« Please Pass the Viscum Album, Dr. Härtling. | amike's Blog | At Least They Could have gotten the Weather Report Right »
The New Math: So Simple, that Only a Child can Do it.
Apologies to Tom Lehrer for the Header.
I sent myself on a fool's errand this morning: to write down a mathematical formula which would encapsulate the degree of satisfaction I might reasonably feel with the Obama administration at any time during the running of its course. The problem wasn't in defining the variables-I have pretty fair sense of what they are: ODWIW, ODDWIW, WIWMB, WOPW.
ODWIW = Obama Does What I Want. The course of Obama's administration is close enough to my sense of what's right that I would be unreasonable to expect more. My cheesecake came with strawberries instead of cherries on it.
ODDWIW = Obma Doesn't Do What I want. The course of the Administration is so far from my sense of right that no amount of gilding will disguise that the silk purse is really a sow's ear. I don't get cheesecake, I get lima beans, unseasoned, and undercooked.
WIWMB = What I Want, My Bad. My preference was either to myopic or too visionary; too based on ignorance, too apocalyptic, or too wrongheaded. Many times in my life I've been blessed by not getting my heart's desire, and I need to take that into account in the political sense.
WOPW = What Other People Want. This is shorthand for WOPWALCOOAW (What Other People with a Legitmate Claim On Obama's Attention Want). (I'm not blessed with the ability to make melodious acronyms). Other people have a legitimate claim on Obama's attention, to a greater or lesser degree. Obama presides over a country of diverse people. I would bias this number in favor of those who actually voted for him: some of whom have views different from my own, but held as legitimately as mine are. But I have to realize that the WOWTB factor also kicks in. Others as as likely to be as wrong as I am on occasion, for the same reasons, of for others I haven't thought of. I apologize for not having thought of them: my bad.
Arranging these factors into a algorithm should make it possible for me to measure whether or not any given moment of ire is valid or ire-rational. Those more mathematically inclined can shape this up into a nice tidy formula for me, or not: the sun will still rise tomorrow either way.
I sent myself on a fool's errand this morning: to write down a mathematical formula which would encapsulate the degree of satisfaction I might reasonably feel with the Obama administration at any time during the running of its course. The problem wasn't in defining the variables-I have pretty fair sense of what they are: ODWIW, ODDWIW, WIWMB, WOPW.
ODWIW = Obama Does What I Want. The course of Obama's administration is close enough to my sense of what's right that I would be unreasonable to expect more. My cheesecake came with strawberries instead of cherries on it.
ODDWIW = Obma Doesn't Do What I want. The course of the Administration is so far from my sense of right that no amount of gilding will disguise that the silk purse is really a sow's ear. I don't get cheesecake, I get lima beans, unseasoned, and undercooked.
WIWMB = What I Want, My Bad. My preference was either to myopic or too visionary; too based on ignorance, too apocalyptic, or too wrongheaded. Many times in my life I've been blessed by not getting my heart's desire, and I need to take that into account in the political sense.
WOPW = What Other People Want. This is shorthand for WOPWALCOOAW (What Other People with a Legitmate Claim On Obama's Attention Want). (I'm not blessed with the ability to make melodious acronyms). Other people have a legitimate claim on Obama's attention, to a greater or lesser degree. Obama presides over a country of diverse people. I would bias this number in favor of those who actually voted for him: some of whom have views different from my own, but held as legitimately as mine are. But I have to realize that the WOWTB factor also kicks in. Others as as likely to be as wrong as I am on occasion, for the same reasons, of for others I haven't thought of. I apologize for not having thought of them: my bad.
Arranging these factors into a algorithm should make it possible for me to measure whether or not any given moment of ire is valid or ire-rational. Those more mathematically inclined can shape this up into a nice tidy formula for me, or not: the sun will still rise tomorrow either way.
Advertisement
Well since you mention the new math in your title I suppose you could assert a base 4 number system, one digit each for one of your variables. This would be Boolean “nn” where “n” is a Boolean number zero or one. The full word “nn” would have four states, one for each of your variables. Following Babbage you could construct a mathematical model of a general purpose (Von Neumann model) computing machine based on this 2 bit architecture. Like Lady Lovelace, could then write an assembler and then program it to your hearts content. The earliest microprocessors were 4 bit machines. If you can find an old Intel 4004 processor you would have a close physical incarnation of your theoretical machine. (There may be one in your refrigerator if it is very old or, I think much of the Russian space program was designed using 4004 processors so you might check the Russian Ebay)
Another approach could be to use the modern notion of object oriented programming like C++ or C#.. Each of your variables could be an object whose internal logic was discrete and which could be called in the manner of OO programming, in this case the “OO” standing for “Obama Oriented” Programming. I don’t recommend it. C++ is an inside joke gone terribly wrong and tends to absorb an enormous amount of design time and talent.
My recommendation would be to visit the liquor department of the largest super market you can find. Look for the biggest container of Whiskey labeled “XXXX,” one “X” for each of your variables, and then drink liberally. It is going to be a long eight years.
June 1, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your final recommendation...whether pickled Amike is a more palatable version I can't say. I'll work on a formula to test the hypothesis.
June 1, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink