Mortals and random numbers

"Sit and write 100 random numbers and upload it in the software you are developing!"

By this statement, I was not playing a fool.

My friend, at office was trying to figure out how to generate an extreme random number using a computer language. We can provide logical process to generate a random number everytime, but then they are not really random. We came up with solution 1 to increase the randomness of the number. It looked like a brilliant idea. But we forgot something intutive.

Can we quantify randomness? A number is either random or its not. Its like a yes or a no. I would be wrong if the below conversation makes any sense-

Person 1- Is it raining?
Person 2- Eighty three

It is at this point I invented another method by which the ultimate number can be generated. Thats when I had this idea and I said what I said (Refer to the 1st line of this article).

Us mortals are the only ones who can generate true random numbers.

What we didn't realise that we were discussing the secrets of life in the light of its very definition or something similar. It felt like something we already knew.

The largest number you can think of

Whats the largest number you can think of?

As I child I had a dream. To start writing numbers in ascending order. Like start with 1, 2, 3, .... and go on as much as I can. Just to see how far I can go, if you know what I mean.

As a kid I believed that someday I would reach a point where counting further would be impossible. And I would be the first person to reach that number.

I haven't started yet. So much for my childhood dreams.

Cant things be justified merely by their existence?

Lets take a hypothetical thing or a situation that exists because of itself.

Let me try to give you an example. If suppose I was in an office meeting and I suddenly asked the person next to me (it did not happen but I some day dream to)-

“Do you think a penguin can hold a stapler considering the stock options or washing machines?”

It would be like social experiment.

There is no reason for me to say such a thing. It would be an attempt to push the social conventions a little. If I was asked for a justification, I would simply argue that I said it because I said it. Is this argument acceptable as a default in our society? Social conventions and randomness have a very interesting relation.

Trying to trace back the cause of what I said would eventually lead to itself thereby dooming us in an ever going loop. On the logical level, to interpret its graphical representation (made in paint during office hours) would not require a lot of thought.

Think off-beat

Rice and communism

Speaker of the house is not the surround sound music system installed in the parliament.

This wisdom of Scott Adams was little realized by the left party before the previous elections.

Once in one of their party meetings somebody remarked that Trinamool Congress was a serious threat. Everybody laughed uncontrollably. Some fell of their chairs and rolled on the ground laughing. Everyone has a good sleep that night.

They were the ones with all the guns.

Then came the Singur issue. To compensate for the incompetencies of communism, they decided to forcefully sell lands at an extremely cheap rate to the very corporate their entire philosophy does not recognize. When Mamata Banerjee got angry, they thought it was just the wrong time of the month for her. But things escalated.

They had eaten too much of rice to do anything about it so they called for a strike. They had a nice holiday and everyone had more rice.

We all know how it ended. Mamata Banerjee laughed her way to the vote bank while the Left collected pieces. Now, the oil price rise is a serious issue for them. It may lead to inflation. The communists were not happy. Not only are they loosing popularity, they have to pay more for rice?

As the regional politics unfolded, we saw BJP flags on Howrah Bridge. The only reason I wouldn't vote for BJP is that they would further complicate the situation unnecessarily.