I try to accumulate the list of Dexter's victims, be it a good kill, a sloppy one or a mistake. The list does not follow sequence (most recent until season 4.. season 5 will only air this Dec). Feel free to comment.
The Ice Truck Killer
~a worthy nemesis for Dexter.
The Trinity Killer
~I would like to say that trinity killer can match up to the ice truck killer, but i think the ice truck killer has more charm in it. They both shares the same code of conduct i think. Both are worthy nemesis for Dex. However, the ice truck has rather huge impact on Dexter during the kill.. Whereas, Trinity, what comes after, that shocks Dex's world. Anyway, these two are quite equal.
Doakes
~hmm... i'm not sure if he is worth Dex's time, but i think it is a bit okay since it is not officially Dexter's doing.
Lila
~Lila is not as good as the ice truck killer, but her charm is interesting to watch. and interesting as well as Dexter find himself treat Lila differently as he treats Rita. Of all these psiko chase, I just wish the catch and kill is given extra time on screen, rather than just few minutes in a concluding finale
Miguel
~I don't think he is a good opponent, and also an annoying one.. yet, i never thought Dexter will be succumb to the kind of friend-like stuff. Too lame for people like Dexter. But maybe it is more for Dex's personal development on human interaction later on.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The X Men's Bios
For all the geeks out there, here are some of the lists of some awesome superpower mutants in history of mankind that I manage to collect. Feel free to add to the lists ;o)
The member of the X Men:
Prof Xavier
~the founder of the x-men; telepathy; a cool headed man; too realistic
Wolverine
~Logan; has adamantium engineered to his bones' structure; cool claws; ability to heal fast; heightened senses; loyal; quite reckless; emotional; hot tempered; someone you can always depends on; probably a canadian
Cyclop
~Scott; sunray; teacher's pet(according to wolverine.. hehe); x-men's number 1;
Rogue
~absorb other mutant's power by touching, can lead to coma for human; able to fly (she obtained this power from other mutant she touched before her time with the x-men); super-strength; super-speed; flirts with Gambit a lot; Mystique is her mother (not sure birth or adopted)
Beast
~Dr Hank McCoy; super-strength; like to climb through walls; nerdy; poetic; the most rational of them all
Phoenix
~Jean Grey; telepathy, mind control just like Prof X; always use the telepathy helmet (forget the name of it :D) when Prof X outstation; having problem to control her dark side - Dark Phoenix.. but i rather like the dark phoenix more, as her power seems endless and the rage is very powerful and honest; able to deeply hurt wolverine easy
Jubilee
~the youngest in x-men; fond of Wolverine, and he babysit her a lot compared to other members; her power has something to do with some machine-like (she can easily breaks PCs and some electrical stuff); able to generate fireworks
Gambit
~can change things to hazardous bomb-like stuff-he charge the stuff, and it becomes an explosive material; always carry cards for easy access of weapons; has charms; treat Rogue nicely; hard-headed; difficult to trust people; also babysit Jubilee like Wolverine did; has similar traits as Wolverine, but treat life more at ease
Storm
~can control the weather/natural stuff; claustrophobic; doesn't seem to have dark side; a good sport like cyclop; i think she came from Kilimanjaro; a bit confusing when halle berry take the role as a 3D version of storm, as the hair itself are completely way off; normally x-men's No. 2; i think Wolverine look up to her
The member of the X Men:
Prof Xavier
~the founder of the x-men; telepathy; a cool headed man; too realistic
Wolverine
~Logan; has adamantium engineered to his bones' structure; cool claws; ability to heal fast; heightened senses; loyal; quite reckless; emotional; hot tempered; someone you can always depends on; probably a canadian
Cyclop
~Scott; sunray; teacher's pet(according to wolverine.. hehe); x-men's number 1;
Rogue
~absorb other mutant's power by touching, can lead to coma for human; able to fly (she obtained this power from other mutant she touched before her time with the x-men); super-strength; super-speed; flirts with Gambit a lot; Mystique is her mother (not sure birth or adopted)
