How the World was Created…

Out of chaos (confusion), emerged two beings: Plankos (matter) and Bangos (energy), whose children were five bosons (Photos, Gluos, Wees, Zees, and Higgia) and many monopoles. Plankos hated all of his children but particularly the monopoles, and these he sent to Void (nothingness). Bangos was irritated that her husband had so much hatred for his children, so she asked the bosons to rescue the monopoles but only Higgia agreed to help, and he was successful in overthrowing his father but unsuccessful in bringing back the monopoles.

In any case, Higgia, now ruler of the universe, defined the matter of his constituents by his own terms, and married Gluos, producing six Fermionic children: three sons (Upion, Charmion, and Topon) and three daughters (Downia, Strangia, and Botia). Knowing what deed he performed, Higgia feared that the same will happen to him, so he swallowed his children, Topon first because he knew he would have the most trouble digesting something about his size, then Botia, Strangia, Charmion, Downia, and finally Upion…except, not quite. He figured that since Upion was the tiniest and meekest, he definitely will not pose any problems and thus lazily just threw him into his mouth without checking if he went through his alimentary canal. In fact, Upion, being small and quick as he is, slid out of Higgia’s mouth, and Upion grew up and waged war on Higgia, the epic war of Fermions versus Bosons. Eventually, Higgia lost, and was forced to regurgitate Downia, Charmion, Strangia, Botia, and finally Topon, who upon extricating bursted Higgia into pieces. Upion sent Higgia along with many of the Bosons to a very quantum part of Void, especially most-punished Higgia, who still now can sometimes be seen struggling to return from Void.

Upion, the victor, now divided the universe among his brothers, sisters, and himself: Upion was in charge of all the Fermionic gods, and Downia was his wife. Charmion was the god of charmness, Strangia was the goddess of strangeness, Topon was the god of truth, and Botia was the goddess of beauty.

Meanwhile, four ages of universal existence pass by: first was the golden age, when Higgia ruled, when everything was plentiful and warmth and snugness abounded. Then came the silver age, when the particles became less and less friendly with each other and drifted apart. By the bronze age, the world was cold, and parts of the universe started highly using force, and in the sad age, everything was sad.

In any case, when everything was settled, all the promiscuous Fermions interbred and produced children, all of which had highly radioactive attitudes, except Protonus, a son of Upion and Downia. Protonus was often able to calm his sister Neutronia, and they when together loved constructing, and made massive buildings. Of course, there were the forces (Gravito, Elektros, and Spektros) that even Upion in his boldness was obedient to. By demand of these forces, Upion spared Photos, Gluos, Wees, and Zees, who the forces lovingly protected. Poor Higgia had no patronus and had to stay in quantum Void, a place of misery and torture, until someday maybe Upion will have some sympathy. Upion’s clan, however, stayed in power and continues to rule today.

There are many other stories involving the particles, from wonderful to disgusting to hilarious, but this here is just the story of how the world was created.

Advertisements

The Sexual Relations of Zeus

“For do not men regard Zeus as the best and most righteous of the gods?” —Euthyphro (from Plato’s dialogues)

Well, of all aspects, there is one characteristic that Zeus clearly was best in: lasciviousness. Whether the Greeks also thought it was righteous or not, the sheer volume of sexual activity that Zeus participated in is dazzling. I decided to try to make a list and see how large it would be.

To start off, he married his sisters Demeter and Hera (his only other sister, Hestia, must have not been one of his wives only because she couldn’t marry), his aunt Mnemosyne, his cousin Leto, another of his cousins’ daughter Dione, and yet another of his cousins’ daughter Maia. Close relatives aside, he also married some not-so-related females: Semele, Alcmene, and Io (the granddaughter of two siblings that after marriage produced over three thousand sons and daughters). He also married Themis, Eurynome, Europa, and Metis, the last of which he swallowed after marriage (Metis, while in Zeus’ stomach, gave birth to Athena, who later exited Zeus’ body via his skull). That covers all of his marriages, but he also had other sexual pursuits: for one, he had an affair with his daughter Aphrodite, and some Greek sources say a curse by Hera caused them to give birth to Priapos, a god that was deformed in the shape of a penis. He went after Asteria but was not successful. As a swan, he had an affair with Nemesis, and he also produced one child with Hybris and two children with Selene, as well as an unspecified amount of offspring with the ninth muse Calliope. He accidentally impregnated his grandmother, Gaea, twice (also to note, Zeus’ father Cronos came about when Gaea married her son Uranus). He pursued Persephone twice, once in the world and once in the underworld. He also went after Thetis but dropped the pursuit when it was prophesized that she will give birth to a son greater than whoever the father would be. Zeus also abducted the Naiad Aigina for sexual purposes. Although he married Maia, as listed many lines above, he also had sexual relations with two other Pleides: Electra and Taygete. He also seduced Aix, Deino, Himalia, Hora, Callirhoe, Carme, Othreis, Plouto, Sinope, and Thaleia, as well as an unnamed African Nymph. Gods aside, Zeus also had sexual affairs with 20 mortals, including one male, Ganymede, a prince ofTroy. The other 19 were Lysithea, the Hellenics Pandora, Protogeneia, and Thyia, Antiope of Boeotia, Callisto of Arcadia, Cassiopeia of Crete, Danae of Argos, Dia of Thessalia, Elara of Orkhomenos, Eurymedousa of Phthiotis, Kalyke of Elis, Lamia of Libya, Laodemia of Lykia, Leda of Lakedaimonia, Nioba of Argolis, Olympias of Macedonia, Pyrrha the wife of Deukalion, and Phthia of Aegion. Thus, Zeus had sexual relations with a total of at least 57 others, a number of exceeds the number of Achaean deaths in the Iliad. It is certainly an outstanding achievement by the best and most righteous of the gods.

Iliad: The Statistics

In the Iliad, there are a total of 263 mentioned deaths (52 on the Achaean side and 211 on the Trojan side), and here’s a graph showing the number of deaths by chapter.

Additionally, if you’re interested in where the fatal blow happens, here’s a chart, excluding deaths for which the location of the fatal blow is completely unspecified and the five instances where people got bonked in the head by rocks, etc.

Also, Diomedes is notable for producing the most carnage, killing 30 Trojans, wounding one of them in addition, wounding two gods, and only getting wounded himself once.

Thermodynamics, that old Game, and a Parody

Around this time last year, I realized (and announced in a Facebook post) an interesting link between the laws of thermodynamics and the rules of The Game (which for sure by now is old? according to what happened at NCCQM, apparently not). Here is the analogy, which clearly shows that the inventor of this game must have been suffering from the depressing physics topic of thermodynamics.

The zeroth law of thermodynamics states that two systems in thermal equilibrium with a third system are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This describes the method by which participation in the Game is transmitted, and also explains the high contagiousness of the game: all that is required is a piquing of interest. In other words, the zeroth law of thermodynamics is the first rule of The Game, a person is playing The Game once (s)he knows about it.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. There is always one state of total energy amount allowed, just like there is only one option in the game—to lose it. Winning is an impossibility, which is the third rule of The Game.

The second law of thermodynamics states that heat is never voluntarily transferred from a hot body to a cold body. Only this direction of progression happens, and happens very often; it’s actually happening everyone and you can really only avoid this very depressing law of nature by not thinking about it. The second rule of The Game states that whenever you think about the game, you lose The Game.

The third law of thermodynamics states that entropy (and beautiful perfection) can only be zero at absolute zero, which never happens anyway. Thus, you could theoretically get a respite from this game-losing, but it is physically impossible. The fourth rule of The Game states that you can never quit The Game. 

Now, it has actually been an entire year (!) since I have written a parody, so here is a bit of cheer on this dreadful subject.

Parody of Lady Gaga’s “Edge of Glory”

(I’m attaching it as a picture since here in WordPress pressing enter creates these weird spaces between lines automatically.)

Isomorphisms between Knowledge and Money

Of course, knowledge isn’t very well-defined, but at least one reasonable definition of knowledge is pretty analogous to money. I am referring to the property of knowledge that allows you to make knowledge off of knowledge—knowledge-based interest. Even if you do not learn new things, you could philosophically toss around the knowledge in your mental bank and arrive at new conclusions from it that add to your knowledge—a rather small amount since only mental interpolation works to make new knowledge—but enough to be called “interest.” Notice that if you also use interest knowledge to produce more knowledge for yourself instead of just relying on your original amount, it is advantageous to your knowledge gain because you are compounding your knowledge interest rather than accepting simple interest.

Of course, just relying on this philosophical increase doesn’t really up your knowledge that much, so in your process of learning, you build up a mental annuity account, every once in a while depositing in an approximately equal amount of new material into your mental bank. (K is knowledge in the formula below.)

Since n is the compounding time, you can see that thinking more with your new deposits of money ends up earning you more in the long term, but the particular accumulation process of the knowledge annuity mental account is what helps you gain the most knowledge-based interest eventually.

The unfortunate result is that for knowledge, just as it is for money, the initial stage is the most difficult: once a knowledge account (or, a brain) has been going for quite a while, it builds momentum from the interest (notice, momentum is force times time, and that’s basically how interest works, the force proportional to the mass of money times the power of time the account has existed) and quickly makes you more knowledge (not to mention the morale and accessibility increases when you win competitions and earn stuff and fame). Thus, like dealing with money, the first stages of knowledge are the toughest. It is sadly drastically advantageous to start early, as the only instance of time in the knowledge annuity formula is in the exponent of the numerator, and the nation is horrendously inclined to celebrate prodigy. Fortunately, there are other things to pursue in life, like alternative definitions of knowledge.

Note one interesting question: it has doubtless been remarked that money corrupts. And knowledge, like money, is a general base from which a lot of connections happen. Does knowledge corrupt? It is well known that knowledge can be used for bad deeds, but does it happen at the degree that money does? Or does money not really corrupt that much? It would be interesting if one day people note an overwhelming parallel between knowledge and money and decide to refinance their moralistic views on the subjects. This is an interesting subject to explore (unfortunately, it would be done with knowledge, and possibly money; don’t you love recursion?).

One more thing: one mathematics teacher once gave the sarcastic joke that money is equal to work over knowledge, thus showing that money and knowledge are inversely related. Of course, he said it was sarcastic, as intuition confirms, but one must be rigorous in their proofs, and here we must somehow derive that it is actually not the case to be fully confident on the conclusion. What we have found is that money and knowledge are both quantities that accumulate via interest as well as deposit (let’s call it an “interesting” quantity), but work is most definitely just a deposit (let’s call it a “dull” quantity, since that word starts with the same letter as deposit). Thus, multiplying both sides by knowledge (and considering both the money times knowledge possibility and the knowledge times money possibility in case interesting multiplication is not commutative), we see that the product of two interesting quantities gives a dull quantity. We know this can’t happen, because interest can’t spontaneously generate in the highly oxidative academic atmosphere of modern day. Thus, such “dot products” are invalid, proving that money truly isn’t work over knowledge, and the fault in the original reasoning is that we are comparing quantities that are isomorphic to different fruits (say, scalars and vectors).