Jason (jcreed) wrote,
Jason
jcreed
Urk. lincoln3 woke me up around 9:00ish, for another Sabrina-Haskell-comes-over-and-everyone-eats-Eggo-waffles-and-watches-an-episode-of-Enterprise event. Star Trek is a weird thing. I used to consciously avoid watching it, just to have one more damningly-geeky thing that I didn't do, much like playing D&D or watching anime. But I do think it's a moderately interesting show in so far as it works with humanity's fascination with the idea of aliens, and alien ways of thinking and living... I'm extremely amused, for instance, at some of the soap opera situations in TNG, that you could in no way get in a "real" soap opera. Some epsiode where Dr. Crusher falls in love with this guy who by the end of the episode is a woman (and in the middle is Riker!) because what he/she really is is a parasite that can use any number of host bodies. It (meaning the idea of far-future many-alien-world settings) is just such a great tool for making suspension of disbelief that much easier. I don't suppose this has anything to do with Star Trek in particular, though. People say good things about B5; maybe I should watch that. Just to round out the tv/film geeking, I'll say that I don't particularly like Star Wars much, apart from just being watchable movies. It's got the in-space thing, and the eastern mysticism thing, and the ship explodey zap zap zap robots blinkenlights thing, but apart from that, it is just the same, tired, universal, unmistakably human Joseph Campbellesque hero myth, and it's not even done terribly well.

God, did I just write all of that? Someone stop me before I gain 200 pounds, grow a ponytail, and start whining "worst X everr."

In other news... still staring at [Kosaraju 82]. Wondering if I can generalize the result in a few places. Note to all present or future research paper writers in the audience: when you make a statement that involves at least four (4) alternating quantifiers, preferably even when there are two or three, make damn sure that the way you turn it into an English phrase (if you choose to do so - I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it as an explicit quantified formula) makes the order and binding scope of the quantifiers unambiguous and clear. It was not fun to waste an hour or two trying to convince myself of a lemma which is FALSE because I got the quantifiers wrong.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch
    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    Help
  • 4 comments