You changed my world

Inspired by Vinaya, I've attempted to capture a list of people who "changed my world", but probably don't know it. While such a list is necessarily self-serving (aren't all blog posts? :)), it's a nice opportunity to thank some people who have had significant influences upon me and have in a very real sense, made me who I am today. This isn't about my family members and friends - it is about people of the world, past and present, who have created something that really connected with me - and left me a changed person.

•  Aldous Huxley, for writing Brave New World - you shattered my naive ideas of morality and the meaning of civilization, and forced me to question things that I was afraid to question.
• Pink Floyd - You opened up my mind to the possibilities of art within commercial music. The hours I spent pondering your heartfelt lyrics, hearing your melancholy tunes, and feeling the powerful emotions you expressed in both words and sound were a major part of my angst-ridden college years.
• Sherlock Holmes - You will always be the master. You were brilliant, articulate, courageous, steadfast, and just human enough for us to feel connected to you. Poirot, we admire. House, we adore. The master, we bow down to.
• Akira Kurosawa - You made many, many brilliant movies. You then made "Ran". You created poetry on film. You painted visuals with rich colours and richer emotions. You had me spellbound. Again.
• James Gleick - You aren't the most famous or the best science writer of your generation, but you were the first of the best breed that I read. Your "Chaos" blew my mind. It made me want to learn, to explore this incredible world that I could reach out and touch. I spent hours writing and running fractal programs, staring with disbelief and awe, as incredible complexity arose from simplicity itself. I never looked the same way at Science or Math again.
• P.G. Wodehouse - You made me laugh. You made me laugh hysterically. You made me laugh so hard, I was literally rolling on the floor, tears streaming out. You made Gussie Fink-Nottle (not Fitz-Wattle) give that speech while slightly 1 over the 8. You made Clarence Threepwood, ninth Earl of Emsworth put a scarab (Cheops, of the the third dynasty) absently into his pocket. You are the benchmark that anyone aspiring to the description "comic genius" is measured against.
• Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister - You are one of the most brilliantly conceived, written, developed and acted TV shows in the history of television. You elevated TV comedy into an art form. No wait, Monty Python did that a couple of decades before you. No matter. In the fullness of time, all things being considered, with deference to the facts, considering all implications, without putting too fine a point on it, you stand alone.
• Monty Python - For your show. For your movies. For your audacity. For your decision to break all known rules of comedy (and then some). For the "old man in scene 24, which is a smashing scene, with some lovely acting".
•  The Coens - For The Dude. For writing some of the most inspired contrapuntal comic dialogue in a movie scene. For Marge Gunderson.
• Hergé - For creating this wonderful world that I could escape into, again, and again. For Captain Archibald Haddock. For Syldavian mineral water. For Chang.
• Frasier - For Maris. For treading the line between sophistication and slapstick with incredible precision. For making me respect the American way of life.
• Richard Dawkins - Your words may hurt, but you speak the truth. You show us the wonder that is life, explain exactly how it works, and thereby make it even more wonderful.

Simon Singh Wins Landmark Libel Appeal

In an important victory for science and free speech, The British Chiropractic Association has dropped its libel lawsuit against the popular science writer Simon Singh.

What happened was this: In 2008, Singh, the author of such books as Fermat's Last Theorem and The Code Book, wrote an article in The Guardian, accusing chiropractors of 'promotion of chiropractic to treat all sorts of conditions for which it is utterly useless', and lambasted the British Chiropractic Association for promoting "bogus" remedies.

Chiropractic, for those who haven't heard of it, is a kind of pseudo-medicine whose practitioners believe that "correcting" the spine and joints can cure ailments ranging from lower back pain to asthma, or even deafness! Not surprisingly, Chirporactic has about as much scientific credibility as say, Homeopathy (i.e. none beyond the placebo effect). Furthermore, Chiropractic has been demonstrated to be extremely dangerous and potentially fatal due to the inherent risk of manipulating the human spinal column.

Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence backing Singh's allegations (which he even quoted in his article), the BCA decided to go on the offensive, and sued Singh for libel.

Singh was now forced to contend with the archaic libel laws that exist in the United Kingdom (of which Simon Singh is a citizen), which make it prohibitively expensive and complicated for a defendant in a libel case. These laws effectively mean that a rich and powerful organization can easily bully even its legitimate scientific critics into submission, since the alternative for the defendant is a long, painstaking and costly trial in which he/she is saddled with the burden of proof.

