An interesting venture, this was.  I guess I wasn’t as prolific as I thought I could be.

But anyways, 1403 views for 2009, which I find pretty high!  Over 100 views a month for lowly me?  Mostly from the US, and mostly from Boston & the greater Boston area.  Then there’s Spain, UAE, UK, France and a lot others.  Pretty cool!

I typically don’t follow the sentiment of a new year, a fresh start.  If you want a fresh start, just start now, rather than the new year, right?  There’s no time like the present

So, while I don’t sense a more prolific year, perhaps I can attain other goals.  Like educating myself in popular films.  Or reading a book a month (at least).  Trying to improve my vocabulary!

Cheers to the new year, but not a new you – a forever bettering you.

In an ode to shared work humor, here is a depiction of the day I experienced (sorry I’m not about to do every accent aigu or grave etc, and pardon my french, it’s been 6 years…):

L: Cette est une pipe.

B: Mais non, cette est une pipe.  Vous avez dit que ceci n’est pas une pipe.

L: Pardonez-moi, j’ai dit que cette est une pipe.  Quand je dis qu’il ne l’etait pas?

B: Mais non! Cette est une pipe!  Qui d’autre peut verifier que ceci est une pipe?

W: Oui, cette est une pipe.

L: Oui, c’est ca! C’est certainement une pipe!  Quand je dis qu’il ne l’etait pas?!

B: Voici le fichier ou vous avez dit que “ceci n’est pas une pipe.”

L: Ce fichier dit qu’il est une pipe pour hier, pas aujourd’hui.  …idiot.

B: Oui, donc, nous sommes d’accord que cette est une pipe.

L: *le sigh* oui, nous etions d’accord tout le temps.

This wasn’t the first instance of the day with “B.”

“Definition: A linear transformation T: U → V is invertible if there exists a linear transformation L: V→ U such that LT(u) = u, for all u in U, and TL(v) = v, for all v in V.”

Plain english, please.  I assume this means that a matrix for a linear transformation is invertible if you are able to reverse the transformation and get to the same starting point…  seriously, someone correct me before I get too far along.

Theorem (The roguelynn inequality) – Mathematics is masculine if, and only if, there exists explanatory language that is not simple english, such that your ego does not exist in the state of mind spanned by the confused basis L.

Proof: Let T be the text book at hand, such that T is written by mathematician(s).  Also, let basis L be the language in which T is written, given that it is written in obfuscating english.

Suppose there exists a student S, such that S needs to learn textbook T.  In order for the product of TS = grade of A, there must be the learning of L from T, such that the product of TS is an isomorphism to L. Recall that TS ≠ ST.  Therefore, TS = [A]L.

Editor’s note: I’m even confusing myself.

My point is that I find abstract mathematics pretty masculine.  And the reason is such that I read something, and I question “is this what it really means?”  While the frustration increases, it leaves me with a bruised ego from the sense of “I should probably know this, but this obfuscatory language is questioning my sense of the subject…”  It’s the same kind of testosterone induced sense of ego where one doesn’t want to ask for directions.  You’ve been there before, you should know how to get there now…

I get the sense that mathematicians don’t want “the common folk” to learn this stuff (which pushes me more…) from the difficult language in which they write.  I’m left to struggle through this, impatiently but rewardingly so.  It seems like a perpetual loop – once I understand this, I will continue to write such logic based arguments only to confuse others.  And I know my response will be “what, you don’t understand?”  Understanding abstract math almost divides and creates “classes” within intelligence.

Oddly, I’m cultivating an interest in pure and applied mathematics…  It’s a moth to a flame thing.

This leads me to another theorem that I have.  More finance-y based.  For those of you that are familiar with the DOS-based program Bloomberg, equipped with it’s very own keyboard, you can relate when I say the first time I saw that, I thought “wtf…”  While the key word “TOP” is logical for Top News, and perhaps “FWCV” may be intuitive for Forward-looking Yield Curve analysis, how the hell are you supposed to know this right off the bat…   But the whole system is very foreign, especially in the age of “user-friendly programming.”  Granted, similar to my point above, I feel damn proud having figured out *some* of the system, and have a general comprehension of how it works and where to get information.  Might I say, that I am indeed certified in such a program, and still do not know all that Bloomberg can do?

I should also make the point that while this program is quite antiquated, it is vastly utilized in the field of finance since it was released (in the 80s?), and therefore will be quite difficult to change such a system.  When will computer programmers, bankers, financial engineers and economists start working together?

*cough* I think I just hit on a bit of the problem of how this crisis got started… but that’s for another time.

A little Christmas cheer – I had a lot of fun with this.  I also took some writer’s liberty/creative license in making this work.

On the twelfth day of Christmas,

My true loathed gave to me

Twelve trillion netting,

Eleven more banks a-failing,

“Ten” percent a-seeking,

Nine banks repaying,

Eight-y five % debt ‘n’ digging,

Seven bailouts ‘n’ counting,

Six quarters of recession-in’

Five squawking gov’nors,

Four percent for loans,

Three inflation hawks,

Two strong doves,

And a chairman in the hot seat.

Just a quick comment -

I can’t help but think of Bank of America as a huge jenga game.  Piece by piece it becomes weaker…