Mega Man Eternal Trailer!

Updates

Good Evening Everybody!

  I felt like giving everybody an update:

• Next week I begin teaching again at the University of Manitoba again.  Got a very large hall this term.  I had received very positive reviews from my previous term, so I expect students will learn a lot from me this term for their course.
• I'm in the process of getting my paper on a specialized greibach normal form construction ready for submission.  It is a polynomial construction which can verify any part-wise restriction over an exponentially large set of n-ary numbers covering a weak composition (through second-order restricted weak compositions introduced in 2011 by D R Page).
• I plan to be releasing a trailer for Mega Man Eternal in a little.  I just need a bit more done on more main stages (mainly Tune Woman, Primal Man, and Jolt Man).  
• Wrapping up my educational work with the museum, and will be probably only working there on some weekends following this long weekend.
• Preparing for my graduate study topics.  I have been reading my books on Combinatorial Optimization, and Approximation Algorithms a lot lately since that will be the domain in Theoretical Computer Science where I will be publishing my graduate thesis (most likely).

Everybody have a beautiful day!



D R Page

Bad Science Watch, not in it for public outreach, only nonsense

Good Evening Everybody!

  So the following is an update on my previous blog entry involving Bad Science Watch!  If you missed out on that one here is the link: http://pagewizard.blogspot.ca/2012/08/bad-science-watch-bad-examples-of.html

So I had received a response to this e-mail from the executive director Jamie Williams.  For the sake of not advertising these condescending douche bags, I will not post their response, because it comes off as an advertisement, and I definitely cannot endorse their group now.  Why, I bet you ask?

• Don't think scientists can be multidisciplinary.
• Not interested in any educators getting involved with their group.  That's right, if you're a teacher, professor, or instructor for a university, or school and loves science and wants to help the group.  Beat it, they don't care about your expertise, or what knowledge you can provide to the public or what you could educate to them.
• Don't care about formal science, and primary empirical science.  That's right, if you had issues about computing, mathematics (including economical issues that can be related), physics (seriously), you are out of luck.  They don't care about those policies.  I have on record of them calling me not any use to them just because I call myself a 'theoretical computer scientist', but yet I research multiple fields including empirical fields, and other formal fields.  So if you had any legal issues about the government involving any of these fields, they don't care.
• They are hypocritical in their messages.  They talk about looking out for bad science, and bad government policy, and insist they can do something about it.  They talk about increasing activism, but yet they don't say they are into that.  That's a contradiction.  I encourage you to check the site, check the Executive Director (the one who wrote me) and read the last two sentences of what he wants for their group.  I was just told they don't intend to be a group to outreach about bad policies, or bad science, or to promote science.  Do they not know how the government works?  It is mostly election based by Parliament (or even Senate if you are on that end), it is very difficult to get people behind a policy to push their members of parliament if they don't even know what is going on.  No wonder why they don't care about the most of science, they should call themselves the "Selectively Ignorant Bad Science Watch".  You need to get the public interested to even get a sliver in there unless you want to pull a lot of strings considering Politicians very rarely have a solid expertise in science.

They themselves told me (right from the Executive Director) that they are not a public outreach group promoting good science, to help point out bad policy.  So my predictions were indeed correct.

In conclusion, here is my response to them.  As somebody who wants to see positive changes in policies, promotion of science, and providing a better future for our society when it comes to Science, I felt they needed to hear a nice good hearted person like me give them my blunt two cents:

Sounds bizarre to me.  Such a strange skewed perspective.  I guess you don't know much about Computing then, nor what Theoretical Computer Scientists can be more than qualified to explain to you, and what I could be valued as.  Considering most of my research is applied to Chemistry, and some Molecular Physics in empirical sciences.  Throwing labels on people on your end seems petty.  How do you not know I don't know a lot about all sciences, and law?  All I know your second e-mail is even more insulting than the first one.  Don't be expecting me to post your nonsense as advertisement for a lost cause, nor to my colleagues you dipshit.  Alright then...
Good luck!

All I know, don't let their website fool you.  They are not in it for us, they are in it to only toot their own whistle.  Everybody have a beautiful day!


D R Page 

Public Outreach and Bad Science Watch

Now, as always when people come out to promoting Science, people who encounter me know I take this task very seriously, since Science promotion is a vitally important task in the public circle, since our society relies so much on technology, and what we know in Science.  It always surprises me when I encounter anybody who can't grasp fundamental concepts about our universe, but even then it takes the proper voice and outreach to turn that around, and make that something to boost their interest.  I am also quite passionate about approaching pseudo-science, anti-scientific, or political ideologies which pose against Scientific benefits for our society with the voice of reason, and doing so in a reasonable, well educated, straight forward, and honest matter.  

Now, to what I specifically want to discuss, with this premise.  I recently found a non-profit group called Bad Science Watch.  When I went to their website, it sounded like something that would interest me, and seemed to share a similar message (I really do mean this) as I do, and do so in a more 'do-er' approach, but I am pretty certain I just have stumbled across another 'boys club' for science hobby activists (now when I use this term, I mean the opposite of a 'do-er'), and not serious scientists who are wanting to approach parliament about issues where Science may be poorly represented, or the government may endorse pseudo-scientific solutions.
  Now I could be completely wrong about this, but one thing as somebody who promotes science like it was in my blood, I can tell you it will not get any momentum with this type of model with the public unless they make it more open.  As somebody with a lot of experience running non-profit groups, or leading groups, and educating people for not even a dime, there are several reasons why I say this:

1. It is not an open door policy organization for volunteers:  It requires a complete qualification 'check' as if you were getting a high end job to even step in the door to work with this group.
2. Not one empirical or formal scientist in charge:  You got some MD's, and lots of software developers and that's a stretch.  When I say this, I don't mean any insult to MD's, just this is incredibly different in practice than research scientists, or educators.  I have the humblest respect for doctors since I am quite bad with blood and guts and they can help others, just maybe not the system standard doctors work under since it is not about science and the necessary benefit of the public (these days at least, since the government-physician-financial link between them is quite a mess).  
3. Doesn't seem to benefit the target population:  With a closed door policy for volunteers, it really misses the point of a non-profit group if you can't get the general public involved in your organization.  This is a bad model since if you want to promote positive science, and point out bad science, you need to reach a public, and it is very hard to do this without lots of people, and this really restricts your audience (but, I will get into this later).

Now, I thought with my experience I would put my hand out there to help this group as I love helping promote science, and have educated thousands of children, and people of all ages (just in the past year) about science, and how to think critically about problems, or about how the world works from airplanes, to empirical sciences, to computing, to logic, to even just basic mathematical skills.  So I sent them an optimistic message in the form:

Good Morning Bad Science Watch! I was directed to your site from a colleague of mine. Looks like a positive message, and when I heard what it was about, I felt I needed to shoot you fellows a positive note to keep on it. If you need any educational, or scientific support, feel free to contact me. I love getting involved in trying to increase the positive awareness of science, and standing up for the promotion of science to everyone, no matter how old. I would be more than glad to help. Keep it up, and if you need anything, just let me know. Have a beautiful day! 

Took about a week to get even a response back (most non-profit groups are very prompt, especially if they are just starting out), but here it is.  For the sake of confidentiality, I have blotted out names:

Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your interest in Bad Science Watch and your kind words of encouragement. We are now recruiting volunteers for our first two projects, and would welcome your application!
To process a volunteer application, we require:
1. A current resume or CV describing your educational and/or professional background2. A brief cover letter which should include a description of your interest in the specific project you are applying for and any relevant volunteer experience you may have3. A letter providing full disclosure of any associations, clubs, companies, or organized social groups you are involved in through work, volunteering, or membership
Applicants must also attend an interview which will be conducted over Skype. As Bad Science Watch maintains a virtual office and has a volunteer base distributed across Canada, the vast majority of our communications will be through Skype and email. As such all volunteers must have a Skype account and a headset and microphone. To indicate your availability for a Skype interview, please visit this link, enter your full name, and select the times and dates from the list of options that you will be available for an interview of up to 60 minutes. Please select as many times as possible as we have a large number of volunteers to interview in the coming weeks.
Thanks and regards,
Blank McBlankerson

I felt somewhat insulted, or shrugged my head when I got this message.  A fine example of poor experience.  I know for instance one of my non-profit employers definitely would not do this, and they have a much simpler process (might I include that place wouldn't even be possible without our hard working volunteers).  I would not treat any potential volunteer, nor has any group I have donated, or gotten involved with treat volunteers like if it is a dog race.  This is the kind of process you use to hire people for a high end job, not to recruit volunteers.  Here are some problems with this process:

