The energy vortex

Undergraduate Tripos final year results

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:13:03 GMT

First class honours to me!

I'm almost certainly not graduating, so that I can more cheaply take a fourth year MMath.

Probabilistic Combinatorics (Random Counting)!

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:48:17 GMT

Here is a question sheet I wrote, for anyone interested. It's quite elementary, but fast-paced. Questions/corrections welcome.

<3

Prob Comb 2009 questions

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Study Guides, Notes, School Work

EDIT: Q4 should say "find a lower bound".

UKIMO training

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:20:11 GMT

I may possibly be talking at the UK IMO team training camp at Trinity over Easter. I will be doing one of the following topics in an elementary manner. People who want me to practice on them are welcome to ask. Only comfort with secondary-level mathematics is necessary, though some experience with competitive mathematics will be of use.

1) The real Riemann zeta function as a distribution and its properties.
2) Probabilistic combinatorics, looking at applications to graphs and hypergraphs.

Results.

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:16 GMT

2:i

Hmm. Should have done better. Oh well.

I have funding!

Tue, 27 May 2008 22:07:18 GMT

Specifically, I will be working, if things go to plan, with Imre Leader on The Neighbourhood Conjecture. I am getting 1/5 or so of the money I'd get on an internship, and I may have a high probability of proving absolutely nothing [original], but oh well!

There are many [equivalent, which I shall prove for myself at an early stage] statements of the open problem, but it basically comes up in the topic of Hypergraph Games.

The idea of such a game, in its fully finite form, is quite simple - you have a set, and you have subsets of this set which are called "winning lines". Two players take turns claiming the points of the set, and the first player to claim an entire winning line wins. An alternative version of the game has the first player trying to win this way, and the second player only wins if when all the points in the set are claimed the first player has not won. This is called "maker-breaker".

An example of such a game is playing Noughts and Crosses on a 3-by-3 square board - the base set is the 3-by-3 grid, the winning lines are the eight three-in-a-row possibilities. We know this is a draw for normal play, but a win for first player under "maker-breaker" - try it out! Another example is noughts and crosses on a 3-by-3-by-3 board, which is a straightforward first-player win.

The easy way to state the problem is as follows: we look at games where winning lines are of fixed length, such as noughts and crosses (3), Gomoku (5), or three-dimensional four-in-a-row (4). If I am given a fixed length k for these lines, I want to consider games where the first player wins, and I want to simplify these in a very specific sense - I want to minimise the highest degree of any point involved, where the degree of a point is how many lines cross at it. Going back to the examples from earlier, 2D Noughts and Crosses has max degree 4, 3D has max degree 13, Gomoku has max degree 20, and 3D 4-in-a-row has some respectable number like 10. The current known lower bound is linear (by Hall polygamy) and the current known upper bound is exponential (by complete binary tree), so there's some room for improvement.

Incidentally, I'm already in the habit of talking about nhoods, even orally.

BBC2

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:06:15 GMT

http://www.channel4.com/blogs/page/fourdocs?entry=britdoc_british_feature

Any thoughts? The film will be broadcast on BBC2 on Sunday 14th October at 9pm.

(The film will mostly concern the three who got to the IMO itself, I think, to be honest.)

Incidental

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:20:49 GMT

First. I might have a chance in studying maths. Need to do better next year, though.

Need to investigate a summer research project.
1) Learn more algebra.
2) Find a pure fellow who does abstract algebra.
3) Find a project.
4) Get funding.

1 is the important one at the moment, need to talk to Anastasia about the elementary rings she's probing.

Any advice?

I don't think I'm very wise

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:51:14 GMT

xixi says:
u r wise,arent u
persona non grata says:
Um, some think so. What of it?
xixi says:
what wud be a good reason to break up with someone?
or do u need a reason to take such action at all?
say waht u think ,cong
persona non grata says:
The present relationship's setup is no longer representative of reality, or it is unsuitable, or it is inadequate. (I use reset-based relationship models.)
xixi says:
:P very helpfully(highly ironically just in case you didn't notice
I'd like to be in the world which you live in for sometime
just to see what it is like
persona non grata says:
I'm a Pure Mathematician, a Logician, and a Romantic Idealist.