Beast
~Dr Hank McCoy; super-strength; like to climb through walls; nerdy; poetic; the most rational of them all
Phoenix
~Jean Grey; telepathy, mind control just like Prof X; always use the telepathy helmet (forget the name of it :D) when Prof X outstation; having problem to control her dark side - Dark Phoenix.. but i rather like the dark phoenix more, as her power seems endless and the rage is very powerful and honest; able to deeply hurt wolverine easy
Jubilee
~the youngest in x-men; fond of Wolverine, and he babysit her a lot compared to other members; her power has something to do with some machine-like (she can easily breaks PCs and some electrical stuff); able to generate fireworks
Gambit
~can change things to hazardous bomb-like stuff-he charge the stuff, and it becomes an explosive material; always carry cards for easy access of weapons; has charms; treat Rogue nicely; hard-headed; difficult to trust people; also babysit Jubilee like Wolverine did; has similar traits as Wolverine, but treat life more at ease
Storm
~can control the weather/natural stuff; claustrophobic; doesn't seem to have dark side; a good sport like cyclop; i think she came from Kilimanjaro; a bit confusing when halle berry take the role as a 3D version of storm, as the hair itself are completely way off; normally x-men's No. 2; i think Wolverine look up to her
Thursday, August 13, 2009
An exerpt from 'What is Mathematics, Really' by Rueben Hersh (1999)
I was pecking at my word processor when twelve-year-old Laura came over.
L: What are you doing?
R: It's philosophy of mathematics.
L: What's that about?
R: What's the biggest number?
L: There isn't any!
R: Why not?
L: There just isn't! How could there be?
R: Very good. Then how many numbers must there be?
L: Infinite many, I guess.
R: Yes. And where are they all?
L: Where?
R: That's right. Where?
L: I don't know. Nowhere. In people's heads, I guess.
R: How many numbers are in your head, do you suppose?
L: I think a few million billion trillion.
R: Then maybe everybody has a few million billion trillion or so?
L: Probably they do.
R: How many people could there be living on this planet right now?
L: Don't know. Probably billions.
R: Right. Less than ten billion, would you say?
L: Okay.
R: If each one has a million billion trillion numbers or less in her head, we can
count up all their numbers by multiplying ten billion times a million billion trillion.
Is that right?
L: Sounds right to me.
R: Would that number be infinite?
L: Would be pretty close.
R: Then it would be the largest number, wouldn't it?
L: Wait a minute. You just asked me that, and I said there couldn't be a
largest number!
R: So there actually has to be a number bigger than the biggest number in
anybody's head?
L: Right.
R: Where is that number, if not in anybody's head?
L: Maybe it's how many grains of sand in the whole universe.
R: No. The smallest things in the universe are supposed to be electrons.
Much smaller than grains of sand. Cosmologists say the number of electrons in
the universe is less than a 1 with 23* zeroes after it. Now, ten billion times a million
billion trillion is a 1 with
1 + 9 + 6 + 9 + 12
zeroes after it. That's a 1 with 37 zeroes after it, which is a hundred trillion times
as much as a one with 23 zeroes it, which is more than the number of elementary
particles in the universe, according to cosmologists.
L: Cosmologists are people who figure out stuff about the cosmos?
R: Right.
L: Awesome!
R: So there are way more numbers than there are elementary particles in the
whole cosmos.
L: Pretty weird!
R: Never mind "where." Let's talk about "when." How long do you suppose
numbers have been around?
L: A real long time.
R: Have they told you in school about the Big Bang?
L: I heard about it. It was like fifteen billion years ago. When the cosmos began.
R: Do you think there were numbers at the time of the big bang?
L: Yes, I think so. Just to count what was going on, you know.
R: And before that? Were there any numbers before the Big Bang? Even little
ones, like 1, 2, 3?
L: Numbers before there was a universe?
R: What do you think?
L: Seems like there couldn't be anything before there was anything, you
know what I mean? Yet it seems like there should always be numbers, even if
there isn't a universe.