• Ask for a CV/Resume after you invite them to join, and they have accepted:  You basically just slam the door on volunteers if they put out an open hand to help you if you basically tell them you need to pass a test to join them.  This usually can turn away or discourage people who are coming in as laymens to help with your group.  It is hard enough getting people to fill out a single line, than to expect them to submit to you something you should be doing for them.  Give them reasons to help you out.  Make them interested in your subject.  For instance if you like cookies, you don't expect the newest volunteers to make you cookies, just for you to eat, and not even the public.  My recommendation is just to have them fill out one form, and if you have questions, ask them the questions.
• Throw possibilities out there:  Why would anybody get involved if you diminish their talents.  If somebody sends you a message which sounds like they really have things to offer, make it personal with them.  You cannot be very systematic with people that want to help, you got to show them, that by doing and taking the time to check you out, that you did the same for them.  If you have projects, talk about ones you think they would be interested in.  
• Giving complete personal information:  What stops you from being a fraudulent organization which is stealing personal information?  Now I am not suggesting it is the case, but it can be a possibility since there are not too many reputable sources out there talking about the group at the given time.  Organizations don't ask you for your entire history from beginning to end about things, that's a little creepy.  Even employers for most jobs wouldn't ask for all this, you'd provide maybe a selection that best suits the situation even then.  If volunteers want to tell you things, they will give you that information. For instance, as you noticed in my message, I mentioned a lot about my educating profession, and not one mention about this in their reply.  They are taking the time to support your cause, at least take the time to listen.
• Interviews, and selection processes:  It is always nice to talk to people who want to get involved with your organization, but this group has not been around for as long as large non-profit groups which have planned events all the time which have very specific numbers and resources, but they wouldn't do this for their volunteers as a whole.  When you get people interested, you really show you don't care that much if you say that their not qualified enough to just walk in the door even with their details given to you.  This is not just on my case as being a scientist, but for anybody.  You try to take in as many people, and when you need specific skills, you ask for it, and it is likely those interested will put up their hand, and help.  You're running a non-profit group with volunteers after all.  Even then, you can train volunteers to do tasks if necessary.

There is more I could point out, but those are some of the major problems I had.  It seems like a closed-knit group rather than one that is comprised of serious advocates, which want to promote science, and expose pseudo-science.  With this being said, unless they show they care about people and their cause (since if you want to stop public matters, you got to approach people, not just small knits of society, heck even using the Internet to spread positive science media is more effective), I cannot endorse this group as a scientist, and public educator of science.   I say this in the most modest sense of the word.  Promoting science is not a little club, it is a very important matter.

In conclusion, I sent them this message (with the link to this entry), to assist them in the future:

Good Evening Blank,

  I felt quite discouraged/insulted by your response (considering it ignored completely my message, and what I had to offer). So I thought I would provide some recommendations for your group here:  http://pagewizard.blogspot.ca/2012/08/bad-science-watch-bad-examples-of.html since this group is just starting out.

I felt like this group has a positive message, but it is not being carried out very well, or in an experienced matter when it comes to outreach. 

Hope this is taken as a grain of salt for the organization, and if you wish to have any assistance in the future from myself.

Have a beautiful day!

Daniel Page

Theoretical Computer Scientist, Science Educator, Museum Interpreter

Have a beautiful evening!

D R Page

My "Create An Owl"

I made an owl with the "Create An Owl" by therougecat on deviant art ( http://therougecat.deviantart.com/art/Create-an-Owl-178454903?q=boost%3Apopular+create+owl&qo=0 )

I thought it would be cute for my girlfriend and I to make one each, so here is mine.

It's Owl's a Poppin'! Mwah!

Everybody have a beautiful day!

D R Page

Considering the ÷ (obelus) Sign

Good Morning Everybody!

  I thought I would consider talking about this 'operator' because of its notorious nature of confusing the public.  I hope to convince you of the importance of the obelus sign, and why people should not confuse this sign with the '/' division operator.  In basic words, there is a reason why we don't see this operator beyond elementary school, it is because it doesn't actually represent division as myself, or any scientist would use in an algebraic sense.  This is actually an operator which entails mainly computational use.

 Believe it or not, the oldest account of the use of obelus used in a text I could find in this form is found in a german text from 1659 called Teutsche Algebra by Johann H. Rahn.  Here is a picture below of their algebraic rules:  (look for the one with the obelus)  

There are other examples through texts of this nature.  I personally believe the obelus has lost its meaning over the years, but in itself it does resolve a lot of the Left-Right parsing issues with division in not ambigous forms using it in general.  Let me explain by using an example by denoting two alleged statements which are claimed to be the same:

[1] 6/3(3+1)
[2] 6÷3(3+1)

Now your intuition because you see '÷' you say "DIVISION, let's do it!".  Take a step back and notice these are two statement with two operators.  Now today in convention we just say they are the same thing to ease issues, but it evades the purpose of the ÷ sign.  Here is why upon discussing with a couple peers in education why they continue to use this ONLY at the elementary level.

It is about enforcing the concepts of division, not carrying out actual division.  When you write it with the obelus, it is to separate the numerator and denominator, then carry out the operator.  Meaning the left, and right terms are clustered together in two arguments.  So this operates less like '/' and more like a clear division.  It is strict division it seems.

The obelus is usually only used with numbers, and not algebraic statements since it doesn't really have the meaning we intend for division.  You can think of the obelus as an elementary school tool to hammer in the concept to take one thing and break it into other pieces and count them.

Here is a more accurate way of stating the ÷ sign in modern days:

a÷b = (a)/(b) to be consistent with older texts which used this sign more regularly.

So if we do our two example we yield [1]:

6/3(3+1) which is 2*4 which is 8.

[2] yields:

6÷3(3+1) rewrites as (6)/(3(3+1)), then is 6/12 which is 0.5.

Notice the way we write the two statements in our example makes a big difference in the way they are carried out.  Older models of calculators will employ ÷ over / since it is quicker to implement, since they will assume you are doing the division where you don't have more complicated statements than a over b.

It is fundamental to understand the obelus' main place in teaching is with only simple arithmetic statements where there are only two numbers involved.  In computation the obelus is more common since you can assume we can fiddle around with the two arguments of a division (much like in a programmer's arsenal) since depending on the language you will have to interpret the operator differently.  

This maybe doesn't have as much relevance today since conventions in Mathematics do change over time, but I believe as a scientist that we should not use an operator which is not used properly unless it has a purpose.  In general, use the '/' over the obelus, it is far more clear since it can be intended as different things.  I would definitely treat them as two different types of division (one the algebraic operator, the other a binary operator with a lower precedence).  Obelus is more of a computational form of division than an algebraic one anyways.

Hope this helps!


Have a beautiful day!



D R Page

Wily RUSH Machine Battle

Dr. Wily's RUSH Machine Battle has been finished

This battle is from Wily Underwater Stronghold Stage 4.  This boss is not as difficult as previously thought, but can be quite a challenge still.  After completing this stage, you really would not want to lose to Dr. Wily here.  Using Rush as a database, and source, he projects old robot masters to attack Mega Man.  To defeat, destroy these projections and lunge the energy back at his bot, and fire at the chamber holding Rush.

Everybody have a beautiful day!


D R Page

Playable Beat (2P) in Mega Man Eternal

I officially announced the deadline for Mega Man Eternal has been pushed to Winter.  In turn I promised a new feature which I just finished implementing a couple hours ago.  It allows for the player to control Beat the Bird (or a second player may do this).  Beat has the ability to attack foes, or seek items to grab and bring to Mega Man.  Manual control allows further distance and attacking further away enemies, but it is best played with a second player.  I would recommend using a game pad for Mega Man, and the second player using the AWSD keys on the keyboard!

How to unlock Beat:

Obtain the four letters that spell Beat`s name from four of the robot master stages.

I hope everybody enjoys that!

D R Page

Whole Brain Simulation Quacks

Often times I wonder what eludes people to think such is possible, but before that I need to actually define what this problem is by telling you what it is not.

This problem is not the idea of storing the brain on a computer, which I believe could be possible one day (though I think the ethics of doing so could be not too terribly great).  That is a completely different problem than the concept of simulating a whole brain on a computational model.

Let me use an analogy to set up the problem.  Suppose I were to build a bridge.  This bridge is to extend from Chicago, to Ludington (across Lake Michigan).  The engineers building this must do so with testing the foundation in pieces.  Do you know it will actually work by just building the bridge as a whole?  Not at all.  The composition of a bridge's parts doesn't mean the bridge itself can sustain the capacity.