How is that unhelpful, then?
I don't like hot-modify relationship models, but I suppose they can be wrapped for consistency.
xixi says:
too abstract to apply to the real situition
you are cute
persona non grata says:
Basically, if the relationship's understandings and assumptions no longer hold, it no longer exists, so the people involved are broken up. More specific?
xixi says:
specify understandings and assumptions
you mean mutual agreements between two ppl involved?
persona non grata says:
They should be specified and mutually understood at the initial formal recognition of such a relationship. I mean those and others.
xixi says:
under what conditions wud it be reasonable for one of the two individuals to initiate a break-up?
time for bed
persona non grata says:
One of them feels like it - relationships are founded on mutual agreement, and evaporate if that is lacking.
Okay. Night!

I like cuddles.

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:49:17 GMT

When I was in year 7/8 I knew lots of trivia about natural sciences, as one does from reading. My science/biology teacher took a friend and me aside at the end of one lesson and said something like "You think you're good scientists because you know lots of facts. You're really not good scientists at all."

He was right. I got better.

persona non grata says:
Hello.
(L) Jamie (L) says:
hi
persona non grata says:
Are you acquainted with the problem of induction, as mentioned by Hume?
(L) Jamie (L) says:
don't think so
persona non grata says:
Go study it.
(L) Jamie (L) says:
why
persona non grata says:
The quest to be shown wrong. Are you, an aspiring chemist, on it?
+
(L) Jamie (L) says:
on what?
persona non grata says:
The quest to be shown wrong.
(L) Jamie (L) says:
ermmx not really
i don't exactly have a quest
persona non grata says:
Well, it's a fallacy you're committing. Knowledge would help you quit.
(L) Jamie (L) says:
i don't want to quit tho
i'm quite happy doing what i'm doing
persona non grata says:
What would make you want to be better educated?
(L) Jamie (L) says:
ermmx i will be whn i get into uni
persona non grata says:
And right now you have no motivation for becoming better educated?
(L) Jamie (L) says:
to get into uni would be the motivation i spose
persona non grata says:
Nothing else at all?
(L) Jamie (L) says:
ermmx not really

Argh, amateur philosophy

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:41:24 GMT

I'm ignorant, and would appreciate correction - though often it might be easier and more helpful to cite something which corrects me (I've found a few myself that I'll look up when I get back, but more don't hurt.).

me: Hello.

Gregory: Hello, Vol.

me: How are you?

Do you know much about philosophy of mathematics or science? I don't.

Gregory: I'm fairly well. Life has been keeping me incredibly busy by throwing opportunities into my path that I have been 'carpe'-ing as best as I can.

And about the philosophy of mathematics and science... that sounds a lot like late 18th and early 19th century science.

When scientists were called 'natural philosophers'

and science was seen as some way of trying to discern a set of natural laws through reason.
me: I had a rather frustrating conversation, and on further thought I'd like a critique of my own statements, at least a few of which were probably suspect.

Gregory: Okay.

I don't have to be out of here for about 2 hours, and so long as I get a bit more reading done at some point in there I can do other stuff too.

That's the advantage to getting up early, really.

me: Okay, thanks!

Gregory: Hmm. Interesting claim there, midway through.

Your debatee says that he prefers facts over assumptions and therefore wouldn't like philosophy.
I think his definition of 'fact' is rather different than yours.

me: Her - please, tell me more.

Gregory: Ah. Excuse me. Her definition.

Well, you say that maths would be better than chemistry as far as accumulation of fact goes.

She responds with the claim that experimentation leads to fact and so chemistry isn't so fact-free as one might think.

This means, at least to me, that she's an empiricist. A fact is what can be reasonably assumed with some degree of evidentiary burden of proof for backup.

Not just a mathematical absolute proven by equations and formulae.
And my assumption is backed up by the ensuing argument about maths.

Your statement of fact is one of a philosopher, by the way.
No necessary absolute truth.
Just state a claim, and then proceed from that claim on unquestionable ground, and you end up with fact.

Which, if you think about it, is basically the exact same thing as an experiment.

You start with an idea, neither fact nor fiction, and then proceed through unquestionable ground via experimentation to a conclusion about the fact/fiction relationship of the idea to the world.

me: I don't think your parallel holds.

Gregory: No?

me: No.

At least, her "unquestionable" conclusions are very weak - along the lines of "No experiment to date has shown that gravitational attraction is not proportional to the masses involved."
Gregory: Mm. Well, let me keep reading, then.

I'm offering comment as I go through and pausing to do so.

me: Thank you.

I may well misstep - please point out such problems.

Gregory: Right. Well, on the basis of the first conversation I think that you and she are looking at fact in slightly different ways based on what it is that you end up doing.

One of the reasons why I say this is because I view fact as something else from either of you, and I suspect it's because my discipline of choice is history.

Your definition of fact is what she labels 'assumptions.' We can take that as understood, since there would not be the argument about facts otherwise.

me: Curiously enough, what she calls facts are what I'd label assumptions.

Gregory: Yep.
That's about the size of it.

And I think my point here is going to be that what you two are looking at are the same thing. By virtue of the nature of maths and science both it is necessary that what you call fact be an assumption of some sort.

Now whether it can or can't be fact and assumption at the same time, I don't think I can say.
But that your facts be at least in some part assumption... that I think I can say.

me: I don't think so - maths says nothing that isn't a contingent tautology.

Gregory: Mm.
And that's where you and she part company in the debate.
See, a 'contigent tautology' can quite easily be seen as in some part assumption.

me: How so?

Gregory: You said "With maths I define the things I'm
dealing with, and my conclusions are necessarily true by virtue of
being tautologous."

The key point there is that you definine what you're going to start with and go from there.,
Yes, the conclusion holds formation with that which comes before it.

me: Hmm, I should take that back and set up a better logical model.

Gregory: But that doesn't mean that your initial definitions are guaranteed to produce a fact in line with the natural model.

me: In fact, I do.

Mathematics is the subject of considering the contingent conclusions arising in certain arbitrary axiom systems.

Gregory: Hmm. Perhaps. Though I still think that the boundry between scientific experimentation and logical progression of thought is a very small and blurry thing.

Here's a question for you:

From your point of view, where does an experiment diverge from an abstract construct of logic?

Is there any reason why I can't say that logic is just an experiment conducted entirely in someone's head or on paper?

me: Hmm, I've seen two formalisations of scientific thought. One is probabilistic, the other is completely assumption-based.

There isn't - gedankenexperimente exist. I think the distinction is in the conclusions of the experiments and their motivation. Maths has no concern with reality.

Gregory: You are so right. Maths does have no concern with reality. But I digress, tongue firmly in cheek. Back to the discussion.

Gregory: I think that if you look at it, the point where maths truly becomes a realm apart from reality is a fairly high-end area. And at that point, science becomes fairly diverged from observable reality as well, since it's getting into such things as quantum physics, radical state-based chemistry, and microbiology and the genome.

So if you think that science is a bit messy, I encourage you to look a little farther.

me: Hmm, I disagree. Maths never claims to be founded in reality, and science always tries to be tied to observations - string theory is just waiting for engineering to catch up, the biological sciences are firmly reality-based.

Gregory: Hmm. Only to a certain point of view.

How real is the genome?
Scientists say it is.
They point to how it is expressed.

me: Oh? Deny me.

Even Euclidian geometry doesn't hold in any real space.