R: Take that number you just came up with, 1 with 37 zeroes after it, and call
it a name, any name.
L: How about 'gazillion'?
R: Good. Can you imagine a gazillion of anything?
L: Heck no.
R: Could you or anyone you know ever count that high?
L: No. I bet a computer could.
R: No. The earth and the sun will vanish before the fastest computer ever
built could count that high.
L: Wow!
R: NOW, what is a gazillion and a gazillion?
L: Two gazillion. How easy!
R: HOW do you know?
L: Because one anything and another anything is two anything, no matter what.
R: HOW about one little mousie and one fierce tomcat? Or one female rabbit
and one male rabbit?
L: You're kidding! That's not math, that's biology.
R: YOU never saw a gazillion or anything near it. How do
you know gazillions aren't like rabbits?
L: Numbers can't be like rabbits.
R: If I take a gazillion and add one, what do I get?
L: A gazillion and one, just like a thousand and one or a million and one.
R: Could there be some other number between a gazillion and a gazillion and
one?
L: No, because a gazillion and one is the next number after a gazillion.
R: But how do you know when you get up that high the numbers don't
crowd together and sneak in between each other?
L: They can't, they've got to go in steps, one step at a time.
R: But how do you know what they do way far out where
you've never been?
L: Come on, you've got to be joking.
R Maybe. What color is this pencil?
L: Blue.
R: Sure?
L: Sure I'm sure.
R: Maybe the light out here is peculiar and makes colors look wrong? Maybe
in a different light you'd see a different color?
L: I don't think so.
R No, you don't. But are you absolutely sure it's absolutely impossible?
L: No, not absolutely, I guess.
R You've heard of being color blind, haven't you?
L: Yes, I have.
R: Could it be possible for a person to get some eye disease and become color
blind without knowing it?
L: I don't know. Maybe it could be possible.
R: Could that person think this pencil was blue, when actually it's orange,
because they had become color blind without knowing it?
L: Maybe they could. What of it? Who cares?
R: You see a blue pencil, but you aren't 100% sure it's really blue, only almost
sure. Right?
L: Sure. Right.
R: Now, how about a gazillion and a gazillion equals two gazillion? Are you
absolutely sure of that?
L: Yes I am.
R: No way that could be wrong?
L: No way.
R: You've never seen a gazillion. Yet you're more sure about gazillions than
you are about pencils that you can see and touch and taste and smell. How do
you get to know so much about gazillions?
L: Is that philosophy of mathematics?
R: That's the beginning of it.
L: What are you doing?
R: It's philosophy of mathematics.
L: What's that about?
R: What's the biggest number?
L: There isn't any!
R: Why not?
L: There just isn't! How could there be?
R: Very good. Then how many numbers must there be?
L: Infinite many, I guess.
R: Yes. And where are they all?
L: Where?
R: That's right. Where?
L: I don't know. Nowhere. In people's heads, I guess.
R: How many numbers are in your head, do you suppose?
L: I think a few million billion trillion.
R: Then maybe everybody has a few million billion trillion or so?
L: Probably they do.
R: How many people could there be living on this planet right now?
L: Don't know. Probably billions.
R: Right. Less than ten billion, would you say?
L: Okay.
R: If each one has a million billion trillion numbers or less in her head, we can
count up all their numbers by multiplying ten billion times a million billion trillion.
Is that right?
L: Sounds right to me.
R: Would that number be infinite?
L: Would be pretty close.
R: Then it would be the largest number, wouldn't it?
L: Wait a minute. You just asked me that, and I said there couldn't be a
largest number!
R: So there actually has to be a number bigger than the biggest number in
anybody's head?
L: Right.
R: Where is that number, if not in anybody's head?
L: Maybe it's how many grains of sand in the whole universe.
R: No. The smallest things in the universe are supposed to be electrons.
Much smaller than grains of sand. Cosmologists say the number of electrons in
the universe is less than a 1 with 23* zeroes after it. Now, ten billion times a million
billion trillion is a 1 with
1 + 9 + 6 + 9 + 12
zeroes after it. That's a 1 with 37 zeroes after it, which is a hundred trillion times
as much as a one with 23 zeroes it, which is more than the number of elementary
particles in the universe, according to cosmologists.
