torches and pitchforks

im alone, not lonely.

mogwai's friend of the night. is that "the one who is friends with the night", or "friend who you know at night"? pj harvey's line, "love for money is my sin". is that prostitution or just greed? is she trading love for money, or does she just plain love money? these examples help motivate my campaign to set up a process for the quantification of ambiguity. granted, im pretty sure now that that is an oxy moron, its still fun to say. 'quantify ambiguity'.

i want a girl insatiable. she is heat incarnate.

"The basic point is that, when we talk about NP-complete problems, we're not just talking about scheduling airline flights (or for that matter, breaking the RSA cryptosystem). We're talking about automating insight: proving the Riemann Hypothesis, modeling the stock market, seeing whatever patterns or chains of logical deduction are there in the world to be seen." -Scott Aaronson

automating insight i think is an excellent phrase.

i have finally learned, concretely, what it means to be in NP; it makes perfect sense too. so heres the deal: NP are problems that can be solved on a nondeterministic turing machine in polynomial time. since we have no such thing as a nondeterministic turing machine, we have to settle for checking the answers in polynomial time, which makes sense, because finding the answer requires checking every 'branch' of the 'tree' as where checking the answer is just plugging it in and verifying that the specified 'branch' satisifies the problem.

i feel as though i do not laugh out loud as often as the people around me.

it seems that computer scientists must have determined the very fewest amount of entropy change that must occur to go from the NP problem input to the yes or no output... seeing as how information has to be manipulated. also, i would like to see turing machines rigidly defined and set up so that all inputs can be seen for tiny machines, and all outputs seen. i know that makes more sense now then it will later.

put everything on the walls.

i need to stop relating things to myself. im nothing like most things, and most things are nothing like me. we are like homeless junkies who start with a small scab and scratch it incessantly turning it into a gaping wound. i want us to have relative motion.

you smile cause you fake it, and its all for show.
acting dumb, thats what youve come to expect.

can we figure out a way to classify the complexity of the question P vs NP in terms of its computational complexity? it is after all a decision problem, right? (yes/no output...)

sheep-in-wolfs-clothing: "ive never been good with words, which is why i'm in such a delicate conundrum."

"-honesty is not synonymous with truth.
yeah, you lie. you lie. is it to do some good, to get somewhere personally, or, what, just for the fuck of it...
-well, i suspect that, some people do it, to keep things on an even keel.
change. your life. radically. change anything. change everything.
...youre hot shit.
...heavy lies the crown, sort of thing...
...ill deal with something being wrong for the rest of my life.
...you know most good looking women are cops?"
---i just watched the departed, and holy fuck. everybody gets it.---

secular progressive, that sounds like me!

stefan just reminded me of my old desire to perform my own autopsy. thats the most distant desire ive ever had i think. unobtainable perhaps is a better word.

how unfair is it that the undercover cop endures hell to get to his undercover position, while the 'undercover' criminal gets paid well, becomes a respected authority.

all we want is a headrush
we all just want to die a little bit.

Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight.

i am so cautious to not influence people, yet hopeful that people will influence me. why is that?
the most interesting things are the things which are the least well understood. in general, im not well understood, hence, interesting.
people tend to think that i "know" what im "doing". which is funny because i do so little.

No comments: