Sunday, August 30, 2009

It's occurred to me that the fallout of the Preliminary Examinations may have been more than what I initially expected. It seems that everyone is lamenting their results - myself included. And I'm telling you, it wasn't all that expected. I thought I would be the only one.

Turns out I was wrong again.

It's my wish to classify this with an open mind, but circumstances being what they are, there is no respect for 'an open mind'. The blame will have to shift further inward towards the people who are responsible for our failures - both them and us.

If this keeps up long enough, our GCEs will suffer a great deal. Replacements will not do - a sudden change will not only get rid of the knowledge of who can do what, but also slows down progress as more time is needed for assessments. We all know what I'm talking about. It's not fun telling the world.

Also, if I keep this up long enough, I'll be able to get rid of the people who are too mentally challenged to understand the articles I'm writing. In fact, I think by now, all of them would have already left.

But the greatest shift of focus should be on us - the people around me and myself. Look at yourselves. If you're not proud of your choices, then don't pick them. Regretting your own actions is as good as regretting your life. You'd rather die than carry on.

That's not how it should go.

It matters not what we achieve now. It's how we carry those achievements and take on the rest of the world. It's trying again, no matter what the odds are. Don't throw it down hard on yourself if you fail this time. If you do so, you'll only throw it down harder the next time.

We can do this. We didn't live for so long for our lives to end abruptly like this. We'll get through this together.

Dead. Or alive. We'll all get through this together.
[[ArsH]] at 9:28 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I'll start off bluntly - our teachers are disappointed. Very disappointed. I will tell you why in an equally blunt way in a few paragraphs, but in the meantime let me dictate to you the meaning of the word 'confidence' and the quote 'to wish you were someone else is to waste the person you are'.

Basically, a typical faculty would have one professor and a few dozen if not more students. In each one they would have a form of confidence in themselves. That is, everyone will pull their own weight, with the professor understanding each student clearly. The divide between the student and his or her mentor must not be tangible. If that is not possible, it should be, in the least, be crystal clear.

In such a faculty, trust is a factor of confidence which emulates the amount of focus one delivers to a given topic or subject. If the trust does not exist, which would be the case if the divide was far too opaque, then the professor will not understand the student no matter what he or she does. That brick wall has to be broken down and buried; the borders must not exist.

Now, turn your attention to the quote I plucked out from the back of my mind. "To wish you were someone else is to waste the person you are" means a lot more than it sounds. This piece of quote stems from the fact that everyone has to be unique (with the fine exception that is of natural genetic variation) because we just are that - unique. And by being unique, we will be able to display quantified talents and specific faculties of intelligence. The entire reason we grow up is so that we can alter and adapt to our environments and situations.

Because of this, we are never the same as we were three, four, five, ten years ago. Humans are like ecosystems or BIOS - the basic input and output may be the same, and the resultant may be similar, but the faculties always change - the key basic principles may still maintain a core value while the temporary quotas alter.

In other words, predicting human advancement in the micro scale by formula or anecdote is impossible because they NEVER FACTOR THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS.

So back to my initial disposition: The teachers are very disappointed because what the cold, mindless and incredulously stupid computers predicted never came true. Based on their calculations, somehow, our PSLE scores, Secondary 2 grades, Secondary 3, 4 Mid-Year grades and whatever the sh!t that they threw in reflect our destined grades in the Preliminary Examinations.

Oh, yeah. The sh!t really hit the fan.

Our teachers have forgotten the true meaning of human expectancy and interaction. They would have known better had they not placed their hopes based on the predictions of a stupid formula. They would have not been so disappointed in our failure had they disregarded the cheap scams and instead focused on what we, as students, were truly capable of.

The attention they gave us? It was null. It was all based on the results of a woeful miscalculation. They think we are capable of so much. They gave us less than what they gave the other classes that the computer mistakenly perceived as 'worse off'. So much less.

Now what do they do? They blame the teachers for their ignorance. Surely, they deserve the blame. But something like that can't come without a price - somehow, the teachers blame us. Make us feel guilty. Tell us all the achievements others have made that we could not. Open your damned eyes, you idiots. Whose the one expecting knowledge, and whose the one delivering it? Cursory glimpses will not do.

