The engines of the mouths
would be reluctant to start
but beware the running of the bulls
Beware the curmudgeon renown
the running faux pas
the meandering road trip
and fall from grace
and Grace his wife
he’s running for office
space, outer umbilicus aid,
a platform in favor of
an orange blockade
a navel contemplation of ships
Beware the march
The Germans determined that it was best to shave the beard and head so that in battle the enemy could not grab the beard or hair as an advantage. They became good at killing more efficiently in this manner. This is why shaving is prestigious to this day. Killing more efficiently is the true heritage of shaving and is why the Gillette company tries to assuage their guilt by promoting a silly ad about “toxic masculinity”. It was “toxic masculinity” that won World War 2 along with the help of gay code breakers and mathematicians and women and others who were patriotic — everybody fought the just war. They were all heroic — many with muscle and mind and guile. All kinds true patriots.
Companies should stay out of politics. Just make the product and shut up. I want a single blade and nothing else. Don’t improve anything. Geez.
About the TV show “Friends”
I’ve lost my sense of humor because of an overdose of a series show conglomerated. I used to watch “Friends” once in a while when it was a once-a-week show. I always got confused about who was flirting with whom and what the relationships were. But the chaos was funny as long as I didn’t understand why anyone would be a friend and just assumed it just was and that I had just missed the magic explanations that I would have gotten had I seen them all.
But I recently watched consecutive episodes on one theme and I perceived it as tragedy. Ross Geller gets married in London to Emily but while saying his marriage vows says the wrong name. He says “Rachel”. Rachel has been vacillating about telling Ross that she loves him. Anyway, it takes (seems like) 10 episodes to bring it to a divorce, and I kept feeling more and more sadness and tragedy and I could no longer see the humor in the pain. I couldn’t see what was supposed to be so special about Rachel Green. The new wife wanted Ross to never see Rachel again. Well duh.
Brown, James Robert and Fehige, Yiftach, “Thought Experiments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), plato.standford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/thought-experiment/.
Maxwell’s demon, Einstein’s elevator, Schrödinger’s cat, and more. Philosophy.
Suppose in a thought experiment I imagine a perfect rod that is 1 inch long, and then another one that I attach to it. Now I have a rod that is exactly 2 inches long — not approximately 2 inches but exactly 2 inches. I can create a rod of any rational length that is perfectly known.
Now suppose I choose any integer. I can represent an arbitrary length. For example, suppose I choose 47 inches as the circumference, C, of Humpty Dumpty at the center of his belly.
Now I bend this object and join the ends in such a way that it forms a circle of length 47 inches. In this case the diameter would be 47 / π [also known as “Pi”] , but I’m not allowed to imagine it because a picture has a rational length. Pi cannot be defined as an exact length but only the limit of a series such as: 4 (1- 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7…). But I can see the length looking across the circle.
Next, with Humpty Dumpty’s cousin, Harrumph, I take a different approach. I find an idealized machine to make an X-ray image using computerized axial tomography (Cat Scan). The slice through the center of the belly shows a diameter of 15 inches. The Cat Scan machine is connected to an idealized 3D printer. The printer is assigned to make a belt for Harrumph’s waist size. It would be 15 pi inches. But even though it is an idealized and perfect machine with no tolerence for error, it cannot do it because it has no image for pi. It is not allowed to use an approximation.
If I can see a circle, I cannot see a diameter. If I see a straight line length, I’m assuming it’s rational because I can see all of it at once without error. Would it be legitimate to see a length and assume that it is pi inches long? If I bend it into a circle, the the diameter is 1 inch. The question then is: what am I looking at when I see the pi length? Whatever it is, it’s stable. On the other hand, I can look at a 1 inch length and spin it at its center to draw a circle. Then, I can break it open and lay it flat. In this case, the point where I cut it is undefined, isn’t it? Unless, I define the length of the circle as (pi – k) + k and I break the circle within the length k.
I’m going in circles again. Oh well.