L: Cosmologists are people who figure out stuff about the cosmos?
R: Right.
L: Awesome!
R: So there are way more numbers than there are elementary particles in the
whole cosmos.
L: Pretty weird!
R: Never mind "where." Let's talk about "when." How long do you suppose
numbers have been around?
L: A real long time.
R: Have they told you in school about the Big Bang?
L: I heard about it. It was like fifteen billion years ago. When the cosmos began.
R: Do you think there were numbers at the time of the big bang?
L: Yes, I think so. Just to count what was going on, you know.
R: And before that? Were there any numbers before the Big Bang? Even little
ones, like 1, 2, 3?
L: Numbers before there was a universe?
R: What do you think?
L: Seems like there couldn't be anything before there was anything, you
know what I mean? Yet it seems like there should always be numbers, even if
there isn't a universe.
R: Take that number you just came up with, 1 with 37 zeroes after it, and call
it a name, any name.
L: How about 'gazillion'?
R: Good. Can you imagine a gazillion of anything?
L: Heck no.
R: Could you or anyone you know ever count that high?
L: No. I bet a computer could.
R: No. The earth and the sun will vanish before the fastest computer ever
built could count that high.
L: Wow!
R: NOW, what is a gazillion and a gazillion?
L: Two gazillion. How easy!
R: HOW do you know?
L: Because one anything and another anything is two anything, no matter what.
R: HOW about one little mousie and one fierce tomcat? Or one female rabbit
and one male rabbit?
L: You're kidding! That's not math, that's biology.
R: YOU never saw a gazillion or anything near it. How do
you know gazillions aren't like rabbits?
L: Numbers can't be like rabbits.
R: If I take a gazillion and add one, what do I get?
L: A gazillion and one, just like a thousand and one or a million and one.
R: Could there be some other number between a gazillion and a gazillion and
one?
L: No, because a gazillion and one is the next number after a gazillion.
R: But how do you know when you get up that high the numbers don't
crowd together and sneak in between each other?
L: They can't, they've got to go in steps, one step at a time.
R: But how do you know what they do way far out where
you've never been?
L: Come on, you've got to be joking.
R Maybe. What color is this pencil?
L: Blue.
R: Sure?
L: Sure I'm sure.
R: Maybe the light out here is peculiar and makes colors look wrong? Maybe
in a different light you'd see a different color?
L: I don't think so.
R No, you don't. But are you absolutely sure it's absolutely impossible?
L: No, not absolutely, I guess.
R You've heard of being color blind, haven't you?
L: Yes, I have.
R: Could it be possible for a person to get some eye disease and become color
blind without knowing it?
L: I don't know. Maybe it could be possible.
R: Could that person think this pencil was blue, when actually it's orange,
because they had become color blind without knowing it?
L: Maybe they could. What of it? Who cares?
R: You see a blue pencil, but you aren't 100% sure it's really blue, only almost
sure. Right?
L: Sure. Right.
R: Now, how about a gazillion and a gazillion equals two gazillion? Are you
absolutely sure of that?
L: Yes I am.
R: No way that could be wrong?
L: No way.
R: You've never seen a gazillion. Yet you're more sure about gazillions than
you are about pencils that you can see and touch and taste and smell. How do
you get to know so much about gazillions?
L: Is that philosophy of mathematics?
R: That's the beginning of it.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
~ butterfly and its wing ~
One of the topic that always intrigue me in branch of maths, is a chaos theory. The first quote given by my favorite lecturer on his undergrad class is this - if the butterfly flip its wing in Brazil, will there be tornado in Japan? - and as naive as I am as typical undergrads, at that moment of time, I know that I'm hooked for life, and the classes seems to awed me more and more each time (only after finishing the class, do I know that the quote is easily accessible anywhere, but still, my thanks go to Dr Salmi for making the class as interesting as that).
