## illogic of “debris logic” logic

There’s long been a dispute about disposal of tsunami debris in Tohoku, especially about whether regions out of Tohoku should accept the debris. And here comes this very very wise person to put a period on the dispute, denouncing the opinions that oppose to the disposal outside Tohoku:

There is a type of fallacy called “Kettle Logic” that goes:

1. the kettle I borrowed is not damaged;
2. the kettle was already damaged when I borrowed it;
3. I didn’t borrow the kettle in the first place.

The opinions opposing to disposal outside Tohoku reminded me of the Kettle Logic.  The opposition argement goes as follows:

1. Debris are not acceptable because they are contaminated;
2. There are issues more highly prioritised than debris disposal;
3. It is not necessary to transfer the debris out of tohoku.

This debris logic is completely isomorphic with the Kettle Logic.

And then declaration of victory follows:

The Kettle Logic is often used in excuses by children for their own faults.  Adults should not rely on the kettle kind of logic, let alone fact checking regarding debris disposal.

It is not quite clear what this very wise person meant by “isomorphic”.  But this juxtaposition of Kettle and Debris logics does not work as the wise person intended.  In the Kettle Logic, any 2 or more statements do not hold true simultaneously, and that is what’s interesting in this logic.  On the other hand, in the Debris Logic, all 3 can hold true at the same time.

It is a bit suspicious that the wise person deliberately made this mis-inference.

lll

## 「画像はイメージです」

Image via Wikipedia

で、「画像」なんだが、「画像」じゃなくて「写真」ていう場合もある。　むしろそのほうが多いかな。

これってえのは、グルーポン云々以前からずっと、しかも多くの人が、妙な違和を感じていたはずなんだがどうだろう。　単にだまされたとかなんとか以上に、なんか言い訳なのに事前に通告されているような。　どうしても掘りたくなる不思議な違和感が。

だけど、都度思い出していたのはそればっかりじゃなくて、もっとずっと下らない当たり前のことでして。　画像て、いちいちそう言われなくてもイメージなのよね。　イメージはイメージです、あるいは画像は画像です。

そのまんまなんのひねりもない同語反復。 古典論理の同一律つうのとは違うかな。　いずれにせよそのことばは元来リダンダントなはずだけど。 しかしみかけ上無用であるにもかかわらず、余計なことをもろもろ思わせるもんだな。 いやいや事前の言い訳とかの前になんかある。 なんなんでしょう。

つうかリダンダントなことばてのは一般に、言う人がそう意図しているかどうかに関わらず、余計な思いを引き起こさざるを得ないなにかがあるぽいぞ。　やっぱり、少なくともうっすらとは意図していると想定しといた方がよさそうだ。　スピーチアクトのおっさんたちに聞いてみたらおもしろいかな。

あと、もどって、普段いうところの画像に限らず、像なのかな、実は。　像は、何かの像なんだと普通思っているし。　像は、像の像です。　いやいやまじで。　よく旅行会社のブレチンで像の像の現物みかけます。　いや、それは受け取った瞬間、既に像の像の像か。

## Need true humour, now, truly

Georgia killed Troy Davis.  The killing was so sickening to me, regardless of whether he is innocent or not.

It is bad to kill anybody.  And Georgia kills.  Hence Georgia is bad.  Period.  My understanding is as simplistic as this.

It is like many articles and opinions are circulated around, condemning this and probably other executions.  But I’m apparently avoiding reading them.  I’m sick.

But why is this (and other) killing so sickening?  Maybe it is because I cannot avoid asking myself who is Georgia.  To avoid reading is possible, but asking is not.

Posted in state terrorism | | 1 Comment

## hypergraph

— A little memo —

While I was browsing through an abstract of a recent paper, which is about something called “hypergraph labeling”, I was brought back to my old memory.

Quite some time ago, I happened to skim through a fragment written by Charles Sanders Peirce, which goes something like “ternary relation cannot be reduced to a set of binary releations”, and yet “n-ary relation, where n > 3, can be reduced to a set of ternary relations”.  And he gave an example to show his point.  If my memory serves well, the example was kinda like this:

Let’s take a ternary relation “A gives B to C”.
Even if binary relations “A parts with B”, “B is received by A”… and so on are satisfied simultaneously, they do not compose the ternary relation “A gives B to C”.

Interesting a bit.  His argument was somehow convincing to me but not entirely.  I had been caught by this argument for some time and sought some “nicer” demonstration for the proposition, even though I was not clear at all about what I really meant by “nicer”.

Graph can represent a set of binary relations, but not n-ary relations (n > 2), whereas hypergraph can.  Maybe something like this was what Peirce had in his mind?

## Another factual,

… which is too nasty to be a humour.

The governor of Tokyo is very well-known by his far too extreme racism, sexism, ageism, and discrimination against handicapped people.  And this time, he insisted that Japan must develop her own nuke weapons.  On 8 March 2011.

Next came the huge disaster that hit Tohoku area of Japan.  The earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuke accident in Fukushima.  On 13 March 2011.  A nuke power reactor at Fukushima was heavily damaged on the same day.  Pressure inside its containment vessel exceeded by the factor of more than 2x of its designed limit in the midnight, and started leaking nuke stuff.  Eventually the other 2 reactors, that were running when the quake hit, were broken.

The divine governor called the disaster “divine punishment” against immorality of recent Japanese people.  Even though he apologized later for his words, it was as if he might have thought that he punished the Tohoku people by his own hand.

Then, on the election race for the next Tokyo governorship, the same disaster all of a sudden turned to be a clear sign for the sacred governor that he shall assume the next governorship as a “Mandate of Heaven” (sorry that I could not find English news source).  This reinforces my assumption above that the disaster was what he intended to have.  “The Shock Doctrine” of a diffrent kind is this?

This is already more than enough.  But, absurdly, he won the race.  He had already run 12 years as governor.  And another 4-year-term has come.  I think Tokyo is much worse than Italia headed by Berlusconi or France by Sarkozi.  Or are we living in a Kafka world?

———

We, Japanese people, love to regard ourselves as “sensitive” to nuke things in general, be it bombs, other weapons, aircraft carriers, any other kind of ships like Mutsu, submarines, or power plants.  If the claim were really true, then it would be more or less understandable that a QI programme caused a big mess in Japan last year.  The programme talked about an extraordinary Hibakusha who suffered from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki a-bombing  (see comments on this youtube video for the disgusting noise).  Although the purpose of the show was apparently not to make fun of the Hibakusha, BBC made an apology saying

…However, on this occasion, given the sensitivity of the subject matter for Japanese viewers, we understand why they did not feel it appropriate for inclusion in the programme.

Right.  Sensitivity matters for the sensitive people, doesn’t it?

But are we really sensitive to the extent that we were bothered about this programme?  Big no no, I must say.  I even do not need to argue.  A simple fact can make my point clear.  Again last year, shortly before the mess above happened, the World Peace Summit took place in Hiroshima.  I did not see any TV news programme that covered the topic.  I saw few lines about the meeting on news paper.  We are not interested in it at all.  Absolutely none of my colleagues remember the meeting, much less its message.

What nice sensitive people we are.

Edited: on Sat Aug 13 18:59:37 JST 2011, according to my English adviser.

lll

Posted in nationalism, state terrorism | Tagged , | 6 Comments

## jokes factual

behnisch Alexej Behnisch
Gaddafi’s son Saif wrote a PhD thesis at the #LSE on “the role of civil society in the democratisation of global governance institutions”

21 Feb

sunny_hundal sunny hundal
World Bank is a joke: “Ex-Lehman chief risk officer appointed World Bank treasurer” http://bit.ly/kJUh9d (via @sallyrhill)

27 Jun

VersoBooks VersoBooks
Blair puts Isaac Deutscher’s three-volume biography of Trotsky on his list of ‘Desert Island Books’ bit.ly/mkG1ca

27 Jun

KathViner Katharine Viner
Telegraph: News Corp being sued by shareholders for failing to take early action on phone hacking http://tgr.ph/ndSfww (via @sunny_hundal)

12 Jul

Blair’s thing is a bit exceptional.  He is pretty aware that it would sound awkward.

lll

Posted in Uncategorized | | 2 Comments

## Slavoj Žižek, first half of 2011

A list of stuff I touched:

Initially I was about to include some others that are more or less related to him.  If I did so, the list should have become too big.  He may repeat himself several times.  Nonetheless, apparently he is frantically too busy.  And if I am to create a similar list at the end of this year, the 1st entry of the list is going to be a WikiLeaks stuff again.

I wonder if I need to make an excuse, probably to myself, as to why a simple-minded computer programmer is trapped in things like this…

lll

Posted in philosophy, religion, state terrorism | Tagged | 2 Comments

## ソラミミ、ですらない

と、Richard Strauss の Nichits

て、似てるというわけではないんだけど、、、

ヴェランダで一服しておると

Ist die Sonne nicht die Quelle alles Lebens, alles Lichts?

が鳴りはじめ、そうしたらどういうわけか

を連想してしまったのよ。

## Fourier… 4

Note:  This is not really a strict mathematical discussion, but a quasi-math.

My post about Fourier thing got a nice interesting comment about a week ago, which reminded me that I have not settled the theme yet, and that I suspended the topic even before mentioning Fourier transform.  Actually the post was not really about Fourier, but a complaint about a sound engineering textbook that discusses wave equations a lot.  So, let me get back to the main trail.

The 1D wave equation of my interest looked like

$\displaystyle \dfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \dfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}$.

And I was about to take Fourier transform of this equation, with respect to $x$.  So let us just do that.  The left hand side becomes

$\displaystyle \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \dfrac {\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} e^{-i \omega x} dx = \dfrac {\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u e^{-i \omega x} dx = \dfrac {\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \hat{u}$

(here $\hat{u}$ denotes Fourier transform of $u$),  and F.T. of the right hand side is

$\displaystyle c^2 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \dfrac {\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} e^{-i \omega x} dx$.

Here let me rely on a wishful thinking again that $u(x, t)$ vanishes when $x$ tends to  $\pm \infty$.  Then Fourier transform of 1st derivative of a function $u$ is

$\displaystyle \widehat {\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x}} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \dfrac {\partial u}{\partial x} e^{-i \omega x} dx = u e^{-i \omega x}] _{-\infty}^{\infty} + i \omega \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} u e^{-i \omega x} dx = i \omega \hat {u}$,

(the term $u e^{-i \omega x}] _{-\infty}^{\infty}$ vanishes).  Likewise, F.T. of the 2nd derivative is

$\displaystyle \widehat {\dfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}} = - \omega^2 \hat {u}$.

So F.T. of the right hand side of the wave equation becomes

$\displaystyle -(\omega c)^2 \hat{u}$.

Since both sides should be equal, we get another differential equation in frequency domain

$\displaystyle \dfrac {\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \hat{u} = -(\omega c)^2 \hat{u}$.

This differential equation is actually only about $t$, and can be solved fairly easily.  Its solution is given by:

$\displaystyle \widehat{u(\omega, t)} = F(\omega) e^{-i \omega c t} + G(\omega) e^{i \omega c t}$,

where $F$ and $G$ are arbitrary functions of $\omega$, independent of $t$.

Then inverse-transform of this will give me the solution to the original wave equation.  Computing the inverse gives:

$\displaystyle u(x, t) = \dfrac{1}{2 \pi} (\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F(\omega) e^{-i \omega c t} e^{i \omega x}d \omega + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} G(\omega) e^{i \omega c t} e^{i \omega x}d \omega)$

$\displaystyle = \dfrac{1}{2 \pi} (\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F(\omega) e^{i \omega (x - c t)} d \omega + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} G(\omega) e^{-i \omega (x + c t)} d \omega)$.

Well here we note the $x - ct$ and $x + ct$ came up again, that were the sources of change of variable in the earlier post, this time in a natural way by a simple computation.

Okay, though the integral above might look scary, it can reach back to the definition of inverse Fourier transform by the same change of variables:

$\displaystyle X_1 = x - ct$,

$\displaystyle X_2 = x + ct$.

By this, the integral becomes (no complaints this time):

$\displaystyle u = \dfrac{1}{2 \pi}[\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F(\omega) e^{i \omega X_1} d \omega + \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} G(\omega) e^{-i \omega X_2} d \omega]$.

Since the 2 terms are just definition of the inverse-transform of $F$ and $G$ respectively, letting them be $f$ and $g$ finally we get

$\displaystyle u(x, t) = f(X_1) + g(X_2)$

$\displaystyle = f(x - ct) + g(x + ct)$.

Now I got a bit happier than before…  But wait a second,

Posted in Differential Equations | | 2 Comments