Often I find this idea is something that excites primarily people who are not exactly computationally literate in theoretical computer science.  If they maybe took up a little looking up of the past in our field, they would know that this concept is a little off the wall silly to carry out with the amounts of funding (millions upon millions) pooled in already.

Since 1936 when we developed the last of the several nails in the limitations of Logic, we learnt that as humans, logic runs on the rules given by the human.  We would say logically that something is true if the premises are true, but automatons don't exactly view things that way.  You cannot give every assumption that brain can handle due to the concept of undecidable problems.  Humans believe it or not deal with these types of problems on a near daily basis.  Computers can't handle paradoxes effectively if given arbitrarily.  There is bound to be a new form it must handle, and such is silly to think we can solve that.  Our brains could definitely be mapped, scanned, stored, but to use a computer to carry this out means we have a lot of problems in computation which cannot be resolved due to undecidable problems.  Such problems are the Halting Problem, the Mortality Problem (especially), and necessarily, infinitely more to deal with (since you can never cure incompleteness).

In conclusion, to assume we can bypass undecidability is without a question a ridiculous idea until we have:

• An algorithm which can indeed do this (which they have not demonstrated, since this brain must be able to do that)
• A proof of correctness for this algorithm

The reason why this is such an issue is because if one did this on a computer, it would contradict Godel's 2nd Incompleteness Theorem which is a fundamental result which limits the mathematics we can prove with theorems.

In basic, you need to show such is even possible with computation before setting out claiming such is possible.  It is a very fine line.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page

The Holy Man (2 Year Championship Anniversary)

Time to celebrate 8 years of the Holy Man by noting that today two years ago claimed the EWF Undisputed Championship.

EWF Entrance Theme:

Have a beautiful day!



D R Page

Exam Day Today, More Papers, Wily 2 & 3 Tile Prepared

Good Morning!

Exam

I'm quite excited today since this evening I will be conducting my first exam that I wrote myself.  They will have to endure 25 short answer, and 75 multiple choice in 2 hours.  Nicely prepared in LaTeX, I think I did a pretty good job.  I'm going to miss teaching my class from this Summer when it is over.  I enjoyed my students.  I was teaching a one-three hour slot during the Summer of a course of how to use computers, about them, and the Microsoft Office 2010 suite.  

If not, that is okay, I will be teaching the same course again this Fall, so it will be another month.  If I'm lucky I'll get a very large section :)!

Paper

I am in the process of independently publishing more results.  I am right now preparing a result for a context-free grammar which is the most concise description over all possibilities given 3 axioms I defined for restricted weak integer compositions.  I also will be giving a variation which is in Greibach Normal Form, for efficient use in computation.

Wily 2 and 3 Tiles Prepared

I have prepared the Wily Underwater Stronghold Stage 2 & 3 tiles.  I will be placing some recolouring to them probably to ensure they meet a decent bound of the style.  These two stages are going to be quite interesting.  The 2nd stage is mostly a trek through the fortress, and the 3rd stage has a lot of pits, elevators, and more.  Wily Stage 2 has a split 'time-line' event depending on if you defeated all the Mega Man Killers, or not.  If you do, you will face Copy Quint, a duplicate of Quint except with more abilities (but still not hard).  If you fail to even beat one MMK, you will face the Mega Man Killer, a combo of all three which is one big robot which is not a piece of cake, but fortunately Proto Man will be there to assist you.

Everybody have a beautiful day!


D R Page

Generalization Fallacy

The Generalization Fallacy is a logical fallacy that is commonly applied by laymen when making predictions, and is a formal fallacy in Mathematical Logic.  The act of applying a  universal quantifier OVER a term when that term is existential. 

For example:  This car is blue, therefore all cars are blue.
For example:  Some people hate flowers, therefore all people hate flowers.
For example:  Suppose function h maps to z in integers, for z less than 5, h is less than 5, then h is less than 5 everywhere.

Generalization fallacy cannot be applied to terms which are existential. 'Some', 'Particular', 'Almost', 'Probably' are keywords for existential quantifiers.  If one states 'some' and use that as a conclusion over terms, it is invalid to state a fallacy occurred.  The way in that instance to dismiss the case is to show ALL instances cannot be attributed to that conclusion.

The act of generalization is a formal fallacy unless the terms being applied are well defined (means you know everything about the object).  The act of induction is a useful term to properly spread the quantifier through an induction hypothesis, that allows one to conclude things about infinitely many instances over a single case.  This is the effective cure for a statement that holds informally, but must be shown formally.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page

Cutting the Metaphorical Head of Christine

Through this article I will be referring to the individual in question as  Christine to protect confidentiality.  This is an analysis of a generalization fallacy, crossed with a slippery slope argument, crossed with an appeal to emotion.  Illogical city, so I guess it's my job to clarify Christine's misunderstandings of her past.  As an educator, I would like to use a pawn in my past as an educational example from a personal one.  I'm unorthodox that way, but if anybody would like me to take this down (or if I do so myself), please contact me and I will most certainly.

As any colleague of mine would suggest, I'm a very curious individual, but a very friendly one.  I thought I would enlighten my audience of an individual who just is delusional in the rightest of sense.  A rapist who insists on persisting in lies, to cover her own abusive trails.  As a scientist, I have evaluated her personality as self-destructive, and secondly I felt it would be fair I would place a rebuttal to this idiot, so that she learns her place.  Might I add, here is the passage you may refer to for a source:

he was socially stunted, emotionally delayed, and he refused to take no for an answer, and used manipulation to get his way. He would throw tantrums, threaten to kill himself, and spam my facebook, phone and email until he had me beaten down enough to comply. He refused to pay his own way and constantly had me paying for every dinner, movie, and coffee. He picked fights with my friends until I, out of embarrassment, pulled away from them in order to avoid having him embarrass me over and over again. - Christine

 Well to begin let us dissect this piece of lies:

he was socially stunted, emotionally delayed - Christine

No, that was definitely not how it was.  Last time I checked you were emotionally stunned and socially insecure.  You were afraid to even hug people, or talk to other adults unless you knew them for extended periods of time.  That my friends is a fine example of a socially stunted, emotionally delayed individual. Around that time I was facilitating an entire department's student-department affairs for a student group I ran as the president.  I'm pretty certain she has this backwards.  People with such conditions will do this.

spam my facebook, phone and email until he had me beaten down enough to comply. - Christine

Now, this is actually a pretty interesting form of bias.  An individual claims 'spam' is the equivalent to somebody talking to her.  What a messed up individual.  Last time I checked she couldn't even take responsibility for her own actions.  She would abuse, and hurt me personally emotionally, and totally ignore me and yet she would call that 'spamming'.  Now that my audience is the evidence of a sociopath.  We're talking about the same person who would literally force people to cry because she was too selfish to care about others even other deceased loved ones.  Now here is the funny thing, she insists this, but really it was much on her own part.  If you are going to ignore facts, at least be intellectually honest instead of faking the truth Christine, you must think your current boyfriend is a naive twat, like every previous man you've raped, or abused.  I bet he doesn't even know you did such things (gasp).  Maybe if you thought critically, you'd not engage good hearted people to call you out on your messed up thoughts that slander others.   

He refused to pay his own way and constantly had me paying for every dinner, movie, and coffee. - Christine

This is also a lie.  As a full-time student at the time (might I add, a rather intensive program simultaneously while I ran an organization), and somebody who was unable to work due to taking care of my father.  If you had what us moral individual call a heart, you would not make up such lies, and respect people who helped you become a better person.  A person who insists they must work while in an intensive science program is a complete joke.  A course which contains a large chunk to graduate courses is a job in itself.  You make good people sick.  You don't even know what the concept of 'working hard' is, and you judge hard working people who work probably at least four times more than you do.  For the sake of completeness, I will mention I paid for pretty much everything in that relationship and if not, we paid dutch style (which is reasonable), she is actually being dishonest.

He picked fights with my friends until I, out of embarrassment, pulled away from them in order to avoid having him embarrass me over and over again. - Christine

Not true either.  I actually encouraged this individual to have fun with her friends constantly.  How exactly she is so dumb that she can't grasp that it's kind of hard to be embarrassed about somebody who hands you everything on an emotional platter, and is intellectually and morally superior than any of them, modestly.  A lesson in life kid is that you should think for yourself, and not let your friends put made up garbage in your head.  You class good people as villains, you will become a villain Christine...  You fail.

Next, I have brought in the next chunk I believe deserves a fair whipping on her part:

  It got to the point where I thought to myself, let the idiot kill himself, I don’t even care any more. I was even a little disappointed when, instead of killing himself, or gracefully accepting the break up, he decided to attempt to stalk me over every online account that I’ve had up until this point. -Christine

Do you even read what you type?  As a joke, I should mail this to your future employers, I'm sure they would love to hear how you'd like to treat your future customers (laughs).  I bet they would take me seriously as I am a scientist, and you're just some student who has no respectable reputation yet who works at an Olive Garden because your slacker friend got it for you (I know these things, I know everything in this regard).  I believe people will persist in delusion if you let them, which is why you couldn't even fess up to apologize for your abusive nature.  Last time I checked, you were the one so messed up in the head you threatened to kill yourself and put me in such a poor emotional state that I followed.  You got to make sense, and communicate effectively Christine..  Pseudo-intellects such as yourself really need to learn that if it's in your head, that it is likely untrue.  Use a rational method to verify your statements.  Not to mention you had been cheating on me while still insisting you loved me and told me the very day you left me in the dust that you loved me, dishonesty is a bitch isn't it you idiot?  Do you not remember how you were stalking me till May that year, and it suddenly stopped around the same time I had informed the police about it (maybe you didn't hear about that).  
  Believe it not, your delusions about me stalking you are pretty much in your head.  Believe it or not, I have been always awaiting a mature person to say thank you for what I had given them, apologized for their wrongs, and moved on, but you definitely did not do that.  You should really study more about your own actions, you may learn a lot.  It was actually my subscribers who had heard my story who had pointed out your accounts to me, I only went to look at them, and then maybe see if you had become a moral member of society yet.  Seems that is not the case.  The only time I had intentionally checked you out was when my girlfriend had alerted me you had moved to blogspot, and since I had an account at Blogspot before you got here, I thought it would be a good opportunity to discuss your past actions or see maybe if you had smartened up.  You have a paranoia which causes you to blame others for your own actions, that is not deniable.

All I will say is I'm ashamed that somebody as naive, somebody I gave the time of the world, and attention just wants to pander in her own made up delusions.  You will encounter a time when your demons will reach your own insolent childish ends, like every terrible person who dares abuse, trample, stalk, harass, or damage individuals around you.  I just insist maybe you should look yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself, what is your reality, and compare it against the one everybody else lives in.  People around here like myself care, but if you insist on slandering those around you, your actions will be monitored by peers whether it be my subscribers, or just some random person on the internet.  It's a big part of what makes the internet an interesting place.

Since you're not educated enough or have a rational discourse, you cannot refuse any of this, this is infact what happened.  You can tell as many people whatever you like, but it doesn't change your actions.  It is actions which follow you, not your lies, and I'm sure you may have crushed your future reputation in the caring department with your actions against me, and any man you've abused in the past due to your psychological issues.  Be careful, smarter people are around to comment on your dishonesty.

If you care to provide any response, do it in second-order predicate calculus.  That way I will know you are using valid forms to rationalize abstracted from your petty thoughts about good people I have met in your past, or myself.  Might I add your mockery of the dead is disgusting.

Have a beautiful day!



D R Page

The Fake Branch of Support

In my times, I often like to see how individuals say they 'support' or 'advocate' causes.  I find there is a disjoint property between most who call themselves 'supporters', or 'advocates' for a cause, and those who actually carry about benefits for a cause.  Now, this doesn't apply to every person who would apply to this label, but it definitely covers a good majority of those who loiter the internet claiming to help others, or help maybe two people and brag how they save billions with others who support some kind of cause.

The Problem

Most people who call themselves 'supporters', or 'advocates' for a cause don't actually do anything to support or advocate the cause.  It is a common problem I see whether it be irrational classes of feminists, pseudo-scientists, or even people who say they support solving a problem.  Now, if maybe one of these individuals is reading this, maybe here are some effective steps to really support a cause:

1. Is it actually a problem, or something to promote? - Believe it or not, most supporters or advocates who don't get involved directly very rarely will actually have at times a proper scope or understanding of a cause.  Do some research.  For instance, if you are a 'spiritual scientist', and believe that sacred geometry is the root to all answers, I'd recommend evaluating your position.  Most I find whether it be religious, or political, in a lot of circumstances will not even understand what it is actually about, or even evaluate more than one perspective on a matter.  Some causes are not even worth morally supporting, but that is another discussion.
2. Get Involved - Believe it or not, to support or advocate a cause can be a lot of work depending on the problem.  For instance, when I help others I could be spending hours helping them outside of my time, and not clicking a "Like" on a facebook page.  Some problems can be quite personal, or require a lot of study, or even just getting off the couch.
3. Network - If there is a problem and it is really that big of a problem, don't just sit on your butt and expect it to solve itself, network with others and promote it (if (1) has been properly evaluated).

It is really that simple!  We can't make a positive difference in our world alone and independently.  Just don't call yourself a supporter if you are going to sit on your butt, go for a walk, talk about it, research your position, and lastly be yourself.  A lot of 'supporters' commonly use their positions on causes as shields.  Don't do that, it makes your ability to reason seem lacking.  If you're going to tell me you support _____, have reasons for it, and don't dogmatically follow it because somebody told you to.  Lastly, just saying something is not the same as actually going out and doing it.

We need more 'do-ers' and less supporters to solve problems.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page

The Split Minded Delusional

Sorry for the Delay

It has been quite a while since I have posted on my blog, so I apologize to any readers, expect entries on an eventful basis.  

My Research

I have been rather successful in my field on publishing my new algorithm [http://www.springerlink.com/content/w31081rw26p610t1/].  It unifies a couple decades worth of generalizations in the field of generating integer compositions.  I will be submitting some work on a context-free grammar I have cooked up a while back to better analyze my algorithm.  It has interesting applications in parsing, and efficient space-complexity for practical use.

Following this, I will be taking a bit of side step into a further generalization of my specialization in Theoretical Computer Science under the supervision of my adviser for my graduate studies.  My goal is to make the world a better place by solving problems which will strengthen what we know, and use it to solve problems us as human beings have to encounter with the technology we have at hand.  Whether it be with computers, or feeding less fortunate countries, or turning around the economics of countries, optimization and hard problems are what we need to solve.

  To enlighten and change, we must not put a band-aid on problems whether it be the flawed social services our social workers perpetuate, or the social taboos we as a society have placed to cover up unsolved problems.  We as a society must abandon pseudoscience, or anything really which holds us back to cover up a band-aid to progress.  We don't need band-aids, we need surgeons to fix the wounds that keep opening.  I believe the basis of all mathematics can lend itself to understand and tackle these problems.

Now onto track

As somebody likes to try to comprehend the reasoning of others.  I merely do so as a scientist and educator, to help them learn and comprehend an argument, or the facts placed in front of them.  I always find it interesting when you encounter a person which has a lack or insufficient propensity to help others, or guides or shrouds themselves in an identity they themselves cannot fill.  Whether it be a 'new age' artsy fellow, a science fan who claims they know more than they actually do, a young filmmaker who claims to be George Lucas, a programmer who claims to be a computer scientist, or even an individual who claims they are one thing, but cover this with lies to hide their sadness.  I pity such people when they have no rational reason to hold such confidence in their abilities, and often times I will have to encounter them directly.  In these types of discussions, their common argument patterns will fit the following form:

1. (The individual)I'm right.
2. (The individual) You're closed minded, and can't think outside of the box.
3. (The individual) An attack, and blame for action.
4. (Yourself) [tries to explain the actual matter]
5. (The individual) Doesn't matter because I'm 'x', and that's 'y'.
6. (Yourself) Explains that is not how to support a position, and explains the actual matter once again.
7. Repeat (1), if the not halted.

I find such direct chains common with individuals who I often will think of as 'split minded delusional', or an individual who maybe is a little cocky about their own abilities, or possibly has something wrong mentally with them.  As an educator, I believe such people can be a problem with others who wish to improve and understand directly.  To learn from an educator, one must be able to bring themselves to the same level as the educator, and his/her peers.  Whether it be a discussion, or trying to convince others, it all comes back to logic.  Sadly, such people do not employ a rational mindset due to their lack of education or understanding of mathematics to employ logic.

  I really ask myself, why do they insist putting on this show?  I believe it is simple, they have something to hide in some form.  Whether it be a lack of talent for profit, or psychological, or neurological, or any feature possible, we should try to be as openly critical about ourselves as we are to others.  In a world where we need to improve it, it will not be such attitudes which bring us a better age, it will be people who learn and understand.

Have a beautiful day!

D R Page