In Singh's case, matters were not helped by an English High Court judge's ruling that Singh's use of the word "bogus" was libelous, since this meant that Singh would have to go to trial and prove that the BCA had had knowledge that their treatments didn't work, and had then falsely claimed otherwise. Obviously, this would prove a near-impossible task, for one, requiring Singh to establish the extent of the BCA's scientific knowledge. This ridiculous judgment also put at risk practically every scientific publication in the United Kingdom that happened to objectively question the credibility of an alleged scientific discipline.

Given these circumstances, it would have been easy for Singh to retract his article, and publish an apology to the BCA. However, in true journalistic and scientific spirit, and at great personal expense of time and money, Singh vowed to clear his name. Spurred on by a massive outpouring of support from intellectuals, celebrities, and the general public alike, Singh fought on, and on 1st April 2010, successfully appealed the High Court's decision. Less than a fortnight later, the BCA announced that it was dropping its libel case against Singh, ironically citing the high legal cost involved as its primary reason for doing so.

A delighted Singh meanwhile, had this to say:

"Moreover the current libel law still means that libel tourists can sue in London on spurious grounds, big companies can still bully lone journalists, we still lack a robust public interest defence and we still have an unfair burden of proof on writers. It is important to remember that another libel case involving medicine continues - Dr Peter Wilmshurst is a consultant cardiologist who is being sued for libel for raising serious concerns about the data relating to a new heart device. If Dr Wilmshurst loses his case then he will be bankrupted. It is ridiculous that a respected researcher such as Dr Wilmshurst, someone who has devoted his life to medicine, should be put under such pressure just for speaking his mind.

Our libel laws discourage doctors, scientists and journalists from speaking out. It is only when Peter has hopefully defended his libel case that I will be able to celebrate. It is only when English libel law has been reformed that I will be able enjoy today's victory. Unless our libel laws change urgently and radically, I will not be the last journalist hauled through the libel courts and who will have to face financial disaster and two years of hell simply for raising an important and valid matter of public interest."

Well said, Dr. Singh, and congratulations on your hard-fought win. This is a landmark victory for free speech and the first step towards protecting our right to scientific inquiry.

Lonely Planet on Madras

Lonely Planet, while a generally good travel guide, has depicted my unique hometown in a rather unflattering light. What irked me when I read their article on Madras was the clearly partisan viewpoint that celebrates in other Indian cities the same deficiencies one sees in Madras.

Krish Ashok absolutely nails it when he lambastes the obvious bias in the article, and demonstrates that a similar article could be written about any of the large cities in India.

Allow me to add my own Rs 0.02 to his points.

Notes:

• I use "Madras" instead of "Chennai", because no matter what the politicians say, that is how I will always identify my home town. I am however, forced to use the word "Chennaiite" to describe people like me, if only to avoid the once-inoccuous term "Madrasi" which has been forcibly turned into a pejorative by ignorant Northerners.
• I recognize that people love their cities for different reasons. I may not prefer to live in certain cities mentioned in the LP article, but I promise not to diss them.
  

1. Madras is hot. Get used to it. A real Chennaiite jokes about the weather, owns one sweater for when he/she has to visit Delhi, and gets most of his/her work done in the morning and evening.
2. Tamil film stars are 'not that hot'. Let's see. In approximate chronological order, Waheeda Rehman, Vyjayantimala Bali, Hema Malini, Rekha, Sridevi, Meenakshi Seshadri, Padma Lakshmi. I must be missing something. The only other state that has contributed a comparable number of female headliners to the Hindi film industry must be West Bengal.
   
3. Madras lacks 'historical drama'. Ok, seriously? Madras may not be as old as Delhi is, but it has had a long, distinguished history of its own. It is home to several stunning temples, some of which are more than a thousand years old, and a culture and tradition that has flourished for much longer. It has also had some unique moments in modern Indian history, like being bombed during World War I (any schoolkid in Madras will tell you the name of the German ship that did it - The SMS Emden), being the final resting place of the apostle St. Thomas, featuring prominently in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, among others.
4. Madras lacks the 'optimistic buzz' of Bangalore. We Chennaiites take that as a compliment. Perhaps this sense of realism comes from firm grounding in tradition. Our city grooms us such that we never lose touch with our roots, whether it is celebrating a traditional kolu during Navarathri, learning classical music and dance the traditional way, or even being polite. Madras chooses to assimilate influences into its culture, rather than let them replace what exists already. The strength of its culture also explains why for an Indian city, Madras has a surprisingly large foreign population. The Hindu for example, frequently showcases Russians, Japanese, Australians and Americans who origanally came to Madras to learn classical dance or music, and have since made Madras their permanent home.
   