Gregory: But the point is that it's a concept which is really only proveable by science, and fairly abstract science at that.

me: It's not proved.

Gregory: Math may not claim to be founded in reality, and may not hold in any real space, but it's just as.... unique to those who pursue it.

me: And I know, as scientists know, that the human genome is probably 0.1% +/- 0.1% wrong.
Gregory: No, it's not properly 'proved.' as you say.

me: I suspect that "unique" isn't a good word - what point were you looking to raise?

Gregory: To get to high-end maths one must be a mathmatician. The abstractions and quite frankly arcane rules governing the setup and execution of high-end maths are really only useable by those who already know what they're doing. An average lay-person can be shown the formulae, the graphs, and the whole shebang but isn't going to follow much beyond recognizing the few numbers actually present and understanding that the whole thing is math.

That same statement may be made about science.

And so, although you see a difference in grounding in reality or not, I think that it's a fairly minor point at the level where it makes a difference.

me: Mathematics is all arcane.

Not quite - I can at least understand the conclusions of something like this monster - [Note: edited out mispaste]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9522427&dopt=Citation
There.

Gregory: Really?
Let me try something, then.

Yep, it applies to reality just fine.

2 pens plus 2 pens does in fact still equal 4 pens.

There comes a point in math where reality and math go down the two different paths in the woods, but up to that point math is applicable.

me: I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the claim that maths applies to reality is science, not maths.

Gregory: Interesting. And quite possibly correct.

But can you dispute that math began as a series of observations with some abstract thought to connect one observed reality with another?

me: Furthermore, this applicability is largely incidental - if you don't listen to the impure lot of applied mathematicians around.

I cannot, but I need not worry about the beginnings of a subject.

Gregory: And what do I need with a paper on tuberculosis mortality as connected with aids?

See, I think you do need to worry about its beginnings.
If only so that I can show you that science began there as well.
And is about as far away from reality in its theoretical gyrations as math is.
It's just that nobody's bothered to remind math that we'll catch up to it one day.

me: Which theoretical gyrations of science are you talking about?

Gregory: Have you looked at quantum physics lately? It's scientists trying to figure out how to make the word "perhaps" scientifically acceptable. They've painted themselves into a theoretical corner where they either have to accept that reality is mutable or back out and try all over again.

And they still don't know what to call light.
People are working on all kinds of base definitions of light and going different places with it.

me: I'm pretty sure your information is a couple of decades out of date. Feel free to show me to be wrong - cite away.

Gregory: It may well be several decades out of date. I never got far enough into quantum physics to find the edge.

But no matter what, the scientists are still out there ahead of reality, trying to figure out what the working system they've created actually implies.

And the great part is it doesn't really matter.
It will have meaning later, but so will the high end maths.

me: Actually, there you are wrong - science tells us the limits of techology, and thus matters.

Gregory: Oh, and math doesn't?

Where, by the way, does computer science fall?

me: Anyway, this is a very interesting digression, but where are we going?

Computer science is pure maths, but you aren't going to find a Turing machine in the known universe.

Gregory: Nope. But anyway, my point is and has been that science and math both view fact as something absolute, but by necessity there is some fuzz in their definition somewhere.

me: I don't think that science does view fact as something absolute. Where do you get that they do?

Gregory: You can't try to prove something without thinking it's an absolute, at least in a specific situation.

me: That's easily answered - science doesn't try.

Gregory: Hmm.
Let's try it a different way. Are there assumptions made in math?

me: What do you mean?

Gregory: Do you, in the course of performing math, make any assumptions?

me: Not really. Assumptions can be used in a) proofs by contradiction and b) contingent approximations.

The former are just assumptionless uses of Excluded Middle, and the latter are constructions of slightly different mathematical systems which are then proven to be reasonably compatible with a main one.

Gregory: Okay. So when you sit down to a proof you start from the beginning. And I mean the very beginning. And work from the beginning of all maths to where you can actually perform the proof, having first proven everything you need to prove the proof?
Gregory: Because otherwise you've made assumptions.

me: Yes.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/2p2e4.html
Here's a proof.

Gregory: Okay, that's good.

me: It's simplified a great deal by theorem citation, but that does not introduce assumptions.
Gregory: No, I agree entirely.

me: Um, so where were we?

Gregory: I'm still beating my head against my desk trying to find a way to get you to see that although you see a large difference between math and science and their respective definitions of 'fact', that there really isn't as much as you'd suspect.

And that it's that very thing which made you and her see each other's definitions as being more assumption and less fact.

me: I'm going to suggest that there is actually that difference as I see.

Gregory: Okay, you see a scientific 'fact' as being an assumption because... why?

me: Science does not and cannot establish definitive positives about reality (What it establishes in its models are undisputably fact, they're just all wrong.) The two main models of science get around this by allowing science to establish things, but running with them as assumptions.
Indisputably, sorry.

Gregory: ...
Interesting.

Gregory: My one problem with all that is this statement: "Science does not and cannot establish definitive positives about reality "
Whether it can or it can't, Math cannot either. You admitted so yourself.
So how does that further your argument that there is a difference between definitions of fact and assumption?

me: I dispute that - while mathematics may not be tied in applicability to reality, it is directly derived from logic, which is innate to reality, and thus is itself true in reality, insofar as it says nothing.

Gregory: Okay, and how is science not innate to reality? Your statement about a direct derivation from logic being an innate tie to reality and by extension true, is a bit suspicious.
me: Science uses models, but those models aren't science.
I said science doesn't give facts.

Gregory: ... Okay, I rather suspect we'll be agreeing to disagree here. Your argument seems circular and quite frankly simply a rejection of what you don't want to hear. Science is only assumptions because it's not tied to reality by pure and ennobling logic and so it can't give facts. Math is a science, Vol. It may have cleaned up its image, but it came from the same place.

me: What do you mean, I'm simply rejecting what I don't want to hear? What have I said that is unsound or irrelevant?

It may well have come from the same place. That doesn't matter. I'm not dismissing science - I'm very interested in it and its philosophy

Gregory: The point of this debate is that (at least from my perspective) both math and the other branches of science do not have any exclusive claim to 'fact.' Assumptions are a part of deriving facts and are necessary to making heads or tails of what is otherwise just a sea of observable data. As far as I can tell, from your perspective math is a sacred endeavor which has a unique claim to truth, justice, and Mom's apple pie (or at least Truth) and assorted sciences are just messy businesses of guessing.

There may be some hyperbole there, but I think you get the drift.

And so my perspective says that what a 'fact' is has no bearing on whether or not it came from a logically supportable series of presumptions based on a definition given by the presumer.

That's all very nice and makes for a good refutation to those who say that your facts aren't so, but a fact does not have to be supported. It just can be.
me: Not exactly - I said nothing about uniqueness on the part of mathematics, for one thing. I claim that mathematics establishes fact. The conclusions are not fact - it's the deductions which are.

Not even supported by observation?

Gregory: What do you mean, not even supported by observation. What is or isn't?

me: You said "... but a fact does not have to be supported. It just can be."
I am definitely not making the [nonsensical claim in my opinion] that everything has a reason.

Gregory: Okay. I didn't say you were, either.

me: Can you respond to my "Not even supported by observation?", then?

Gregory: I'm still not sure what you mean by "Not even supported by observation?"

me: Okay. What is a fact that is not supported by deduction or observation?

Gregory: Hmm. Well, quite probably an unsupported fact. If challenged, it is a weak fact that must be supported, but unless challenged there's no reason to call it anything else.

me: Hmm. I think that is a nonsensical position to hold. How are you defining your facts, and is this definition commonly acceptable?

