Math not popular in Kanchipuram

Seeing the above news headline in Rediff, I followed the link wondering why my beloved Mathematics wasn't popular in the land of Sankaracharya!

:-)

Naipaul on Narayan

I recently joined this forum called orkut - am not still sure what I will do there yet.

However a message on Naipaul's essay on RK Narayan, somehow made me respond thus.

I am sure Naipaul's essay would have been discussed in this forum before. But just thought I will write a few things that came to my mind after I re-read the excerpts of that essay from the link above.

I dont know for what purpose, audience and in what circumstance Naipaul wrote that critique on Narayan. But whatever those might be, I cannot miss the fact that the critique is so narrow in scope. It just addresses the point that Narayan's characters were "small people". Based on this one central argument, Naipaul tries to judge Narayan's work.

I also dont know whether Naipaul meant this essay to be his final word on Narayan. Throughout the excerpt he has mentioned ONE novel of Narayan as an example. ONE! I cannot understand how with ONE example, anyone can analyze Narayan's work to any sort of detail.

I am surprised that - knowing very well that his word will be taken seriously - Naipaul has made a rather half-baked attempt in analyzing Narayan and his works.

The Hindu Editorial...

Among all opinions and reports afloat about the arrest of Kanchi Sankaracharya, the Hindu Editorial was the most objective. A few highlights...

THE DRAMATIC ARREST and incarceration of the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi — the most high profile of all contemporary Hindu religious leaders — as the prime accused in a brutal contract killing of a humble adversary is a first in the annals of the rule of law. The message sent out by this action taken by the Tamil Nadu police, evidently with prior approval from Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, is that nobody, however high in religious or temporal matters, shall be above the law.

The Tamil Nadu police officials in charge of the investigation as well as the Public Prosecutor have claimed they have solid evidence against Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, with the prosecutor using strong language in open court to contrast his alleged criminality with his venerated spiritual position.

The strong language in open court to contrast alleged criminality with the spiritual position is as follows. Public prosecutor Mr. Duraiswamy, it seems, responded in court to requests for special treatment to the Acharya by saying -

"Today is court holiday, still special treatment has been given to him. There is a limit for special treatments. He is the most undeserving criminal deserving no special treatment. We are also devotees of the mutt. We respect the seat but not the individual who is occupying it"

(italics mine)
The Hindu Editorial goes on to add,

Devotees of the Kanchi Mutt are understandably upset. But they should realise that while there should be no public presumption of guilt against the Sankaracharya or indeed against any of the other accused, it would be absurd for them to believe communal allegations that he has been framed by the State Government to `appease minorities after the general election debacle' or for other devious political reasons

(italics mine)
The italicized portion above indicates the tone of the editorial making it clear that all are equal before law. And as the article says, it is indeed very interesting and unusual that -

... this is an extremely rare case of two bitter antagonists, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and DMK president M. Karunanidhi, agreeing on an issue, namely that the law must be allowed to take its course in a highly sensitive case that has no precedent

"...refrain from commenting on Gurus"

When I asked his opinion about this news item to a senior in my office, his response was that he does not have an opinion on this and he usually "refrains from commenting on Gurus".

ICC study reveals that 99% of bowlers throw

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

So the great saviour of cricket's purity, Umpire Ross Emerson, couldn't prevail. Cricket is going to remain impure for a long time to come and what's more, it has been impure all the way. I am loving this!

All those cricket experts (including those ex and current cricketing greats) who gave scientific explanations for why Murali is a chucker probably read science from a different school from those who sat down to analyse.

If with glowing eyes, Murali spins the ball to deliver a well-disguised doosra pitching on middle-stump to go toward first slip, and as a batsman that is a problem for you, try solving the problem by playing his doosra. Don't try to eliminate the problem by crying foul.

And as an umpire, if all you want is newspaper space, try your hand in real politics. No-balling a bowling great cannot be your claim to fame - particularly when you are wrong!

History will be better off, for now it does not need to add an asterisked remark next to the highest wicket taker in Test Cricket saying his bowling career was tarnished by allegations over his suspect bowling action.

Or maybe it should, and explain why Murali is the highest wicket taker inspite of Ross Emersons!

A few things...

• I wish the two new Kart(h)iks in the Indian cricket team all the very best and hope that they get a long run in the team.
• I hope Ajit Agarkar is not looked upon as a "promising talent with lot of potential" until his retirement time comes. If at all he has some potential, it is probably in something not related to cricket.
• I hope the Australian cricket board considers Adam Gilchrist for captain rather than Ricky Ponting. The former has all qualities of a leader and more. The latter has far fewer qualities and is making a name for himself as a whiner.

Happy Halloween...

It so happened that last sunday, Subbu had a bunch of kids knocking at his door. Newbie that he is to USA, he opened the door after a lot of thought.

As he opened, the kids shouted "Trick or Treat!" - all with smiling faces accompanied by a few of their moms. Initially taken aback, Subbu recovered quickly, smiled back, and promptly picked a candy from one of the kids hands and said "Thank You!"

A couple of guys at office are still laughing imagining the look on the kids' (and their moms') faces as they left.

For once, we were there early...

History was made yesterday...

Since we were moving all weekend and wouldn't have got the time to cook dinner, Vidhya and Srini were kind enough to invite us for dinner yesterday at their place... We didn't take too much time thinking and readily accepted... Time of 7.30 PM was agreed upon mutually...

When we actually went to their place and knocked at the door, we were invited with curious looks with the odd "Hi!"... After 15 minutes of deliberate conversation Vidhya asked "Do you guys know that daylight savings period has ended?"

Lakshmi and I exchanged shocked (O-My-God-How-Did-I-Forget) looks. In all the hoopla about moving, we had forgotten that the clock was set back by an hour.

The mystery of how-on-earth-could-these-guys-arrive-early was also solved for Vidhya... For the first time in the history of our married life, we were there for a get-together earlier than expected...

Not by intent, I should add...

RE: Puzzle : Old one..

-----Original Message-----
From: Ganesan, Swaminathan
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:57 AM
To: All of them
Subject: RE: Puzzle : Old one..

How come no one here questioned this...

I have a related problem for which I would love to know the answer...

Many a time, we employ what is called "inductive reasoning" in finding out patterns in sequences like this... But as you know, such reasoning is not accurate, or should I say definite... Sundu's problem is one example... My question is how good inductive reasoning is... How far can we rely on this...

For instance, there can be more than one plausible reasoning that can be given for such sequences and series.. That is, they fit into more than one pattern (upto the finite number of terms that they have been expressed)

In fact, I have seen puzzles where usually everyone agrees on a particular pattern and says that is the "right answer"... Until later, when some crooked brain gives an equally plausible alternative answer... I am pondering on how good such questions are to go into aptitude tests (be it for a company or for a university) when the answers are not accurate... It follows rather immediately that people who set such question papers better say, "give a next number for this sequence and a plausible reasoning" and value the answers based on that rather than saying "give THE next number for this sequence"...

Hmm.. This is probably worth a blog post... Will do when I have time...

-----Original Message-----
From: Sundar Ramakrishnan [mailto:sundar.ramakrishnan@somewhere.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 9:04 PM
To: All of us
Subject: Re: Puzzle : Old one..


the correct answer is 3..
reasoning:
12 - Twelve - 6 letters
6 - Six - 3 letters
10 - Ten - 3 letters

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:36:31 -0700, Ganesan, Swaminathan wrote:
> No. of divisors other than the number itself for 12 = 5 (isnt it?)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lavanya Kannan [mailto:lavanya.kannan@somewhere.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:29 AM
> To: All of us
> Subject: Re: Puzzle : Old one..
>
> is it 3? : number of divisors other than the number itself ?
>
> Why is this a puzzle?
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:18:26 +0530, Sundar Ramakrishnan
>
>
> wrote:
> > No. Wrong answer.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sundu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:19:03 +0200, Jose, Ann Catherine
> > wrote:
> > > Is it 2?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Ann Catherine Jose.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sundar Ramakrishnan [mailto:sundar@somewhere.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 12:14 PM
> > > To: All of us
> > > Subject: Puzzle : Old one..
> > >
> > > A man wanted to enter an exclusive club but did not know the
> > > password that was required. He waited by the door and listened. A
> > > club member knocked on the door and the doorman said, "12." The
> > > member replied, "6 " and was let in. A second member came to the
> > > door and the doorman said, "6". The member replied "3", and was
> > > let in. The man thought he had heard enough and walked up to the
> > > door. The doorman said ,"10" and the man replied, "5." But he was
> > > not let in. What should have he said?
> > >
> >
>