5. Madras is difficult to get around in. Krish Ashok has already touched upon this, but let me reinforce that Madras has long boasted of one of the best (and cheapest) public bus systems in the country. Add to that an efficient multiple-route suburban train system, and the much awaited Chennai Metro, and you have a good model for public transport that other cities in India could take a leaf or two out of. Autorickshaws are another matter altogether, but the emergence of share autos (or tempos, if you prefer) and call-taxi services has somewhat relaxed their once firm grip on our purses.
   

Its problems notwithstanding, Madras is a wonderful city with plenty to offer, but only to those willing to partake of it. To all the others, we politely say "Thank you for coming. Please come again, and perhaps you will realize the magic of this place next time."

Edit (20/10/2009): Removed Vidya Balan from the list of Bollywood actresses of Tamil origin, since it turns out she's a Palakkad Iyer and not a Tamil Iyer.

Hobby-horse

Warning: Poor, really poor, absolutely impecunious humour follows.


Q: What did the destructivist artist's two-year old son call him?
A: Dada!

An even more esoteric version that uses the same punchline:

Q: In the dark recesses of an avante-garde museum, a little urinal whispered something to the big urinal next to it. What?
A: Dada!


And so the descent into anarchy continues. Stop me when it stops making sense altogether.

P.S. I can sense the questions. Why "Hobby-horse"? Why a urinal? Why this post? The first two questions can easily be answered. The last question is one for the ages.

A (Self-)Balanced Diet

Continuing the previous theme of festivals, geek humour and south Indian cultural references, here is something that struck me while contemplating yesterday's lunch (says something, doesn't it?):


Q: What's self-balancing, takes O(log n) for common operations, and consists primarily of vegetables and coconut oil?

A: An AViaL tree.

Happy Vinayaka Chaturthi.

For the benefit of our friends from north of the Vindhyas:
AVL Trees
Avial (I resent the insinuation that the dish is not an integral part of Tamil cuisine - we've clearly been eating this stuff for centuries)

Dvaitamu sukhama, Advaitamu sukhama?

Yesterday was Janmashtami. In keeping with the Tamil (South Indian?) tradition, my Mom always draws a set of little white footprints leading from the door to the puja room, which is supposed to signify Lord Krishna coming into our house to accept our offering of sweets and delicacies.

This past year, our house has undergone some renovations which for various reasons, have resulted in us having two entrances to the house instead of one. Hence, my Mother strove to cover all bases, and drew two sets of footprints, one from each door, meeting near the puja room.

You can tell that I'm not touched by the festive spirit, since the first thing that struck me when I entered the house was: "In addition to his normal, particle nature, I now see that Lord Krishna also exhibits wave nature".




As always, if you don't get it, consider yourself lucky.

And don't even get me started on the title of this post.

On the Borel-Cantelli lemma

A recent chat session with one of my most jobless (in every sense of the word) friends went like this:

Him: Prove the Borel Cantelli Lemma
Me: Cogito, ergo sum. Q.E.D.
Him: doesn't prove anything
Me: proves everything
Me: Alternatively, by trivially extending the Carter-Bogdanovich Hyperplane section theorem to include heteromorphic Giandellian spaces, one arrives, by a series of obvious reductions (carefully handling the occasional Jovikechian singularity) to the Borell-Winspolsky theorem. I won't insult your intelligence by pointing out that the Borell Cantelli Lemma is if anything, a weaker statement of a small part of this theorem.

Astute readers would have figured out by now that there is no such thing as the Carter-Bogdanovich Hyperplane section theorem.

(Still more astute readers will realize that if there were, I'd be a mathematical genius. Proof by contradiction.)

My "proof" was therefore nothing more than pseud-sounding gibberish that was the result of being highly caffeinated on a Monday morning at work. However, what struck me when I took another look at what I'd written, was the subconscious influence of things around me.

For instance, Ghirardelli (not Giandelli) is one of my favourite brands of chocolate, and I've been having a lot of their dark chocolate with mint filling in recent times.

Peter Bogdanovich is a legendary Hollywood director, and I've been trying to find The Last Picture Show on DVD for a while now. People who know me will have no difficulty in believing that I almost always have movies on my mind.

Winspolsky was an obvious amalgamation of Windows and Spolsky, the latter being of course, Joel Spolsky whose Joel on Software blog I read as part of my morning routine.

I haven't quite figured out how I came up with Jovikechian, but my friend hypothesized that I must have been subconsciously thinking of the planet Jupiter. Seems plausible, as I was reading about the possibility of life on Europa only last week.

It's interesting to see the kind of meta-semantics that emerge when you let the mind wander. In retrospect, my apparently random statement seems to have been a sort of exercise in free association.

P.S.
For those of you who are interested, the Borell-Cantelli lemma is an interesting result in probability, which seems to be a sort of converse of what is popularly known as the Infinite Monkey Theorem.