Gregory: Hmm. Where is the line between fact and assumption, then? I've put it all the way to one side, now where do you move it to?

me: I construct a trichotomy - facts (supported, irrefutable), assumptions (your unchallenged "weak facts") and refuted claims.
Assumptions, to clarify, stand until refuted, not until challenged for support.

Gregory: I divide it further: Fact (irrefutable), fact (supported but disputable), assumptions (reasonable), assumptions (unreasonable, and nonsense.

me: Aha. So in your classification my dividing line goes between your two classes of fact. Can you show yours to be more commonly accepted re: understanding of facts?

Gregory: A claim may be made that is true but not the entire truth. This is not a partial or incorrect fact because the fact itself is true, but there is more to the situation than that one fact displays. Your construction works in general, much like newtonian physics in that it still works fine until you need something more precise.

And my whole point here has been that this is one such situation.
That science has facts which are supported but disputable, a fact with a bit of assumption thrown in.
And math does as well.

me: Maths does? Prove it.

Newtonian mechanics may work fine, but it is wrong in the presence of anything at all. It never applies - not when there's something to apply it to, anyway.

Gregory: Eh. I don't know that I can.
I am no expert on maths.

me: Anyway, I think the issue is one of your more inclusive definition of "fact" - can you show it to be preferable?

Gregory: To a historian this is not just preferable but necessary.
And as far as science goes...I think it should still holed.
hold, rather.

me: Necessary? Science talks about observations (facts, irrefutable) and theories (assumptions, reasonable).

Gregory: Medical science works on the basis of facts which are supported but disputable, this is why we have multiple treatment options.

me: Actually, no. It works on the basis of facts which are supported and indisputable - and the (again, supported and indisputable) probabilistic information resulting.

me: http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/03/my_take_on_the_scientific_meth_1.php

This is an example. If you give me a month or so I'll have a handful of books to cite when I get back to my university.

Gregory: Okay.
Well, I need to be dressing and heading on to class anyway.
me: That was an interesting conversation.
Gregory: Yes, it was.
me: I think I maintained consistency throughout.
Gregory: Mm.
me: Well, later! Mind if I post this conversation up, by the way?
Gregory: Not at all.
me: Okay!

Gah, economics

Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:02:01 GMT

P: ( (-100, +inf), ~), given that a~b = (a+100)(b+100)/100 - 100

Do you agree that this is a pretty stupid group?

Ooh, reasoning (slightly personal)...

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:42:31 GMT

Arinellen says:
We can talk until I do what I need to.,
persona non grata says:
Well, I think you need to do a number of things, like resolve this matter.
Arinellen says:
I realise.
persona non grata says:
Do you agree?
Arinellen says:
Yes.
persona non grata says:
Okay.
persona non grata says:
Have you thought of anything?
Arinellen says:
Not particularly. I think I want to talk things out with reaps but I haven't had time to talk to him. We were both playing games tonight. Anyway, love and goodnight.

Arbitrary matters.

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:52:09 GMT

I verify this and confirm all of it. Those with an interest in my integrity would be advised to read.

Edit:
[15:54:56] persona non : No problem! How are you?
[15:55:19] Bethan- "Thi: Fine, thanks. You?
[15:55:26] persona non : Not bad!
[21:08:09] persona non : How long are you likely to stay at your
present address?
[21:08:36] * Bethan- "Think of me as an anomaly within an
impossibility, and get on with your tea." is now Online
[21:08:50] Bethan- "Thi: Meaning my house?
[21:09:03] persona non : Indeed.
[21:10:31] Bethan- "Thi: Um, until I go to Uni. Otherwise, for a very
long time anyway, since we've just had a new bathroom put
in and two rooms knocked into one in lieu of moving.
[21:10:47] persona non : Mmm-hmm. May I use your address as a contact
address?
[21:11:18] Bethan- "Thi: Sure. What for, exactly?
[21:11:40] persona non : Sixth Form Yearbook. Putting my home address
would be quite pointless.
[21:13:01] persona non : If not, no problem. If so, may I have it?
[21:15:30] Bethan- "Thi: Sure.