Chaos theory is kind of new in math. It is unlike the study of geometry, which originated as early as Euclid (when the Greek is well known for their wise scholars), or the algebra (thanks to al-Khawarizmi and the era where people believe that, to be close to God, is to get as close as you can to the knowledge apprehended as a gift from God). Chaos theory is the science in our time. A science develop by our intellectual scholar, and that might probably the reason why it became quite dear to me personally. However, in all branches of knowledge, there are of course, elements from different branches that help this theory to develop. As the saying goes: The reason that I can see further, is because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants (you can relate this to the saying of Newton, and also being familiarize by google scholar, and an alternative music band named oasis for one of their album).
It is Mr Edward Lorenz who pioneering this theory. He is a meteorologist, and studying mathematics during his youth. He came with this finding by surprise. He let his machine do the calculation of weather system (if I'm not mistake, this is a problem with a differential equation for weather prediction, the one with few variables and some initial points involved). When he considered different initial point, that is very small different, what comes to his surprise it that the end value diverge significantly as oppose to his first iteration (the different in initial point is just a probably mere 0.000001). This is the gist in chaos theory. What define this problem, is its sensitivity to the initial condition. Some even quote this as a 'butterfly effect' - strangely enough, this is also the name of a movie lead by Aston Kutcher. All this started in early 1960's, and the study is actively undertaken by many until now. He (Lorenz, not Kutcher) died of cancer at 2008.
Some regard that the development of a computer what makes all this easier and that make this area has big potential to go further. This might probably has a sense. The earlier work might already there, the works by Poincare, Hadamard, to name a few, but since it is hard to express the abstract idea, the works mostly underdevelop. The use of machine in recent years helps make sense of many things, as well as give color to this field and probably make it less people (wishful thinking?) to judge maths as a dry subject (and what more abusive, to those who regard mathematician a dreamer, and that the study of maths in particular the theoretical part is a waste?). But in the end, the butterfly will always flip its wing; and the wind, will always blow.
tagline: chaos theory, strage attractor, butterfly effect
Chaos theory is kind of new in math. It is unlike the study of geometry, which originated as early as Euclid (when the Greek is well known for their wise scholars), or the algebra (thanks to al-Khawarizmi and the era where people believe that, to be close to God, is to get as close as you can to the knowledge apprehended as a gift from God). Chaos theory is the science in our time. A science develop by our intellectual scholar, and that might probably the reason why it became quite dear to me personally. However, in all branches of knowledge, there are of course, elements from different branches that help this theory to develop. As the saying goes: The reason that I can see further, is because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants (you can relate this to the saying of Newton, and also being familiarize by google scholar, and an alternative music band named oasis for one of their album).
It is Mr Edward Lorenz who pioneering this theory. He is a meteorologist, and studying mathematics during his youth. He came with this finding by surprise. He let his machine do the calculation of weather system (if I'm not mistake, this is a problem with a differential equation for weather prediction, the one with few variables and some initial points involved). When he considered different initial point, that is very small different, what comes to his surprise it that the end value diverge significantly as oppose to his first iteration (the different in initial point is just a probably mere 0.000001). This is the gist in chaos theory. What define this problem, is its sensitivity to the initial condition. Some even quote this as a 'butterfly effect' - strangely enough, this is also the name of a movie lead by Aston Kutcher. All this started in early 1960's, and the study is actively undertaken by many until now. He (Lorenz, not Kutcher) died of cancer at 2008.
Some regard that the development of a computer what makes all this easier and that make this area has big potential to go further. This might probably has a sense. The earlier work might already there, the works by Poincare, Hadamard, to name a few, but since it is hard to express the abstract idea, the works mostly underdevelop. The use of machine in recent years helps make sense of many things, as well as give color to this field and probably make it less people (wishful thinking?) to judge maths as a dry subject (and what more abusive, to those who regard mathematician a dreamer, and that the study of maths in particular the theoretical part is a waste?). But in the end, the butterfly will always flip its wing; and the wind, will always blow.
tagline: chaos theory, strage attractor, butterfly effect
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)