debates.
Well, now he’s back with a corker of a tweet from this morning:
Cue over 40 sycophantic retweets and you can almost imagine people reading it and thinking “By golly, he’s correct! People die on the roads and they never shut them down for 5 days! I must forward this to all my friends and followers immediately.”
But for those who can manage to get past the kneejerk reaction and who choose to analyse further, what is it that Lewis actually saying here? It seems to me that he is irritated by the dichotomous reactions to the shark attack in Fishhoek last week and the horrendous statistics of fatalities on our local roads. In my mind, there’s absolutely no reason that these two completely unlinked things should be treated in the same manner, but Lewis obviously disagrees.
So what exactly does he suggest? Well, based on the tweet above, I guess it’s one of two things: either he wants Fishhoek beach reopened or he wants the RSA roads closed for 5 days.
Of course, choosing to close down the entire road network of a country is not a decision to be taken lightly. The effect on the economy of even a minor early morning fender bender on Hospital Bend and the subsequent delays is often quoted as running into six figures. And that’s just one road, in one city, for just one hour.
Can you even begin to imagine the impact of shutting every road in the entire country down for five days?
According to this page, the network of roads in South Africa amounts to a staggering total of 755,000 kilometres. And Lewis wants all of that shut down for 5 days?
Does Mr Pugh perhaps have shares in the local traffic cone industry?
That’s not going to work.
Better then that we find an alternative, and of course, Lewis has that covered: let’s reopen Fishhoek beach.
This is an undoubtedly brilliant plan, because not only is it easier to do than closing three-quarters of a million kilometres of roads, but it also uses less traffic cones and there’s obviously nothing that could assist Cape Town’s vital tourism industry more than the city being labelled as the Shark Attack Capital Of The World. People will flock from all over the planet to swim in our waters and enjoy traumatic amputations of their lower limbs or – if they choose to take the five star package – death, at the hands of the super-predators in our waters.
Those ridiculing the buffoonery of Michael Cohen will have to SIT DOWN, because purposefully wading out into shark-infested waters is the new black, according to Lewis.
Does Mr Pugh perhaps have shares in the local private medical industry?
Because I’m struggling to see any benefit to anyone else in putting people at great risk of getting attacked by the obviously hungry great whites in False Bay. Perhaps Lewis, with his impeccable aquatic pedigree, would like to be the first to go for a dip beyond the breakers. Shall we get the air ambulance ready, Lewis, since you’ve already closed all the roads?
And as an aside, even while I’m writing this:
Is there a way that we could reduce the number of people killed on our local roads? Is there a better way to symbiotically manage human/shark interactions off our coastline? I guess that the answer to both of these questions is “possibly” – maybe even “probably”.
But despite deciding to comment on these issues Lewis Pugh once again offers nothing realistic, sensible or helpful to the debate.