EDIT: I apologise for my conduct, didn't intend to hurt her or take advantage of her except using her as a contact address. I am responsible for the actions, which are as detailed in the cited post above, and their consequences.

Mutual friends

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:17:43 GMT

In alphabetical order.

_kuku_, I don't know. All I recall about you is a connection with Madi, whom I rather miss, as I fear to talk with people adept in things but far more skilled than I, such as abi_dierecte, as I fear that would be wasting their time.

abi_dierecte, you're in part what I hope to be [and so I hope you will correct me if my perception of you is wrong] - someone able and dedicated to learning (and video games) and seriously good at it. I look at your posts and hope that my future will be like that, though I will choose different disciplines for myself.

alliancesjr, I'm not very well acquainted with you, though I am curious as to whether I can get you to play BFG on occasion. Your stories are interesting and generally fairly unobjectionable, and you give interesting advice, which is excellent.

armygeek, you've made me proud of myself and amused at my conduct, without being actually involved in the event. Your distancing is interesting, though as a consequence I don't know you very well and you seem to be somewhat ... non-open as far as explaining things goes.

auntpol, I love you - and learn from you. You're someone I misjudge regularly, leading to strange enforcements. I do think, though, that you're intelligent (though not in the inspiring form I favour) enough to choose for yourself and you're possibly my most conventional friend by that definition - my regard for you remains fairly consistent despite disappointments, and I can hardly deny treating you ill on many occasions myself.

bethan_b_bad, you are cute and adorable - and take care of me, which is much appreciated. As far as I know, you are indeed pretty and not fat, and the attempts to imbue me with tact and similar social qualities are appreciated. You're also sensible and reasonable, which makes you a reliable and excellent friend.

bloodied_aura, you're interesting and intelligent. We haven't spoken that much of late, but that's not really a consequence of faults. I'd like to get to know you better again; particularly now that you appear to have acquired a surprising amount of sense.

bloody_petals, you're mature. I can, however, occasionally outclass you in some things. This reminds me: there are some things about which I'd like to quiz you.

buggeration, you are awesome, reliable, trusted and just a little scary. I got 67 seconds on Solitaire yesterday, by the way, so I think I'm one second off your achievement. You're sensible and choose interesting courses, which though not to my taste (Cambodia is hot!) make you more interesting. You're also sincere and amusing; I respond poorly to the latter, I admit, but I truly am amused often in conversation with you.

caketime, you're calming and nice, though your voice does sound a little harsh. You give me interesting insight into teenage life and human character, though, since I'm even more atypical than you. Worry less, please.

castaboras, you're not stupid, though I'd possibly advise less terming your friends that. You're probably the most mundane journal on my friends list, which is quite a quality.

chrestomanci, your posts, even the particularly despondent ones, brighten up my journal and make it especially interesting. I don't grunt incoherently to everyone, you know! You're also helpful and friendly, though I don't know you well. The instructions are a nice touch, though: but I think I'll stay away from courting you. That won't be hard, since I'm still afraid of hugging you.

spacemonkymafia, you're a general LJ friend of reasonable interest. I might pounce on one of your posts one day, from which a more personal relationship may - or may well not - develop.

emma_tmmm, you amuse me. I don't think your posts excessive or boring, even when they stretch my friends page due to the big pictures of strange beasts. You also look my image of an old maid, though your beauty is unfaded. I suppose I shall wish you luck in various of your pursuits.

eofs, you're something I have no interest in being. You make it interesting, though, and I read it.

episkopos, the screening irritates me, as does any vagueness you manifest. I think you're more in risk of falling into pseudointellectual territory than I, which is saying something.

fernwithy, I think of you as a librarian despite encountering you via fandom and only having your fandom journal friended. Your essays, when I can muster the energy to read them (which is most of the time I'm visiting my friends page) are well-thought-out and nice. Even the rants are unobjectionable.