Surely we deserve the same amount of attention in everything as others do. We are, as you said, after all, humans.

So open your eyes, comrades; wake up. Wake up... and smell the ashes.





---
To Tom: κ is 2.75 laaaa.
[[ArsH]] at 5:10 PM

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

It just recently occurred to me that some things have not been given their due course of attention. The subject in question is a branch of mathematics that has been, if food is for thought, highly ignored and disregarded to the point that it only makes up a superficial part of our examinations.

The branch in question is none other than the sub-topic that is horrifyingly simplistic if a little effort is put into it - Set Theory. A simple yet elegant branch of mathematics, that can emulate theoretically every definition of mathematics as both a foundation and an advanced subject.

Learning Set Theory is like learning a new language (thus the 'subject name' being Set Language). The basics involve the use of glyphs that are remotely similar to the letter 'n' (∩), used to signify intersection, and 'u' (U), to signify union.

That being the basics, some of the most incredulously murderous questions can be formed by simply asking for a definition. Questions with answers and formulae like AUB and (CUB)'∩A are all on the easy side - it gets surprisingly difficult for us when the answers involve universal set integration and cross-axiom coordinate set definitions.

Just for your information, the last was complete bull~, but USI is still something to be afraid of when you don't even understand the basics of defining set portions.

In short, understanding set language is like understanding CODE3 - if you don't know how to look at it, you're screwed. Here is an example using CODE3:

(Port: Force) [m=2.5; a=2 {\met}] Q:{Find subt 'F' \\ numr .unit}

The above is the same as asking [Object 1 Name Here] has a mass of 2.5 N, and is travelling at with an acceleration of 2.0 m/s^2. [Additional redundant information here] How much force does [Object 1 Name Here] exhibit? (The answer is 5, by the way, in C3 terminology)

A much more confusing one can be:

(Port: Observer)[∞ space; particle bomb'; randomized movement - effect: rain \\isotropic][red region S away from Port - scatter \\reduce isotropic;random orientation]{Q: Port observes S by particle movement?}

That is: Observer O is located in an infinite space and is bombarded by particles (shown in blue) coming from infinity and moving along straight lines in random directions. This "rain" of particles is isotropic in its directions. At large distance from the observer there is a region of scatterers S shown in red. The region contains many scatterers of the blue particles. The scatterers are not isotropic. However, their orientation is random. Can the observer O detect the presence of the region S in the space by simply observing the distribution of particles arriving at O from different directions. (The answer is no.)

Now, you should understand that it is unbelievably hard to understand something when the basics are not well established.

The same thing happens with Set Theory. Although C3 is not exactly the kind of thing to use for defining the foundations of mathematics and, incidentally, the entire universe, Set Theory is. And our lack of knowledge on the language as well as our substandard ability to define specific set portions stems from the fact that the basics were not established well, at all.

This is just as well, because of all the examinations questions we encountered there was only one Set Theory question. But even that had more than one answer, and the examiners "initially marked everyone wrong until further discussion".

The fact that there had to be a discussion before our answers were accepted brings up the point that we have almost nothing on Set language and theory. You could say that this kind of math is to be more focused on in University or higher learning. If such was the case, why bring it up in lower education? And how can we even hope to cope with Set Theory in higher academia if our basics are so shaky and still being ignored?

Something like this should not be left to chance, especially when we are in a point of our lives where what we understand will matter the most.

Trust me, the ignorance doesn't stop there.


---

To Tom:
The coordinates don't match with the stationary axioms in the diagram. If particle t crosses paths with particle κ and fails to intercept it or affect it's course, it is likely the axiom to note is way off point or in another dimension isolated from κ. If not, the particles will collide and will form an entanglement before disintegrating into the sub-forms tκ.

And the cross magnitude is not 32.48751 - this is anti-material proportions we are talking about. It rebounds, so there is no net change in the diagonal vortex coefficient - the final magnitude integral is still 15.
[[ArsH]] at 8:42 PM