trying to understand...

(i apologize for the cruelty of the image; i'll consider if i remove it in a couple of days) (i've decided in a couple of hours: i won't remove it. first because fuck the politically correct ideology, and second because this is real, these are the differences wild capitalism is bringing us all)

a veure si ho entenc... per funcionar, el capitalisme necessita crèdit, és a dir, que gent o institucions vulgui posar diners que ajudin a fer funcionar el negoci, a canvi de la promesa de benefici en termes d'interès. aleshores, aquests accionistes (els inversors) necessiten un clima de confiança i estabilitat en el qual puguin tenir certeses que rebran beneficis pels diners que hi han dipositat, no? val, clar, però aleshores el que passa és que aviat tot el tinglat funciona sobre la base que el que compta, el més important, és satisfer els inversors, que aquests estiguin contents perquè així puguin continuar posant-hi més diners per encara guanyar més interessos, i seguir guanyant diners sense límits, i això animi a altres a també posar-n'hi amb l'esperança de també ingressar en el club dels rics amb els avantatges que això suposa en termes de tenir sexe sempre que es vulgui, i poder manar sobre altres. Ahh, ara començo a entendre... així doncs, tota la resta està supeditada a aquest benefici dels inversors, i és per això que les empreses han de destinar el màxim possible de benefici als inversors i per tant el mínim imprescindible a tota la resta: salaris dels treballadors, principalment, però també matèries primeres, producció real, etc. Així és per això que uns salaris alts perjudiquen l'economia, ja que això redueix els porcentatges astronòmics a què aspiren els inversors, els quals per tant no estan disposats a deixar escapar ni la més petita molla del seu pa... clar que els treballadors no en són gaire diferents, en el sentit que també volen guanyar el màxim possible en termes monetaris. Però bueno, semblaria que el grau d'acontentament i avarícia dels treballadors i les classes baixes en general és més local, és a dir, afectaria a menys gent i en menor mesura a tots els nivells. i també és interessant com aquests inversors i els seus ideòlegs s'ho han manegat per convèncer a tothom que la justificació teòrica dels seus guanys és ciència econòmica (en un altre post tractaré d'entendre que diu això sobre el concepte de ciència)...

i ara per tant també entenc perquè els inversors volen el mínim d'estat possible, un estat només perquè garanteixi i protegeixi la seguretat dels seus interessos... això és el patriotisme: la defensa dels seus interessos, pels quals volen emprar tota la carn de canó que puguin, i per això fabriquen tota aquesta ideologia per convèncer les classes baixes que el més gran honor és defensar la pàtria, amb la seva vida si és necessari (la vida de les classes baixes) perquè ells (els inversors) en puguin continuar gaudint-ne dels beneficis... i el que és ben curiós és com ho fan de bé perquè totes aquestes persones de classe baixa queden ben convençudes i són els més exaltats en defensar el seu país, un país que en general no fa res per ells.

my name's billy elliot

... and i'm kinda cute

modal logic

It is usually considered that deontic logic is better captured by system D in modal logic. but I don't see exactly why, as deontic logic does not normally accept axiom T. For example, this statement ⊨D [▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q is a logical truth in D, but not so clearly true in deontic logic, I think:

PROOF
We must show that V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 1 for the valuation V for an arbitrarily chosen D-model〈W, R, I〉and world w in that model.

(i) Assume for reductio that V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 0
(ii) So V(▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q), w) = 1, and …
(iii) … V(◇Q, w) = 0.
(iv) From (ii), and by the derived truth conditions for ∧, V(▢P, w) = 1, and so by the truth conditions for the ▢, P is true in every world accessible from w. Since our model is a D-model, this means that the accessibility relation R is serial, that is to say, for every u ∈ W, there is some v ∈ W, such that Ruv. So in this case, there is at least some world, call it v, such that Rwv, and therefore V(P, v) = 1.
(v) From (ii), and again by the truth conditions for ∧, V(▢(∼P ∨ Q), w) = 1. So again by the truth conditions for ▢, (∼P ∨ Q) is true in every possible world accessible from w. So in particular, V(∼P ∨ Q, v) = 1.
(vi) For (v), and the truth conditions for ∨, V(∼P, v) = 1 or V(Q, v). By the truth conditions for ∼, V(P, v) = 0, so since for (iv), we know that V(P, v) = 1, it must be the case that V(Q, v) = 1.
(vii) Given (iii), Q is false at every possible world accessible from w, so in particular it must be the case that V(Q, v) = 0. This contradicts (vi).
(viii) Therefore, by reductio, we have proved V([▢P ∧ ▢(∼P ∨ Q)] → ◇Q, w) = 1.
But sometimes I do miss.

colloquium generative grammar - YES!

this posting is to inform my hundreds of non-readers that my talk on datives has been selected for poster presentation at the colloquium in generative grammar to be held in gasteiz, euskal herria (i.e. vitoria, basque country) april 1st - 3rd... this means that i'll spend a couple of days in bcn too, and i hope to be able to see many people there...