fractia, I consider you weird.

free_nuide, reading about your days and life is nice, and your spelling no longer repulses me. We have few things in common, but I like you.

gibbous, you're a mystery to me. Do you still use IM?

hashire, some of your behaviour is unexplained and seems ill-motivated and ill-justified. Some of your behaviour irritates me.

hopelessutopian, I hold some small amount of disdain for your personality. This is probably mutual.

incomplet_, a game of chess, please.

kageotogi, I'm still just watching your posts warily.

kalinalea, I suppose I'm just a fairly weak almost-fan. Be well.

kittyface, the MSN issue annoys me but oh well. You outclass me, and I wish you well.

kntckyfrdbnbn, glad to be able to amuse you. Your profile still leaves me many avenues of attack, mind. Consider yourself poked. While you're about it, try acquiring some dedication - or at least dropping a little of the perverse amusement.

8cake, you are love and hugs and the occasional introspective discussion. Be smiled upon and at.

arinellen, you are my friend. An old friend, with the most important superlatives of any acquaintance of mine, and she to whom I always wish to talk. I rather miss you, as it happens, and I doubt that you'll read this, but oh well. You've taught me many things, and are my confidante - though I don't make my personal issues confidential.

love_just_is15, don't underestimate yourself, relax, understand that I don't try to attack you and learn to answer questions asked out of curiosity, or you'll likely meet some so-called intellectual less merciful than me. While we're on the subject, try to stick to saying things you mean and understand; this includes quotations.

maexle, to you, I'm a total failure. I apologise for reneging on my word to do things, and am sorry.

marmot_pie, out of all the people here save Danica I'd like to phone you most. Also, I am still curious about the legendary rants/essays/spontaneous outbursts.

marxipan_xlii, could you possibly be a little less selfish?

mdisley, I hope I learn to focus better than you.

nasty_shrew, I meant the things I said, even if Drama Queenly. I also like Courier New, and find you charming as ever. I am still at your service, protective or otherwise. I do wish you'd be a little more reliable, though. Your life I'm curious about, and I enjoy our conversation. You're quite an adorable girl.

osmandias, you tie with buggeration as my most trusted person. It is very strange, though, to see you squee. A little worrying too. Would you like a phone call?

oxfordgirl, you're brilliant and allegedly sexy. I'm not, and look up to you for it.

patternsofchaos, I still think you a genius.

penchaft, you are awesome and inscrutable. But you hug and utilise equals-sign-smilies, and this makes it all less frightening. I'm glad I don't really utilise sociopathic techniques, I doubt they'd be effective with respect to you.

peppa_minto, you used to be one of my close friends. These days I miss you.

periazhad, talk with me.

reaps, you're good. Sometimes when I think of you I laugh at myself. Have a drink of water.

redmapletree, I miss our conversations and games of chess. I am wary of further pestering you, though. In any case, I wish you wonder.

rock_n_write, various things about you I find frustrating because I can think of actions which I would have considered far superior.

schnouzi, you have a dog. I know little else about you.

sharps, I read your journal for incidental interest and a narrative style I don't find elsewhere.

tattered_pinion, you're probably my most regular opponent, and an interesting person besides, though I personally, for some reason, don't see fit to probe your character. Our contrasts in approach to people and the like are very interesting to look at, though.

uno_marsch, you can be thoughtful. On the other hand, we have few interests in common.

uruserce, I like hearing you talk about yourself very much. I also like encountering you and being encountered by you on other journals. That said, I have a desire to fly over and hug you.

xeillseyant, you amuse me in curious ways.

1. Concede. This isn't very satisfying as it doesn't demonstrate much understanding on your part, but will get you out of the corner.
2. Ask for counsel. I'm rarely hostile and if asked for help will immediately regress to friendliness.
3. Postpone discussion. This isn't a solution, but will give you time to relax and think.
4. