From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #54 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, February 18 2007 Volume 16 : Number 054 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Study break ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream ["Michael Sweeney" ] Cluedo [hssmrg@bath.ac.uk] Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream [2fs ] Re: Song similarities [J ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [2fs ] Re: conspiratorial number theory ["Lauren Elizabeth" ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [2fs ] Re: Wikipedia and infinity [Rex ] Re: conspiratorial number theory [Tom Clark ] Re: locations of Michaels [Tom Clark ] Re: Study break [Tom Clark ] Re: locations of Michaels [michaeljbachman@comcast.net] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:42:32 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Study break Hi Fegs, Has anyone seen those new(ish) match.com ads on MSN? They have a new motto which is: "It's okay to look." Now I'm fairly liberal, not like commune liberal or "Savage Love" liberal, but I'm fine if my SO looks at women or goes on about that opening scene in "Lost in Translation" or about how flexible Beyonce is in that weird dance she just made up. Who the hell doesn't look at women? Some women will say no they don't do that but believe me, they're scoping out hair cuts and wondering "what the hell kind of shoes are *those*?" to say the least. But "sign-up-for-a-dating-site" looking...uh, not okay. Like I'm sure you've been waiting for my take on this. Back to Quicksort (you too if that's your thing.) xo - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:15:10 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream "Lauren Elizabeth" wrote: Okay, it's been determined that the number of irrational numbers is infinite, not even countable but the more important question to me is whether the number of Michaels on FegList is countable. And okay avatars are out I assume (personally, I love them) but perhaps the Michaels could all pick an individual mascot, a rap name or maybe a Monopoly piece...best yet, a Clue character. And I know you will all want to be Miss Scarlet, but there will be only Miss Scarlet so stop fighting. xo Lauren, who always picked "Professor Plum" ...well, perhaps instead we myriad Michaels can just pick Robyn-lyric-related nicknames, such as "Please don't call me Reg - it's not my name," "Clean Steve," "The Man Who Invented Himself," or "Arthur Lee / Nick Drake / Arthur Kane." Myself, I've always been partial to "Leppo" -- I've had the Leppo_and_the_Jooves Yahoo mailbox for years, and used to use it as an ID on a game-playing site. (Also like the way it ties together RH, the Rutles ("In those days there was a fifth Rutle, Leppo, who mainly stood at the back..."), and (sorta) the Marx Bros. (the 5th Rutle, Leppo/4th Marx. Zeppo - -- both jettisoned) -- 3 of my all-time faves...) ...So, "Leppo" it is! Bachman, you get next pick (plus -- I think I saw on your emails that you work in Park Forest...I grew up there, lived in the Will Cty part of town (near Monee Road) from '68 - '81 and went to Crete-Monee H.S.; small world...) Michael "Leppo" Sweeney All you leave is your name / I got a name, baby -- it's Lep, Lep, Leppo... _________________________________________________________________ Find what you need at prices youll love. Compare products and save at MSN. Shopping. http://shopping.msn.com/default/shp/?ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24102&tcode=T001MSN20A0701 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:24:50 +0000 From: "Michael Sweeney" Subject: locations of Michaels ...oh wait, or was that M. Wells (in Park Forest), not M. Bachman? Or was I right to begin with? I get confused...too much jumping on taxis, coffin lids, Americans, piano heads and rooves, I suppose... Leppo _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more.then map the best route! http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:48:51 +0000 From: hssmrg@bath.ac.uk Subject: Cluedo I have to volunteer to be Colonel Mustard. I was shaken recently to find a set with 'Master Mustard' instead. When was this retrograde step taken? [Thinks: must look it up in Wikipedia]. - - Mike 'Keen As Mustard' Godwin PS And now let's welcome Mister and Missus Bates and their son... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:15:20 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Viv's New Favorite Ice Cream On 2/17/07, Michael Sweeney wrote: > > "Lauren Elizabeth" wrote: > > Okay, it's been determined that the number of irrational numbers is > infinite, not even countable but the more important question to me is > whether the number of Michaels on FegList is countable. > > And okay avatars are out I assume (personally, I love them) but > perhaps the Michaels could all pick an individual mascot, a rap name > or maybe a Monopoly piece...best yet, a Clue character. And I know > you will all want to be Miss Scarlet, but there will be only Miss > Scarlet so stop fighting. > > xo > Lauren, who always picked "Professor Plum" > > > ...well, perhaps instead we myriad Michaels can just pick > Robyn-lyric-related nicknames, such as "Please don't call me Reg - it's > not > my name," "Clean Steve," "The Man Who Invented Himself," or "Arthur Lee / > Nick Drake / Arthur Kane." Or you could just all call yourselves "Bruce." - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:50:01 -0800 (PST) From: J Subject: Re: Song similarities Pet Shop Boys - It's a Sin -> Cat Stevens - Wild World - -Julie . ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:42:45 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, ken ostrander wrote: > >How closely related do you have to be to someone to count as a degree > >of separation away (or zero degrees, or whatever)?< > > that's a murky one. you could be twins separated at birth and you > would be one degree because you shared a womb. separated siblings > spawned separately from the same womb would be two degrees if they never > came into contact with one another. zero degrees would be conjoined > twins. 'Cos I was going to say, we are all ultimately related, in that we share a common ancestor (albeit a very long time ago). > of course, this is all purely physical. certainly, there is a > connection between all of us on this list. people feel connected with > the folks in movies, books, and songs; or in a story they might get from > the news. But then I'm a degree away from John, Paul, George, Ringo, Ray, Brian, Nick, Andy, and a whole bunch of other people, and the game isn't as fun anymore :) > >We don't treat our poor very well at all.< > > keep it that way. is it better to hope that some government program is > going to give assistance the folks that are being evicted down the > street or assist them ourselves? Probably the latter, as the government doesn't seem to be doing a great job. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:42:16 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On 2/17/07, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, ken ostrander wrote: > > > >How closely related do you have to be to someone to count as a degree > > >of separation away (or zero degrees, or whatever)?< > > > > that's a murky one. you could be twins separated at birth and you > > would be one degree because you shared a womb. separated siblings > > spawned separately from the same womb would be two degrees if they never > > came into contact with one another. zero degrees would be conjoined > > twins. Conjoined twins are still two people - each has her/his own personality and sense of self (and, less metaphysically, brain - except in such cases where two share a single head, which usually don't survive anyway). 'Cos I was going to say, we are all ultimately related, in that we share a > common ancestor (albeit a very long time ago). But then I'm a degree away from John, Paul, George, Ringo, Ray, Brian, > Nick, Andy, and a whole bunch of other people, and the game isn't as fun > anymore :) Agreed: the point of the game is to illustrate the curious phenomenon of how relatively close people are via multiple linkages. It's perhaps best thought of in terms of: what would you need to do to meet so-and-so? Well, you could ask your friend to ask her friend to ask his...etc. How close do those connections need to be? That's the point of thinking of it this way: seeing Paul Westerberg in an elevator across the way from you at the Mall of America doesn't count. Being in the same elevator with Westerberg - and striking up a conversation about this one show you saw, to the extent that it's *possible* PW might remember you if you met again - just might count. It's also (this is to make Lauren happy, and have this be about math) an illustration of the power of exponentiality. Someone - doing one of those internet quizzes where you're supposed to then send the same quiz on to another six or eight or ten people - pointed out that it would take only a very short time for millions of people to be involved, if everyone forwarded the quiz to people who hadn't already seen it. Same here, in a way: the "six degrees" is meant to illustrate the ways in which multiple connectedness can boil a large number of people down to a surprisingly small number of connections. > keep it that way. is it better to hope that some government program is > > going to give assistance the folks that are being evicted down the > > street or assist them ourselves? > > Probably the latter, as the government doesn't seem to be doing a great > job. Of course, it's ironic that some of these government folks are saying how bad government is (and yet running for office) - and still more ironic in that they point to their own unwillingness and incompetence (Katrina) as an example of how government doesn't work. That would be funny except when it's the same folks going on and on about how government can't do anything right, how it's riddled with idiots and drunks and otherwise incompetent fools and so no government program can ever work - and then suggest the death penalty is a good idea, because when it comes to determining who's guilty and who should die, the government is infallible. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:51:41 -0500 From: "Lauren Elizabeth" Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory Hi Fegs, 2fs says: > Conjoined twins are still two people - each has her/his own personality and > sense of self (and, less metaphysically, brain - except in such cases where > two share a single head, which usually don't survive anyway). > That's the point of thinking of it this way: seeing > Paul Westerberg in an elevator across the way from you at the Mall of > America doesn't count. Being in the same elevator with Westerberg - and > striking up a conversation about this one show you saw, to the extent that > it's *possible* PW might remember you if you met again - just might count. Okay so say conjoined twins (not sharing the same brain) meet Paul Westerberg in the elevator but one is reading while the other strikes up said conversation. I image Paul Westerberg will indeed remember him or her, so the chatty one is now either 0 or 1 degrees of separation (did you finish duking that out? my vote is for 0), let's call it x since on FegList this is indeed an unknown quantity. Is the studious twin now x degree(s) from Paul Westerberg or (x + 1) degree(s) away? I mean, it doesn't feel quite right to treat them as one individual so perhaps they must maintain separate lists for their Bacon numbers. Then again, an argument could be made their having a joint list and I'm sure this is the right place for such an argument. What other mailing list takes on the Big Questions? I thought not. > It's also (this is to make Lauren happy, and have this be about math) an > illustration of the power of exponentiality. Today's score: Math - 1 Conjoined Twins - 3 Grubby loud guitarists - 0 xo Lauren - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "People with opinions just go around bothering one another." - The Buddha ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:24:17 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: reap Ryan Larkin, animator, 63. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:24:05 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On 2/17/07, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > > > > That's the point of thinking of it this way: seeing > > Paul Westerberg in an elevator across the way from you at the Mall of > > America doesn't count. Being in the same elevator with Westerberg - and > > striking up a conversation about this one show you saw, to the extent > that > > it's *possible* PW might remember you if you met again - just might > count. > > Okay so say conjoined twins (not sharing the same brain) meet Paul > Westerberg in the elevator but one is reading while the other strikes > up said conversation. I image Paul Westerberg will indeed remember > him or her, so the chatty one is now either 0 or 1 degrees of > separation (did you finish duking that out? my vote is for 0), let's > call it x since on FegList this is indeed an unknown quantity. Is the > studious twin now x degree(s) from Paul Westerberg or (x + 1) > degree(s) away? Okay, first: 0 degrees=identity. End of story. Ipso fucked-o. 1 degree=just that: the closest they are in terms of connection (not *types* of connection) w/o being identical (i.e., same brain). Anyhoo: Chatty one is 1. Non-chatty one is 2. Arguably, though, their exceptionality would make them highly memorable - enough that you might argue it'd be 1 degree to either twin for Paul Westerberg, because if he meets them again he'll almost certainly remember both of them. So maybe 1. I dunno. I throw my hands up in the air (but not like in _Wild at Heart_). What other mailing list takes on the Big Questions? I thought not. None dare. None *dare*. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:40:21 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: Wikipedia and infinity On 2/16/07, vivien lyon wrote: > > I gots nothin' to say about infinity. There are an infinite amount of things I could say about it., but... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:41:36 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: conspiratorial number theory On Feb 17, 2007, at 4:42 PM, 2fs wrote: > Agreed: the point of the game is to illustrate the curious > phenomenon of how > relatively close people are via multiple linkages. It's perhaps > best thought > of in terms of: what would you need to do to meet so-and-so? Well, > you could > ask your friend to ask her friend to ask his...etc. How close do those > connections need to be? That's the point of thinking of it this > way: seeing > Paul Westerberg in an elevator across the way from you at the Mall of > America doesn't count. Being in the same elevator with Westerberg - > and > striking up a conversation about this one show you saw, to the > extent that > it's *possible* PW might remember you if you met again - just might > count. Or would Paul remember you such that he might relate your meeting to someone else? I think that might prove a link. So does that mean I'm connected to Al Gore and the multitudes of international movers & shakers he knows, just because Steve Jobs held a door open for me or smiled at me and my daughter in passing? I mean, I'm sure he knows me by sight - me being the only person on the Apple campus in a wheelchair - but how connected are we? In my estimation we're best friends of course, but to him I'm probably just "that guy". So to revive Marc Holden's rationale (and Jeff's above) - if you meet someone and become part of their consciousness, is that what cements a connection? I'll take it. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:43:15 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: locations of Michaels On Feb 17, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > I get confused...too much jumping on taxis, coffin lids, Americans, > piano heads and rooves, I suppose.. Piano *lids*? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:50:04 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Study break On Feb 16, 2007, at 11:42 PM, Lauren Elizabeth wrote: > Like I'm sure you've been waiting for my take on this. Back to > Quicksort (you too if that's your thing.) Quicksort rulez. qed, - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:55 +0000 From: michaeljbachman@comcast.net Subject: Re: locations of Michaels - -------------- Original message -------------- From: Tom Clark > On Feb 17, 2007, at 12:24 AM, Michael Sweeney wrote: > > > I get confused...too much jumping on taxis, coffin lids, Americans, > > piano heads and rooves, I suppose.. > TC came back with: > Piano *lids*? > Speaking of coffins and moving to caskets, after checking out The Asking Tree, it doesn't look like Robyn has ever performed one of Syd's last songs with the Floyd, "Sceam Thy Last Scream (Old Woman With A Casket)? I wonder why? Uncle Stan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #54 *******************************