This photo was taken during the diving competition in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics

rob gonsalves

René Magritte, Salvador Dalí, or M.C. Escher are undeniable influences of the Canadian painter of magic realism Rob Gonsalves.

pierre bourdieu

in this post i wanna quote some excerpts of an article by the french sociologist pierre bourdieu, a writer known for his outspoken political views and public engagement... bourdieu was one of the principal players in the french intellectual life from the early 70s until his dead in 2002, and during the 1990s became one of, or probably "the" intellectual reference for french movements opposed to the neo-liberalist credos and their economical globalization. this quote comes from an article i've recently read in the magazine Manière de voir, which is a thematic bi-monthly review of articles first published in Le Monde Diplomatique.

"ces discours néolibéraux sont devenus une doxa, une évidence indiscutable et indiscutée... un travail constant a été fait, associant des intellectuels, des journalistes, des hommes d'affaires, dans les revues, qui se sont peu a peu imposées comme legitimes, pour établir comme allant de soi une vision néolibérale qui, pour l'essentiel, habille de rationalitations économiques les présupposés les plus clasiques de la pensée conservatrice de tous les temps et tous les pays (...) vision néolibérale [qui] va de pair avec l'art de vivre yuppie, le regne du calcul rationnel ou du cynisme, la course à l'argent instituée en modèle universelle

ce qui peut surprendre c'est que ce message fataliste se donne les allures d'un message de libération, par toute une série de jeux lexicaux autour de l'idée de liberté, de libéralisation, de déregulation, etc. par toute une série d'euphémismes, ou de double jeux avec les mots -réforme, par example, qui vise à présenter une restauration comme une révolution (...), mais entre la confiance des marchés, et la confiance du peuple, ils ont dejà choisi..."

cute story

click on the image to see this cute animation... i'd like to dedicate it to those dependent people who believe that they can only find themselves through someone else... i think they're totally wrong: they will only find someone, when they have found themselves first... i.e. when they have created themselves... anything else will be nothing but dependence, i.e. false love, friendship, paternity, etc... please, remember erich fromm: i don't love you because i need you, i need you because i love you

kanzi

Kanzi is a male bonono (species also known sometimes as Pygmy chimpanzee). He was born in October 28, 1980 at Yerkes field station at Emory University and moved to the Language Research Center at Georgia State University. Kanzi was stolen from her mother and adopted shortly after birth by a more dominant female, called Matata. According to his trainer, the primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh (both in the picture, here; Kanzi's the one with the Michael Jordan's jersey), Kanzi exhibits advanced linguistic skills. The interesting thing about this story is that Kanzi was never taught language explicitly. As an infant, Kanzi accompanied his mother to sessions where she was taught language through keyboard lexigrams. Kanzi, apparently, showed little interest in the lessons, and seemed to be paying no attention whatsoever. However, to the big surprise of researchers, one day where her adoptive mother Matata was not present, Kanzi began competently using the lexigrams, becoming not only the first observed ape to have learned aspects of language naturalistically rather than through direct training, but also the first observed bonobo to appear to use some elements of language at all.

In this video we can see Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Kanzi showing off. Whether this means that language is not specifically human but rather shared with other species, as she claims, it's controversial, i think, but this video is at least surprising and nice.

How did ancient egyptians multiply numbers?

painting by the Austrian artist Franz Miklis


A really cool thing I've read in a restroom in the public library, while sitting there.

"Suppose you're and old Egyptian and you wanna multiply 36 · 43. Remember that you don't have the zero. What can you do? Do the following: Take one of the two numbers, and factorize it out (row (a)); then, take the other number and double it as many times as steps your factorization in row (a) took (do this in row (b)). Finally, add up the numbers in row (b) that have the same step number of an odd number in row (a). For example, if step (iii) in row (a) contains a 10, which is even, then don't add up the number in step (iii) in column (b). Do the addition in row (c). Look at the example we started with, i.e. 36 · 43. Let's factorize the number 43, and double 36 as many times as steps the factorization of 43 has (i.e. 6 times, in this case):

ROW A: (i) 43 ; (ii) 21 (forget about the residue) ; (iii) 10 ; (iv) 5 ; (v) 2 ; (vi) 1

ROW B: (i) 36 ; (ii) 72 ; (iii) 144 ; (iv) 288 ; (v) 576 ; (vi) 1,152

ROW C: (i) 36 + (ii) 72 + (iv) 288 + (vi) 1,152 (we don't add steps (iii) and (v) of row (b), because steps (iii) and (v) in row (a) contain an even number).

That is row (c) amounts to the following addition: 36 + 72 + 288 + 1152 = 1,548.

Do the math, and check that this result is correct, i.e. that 36 · 43 = 1,548.
Try the system with any other numbers."

Isn't it awesome?

darwin's day February 11 2009

the bell house

the bell house, a new venue in gowanus industrial zone, between carroll gardens and park slope, a thursday night out with emilie and rob...

martini pub

One of my favorite commercials ever!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhTSrQbJDI8

charlize theron was the awesome girl, and a not very well known american actor called max parrish was the martini man, a mixture of jean paul belmondo and pierce brosnan that lots of people in europe loved in the mid-90s.

the case of the mysterious clitic

What the fell is the clitic pronoun 'lo' doing in the following sentence, appeared in El País on February 1st 2009? (click here to see the original text):

Pudo ser una final más bonita, pero no lo hubiera podido ser más tensa y llena de alternativas.

Interesting fact, or mistake?? I'll think about it

Montmartre in January 2009.
Photo by Robert Landrito.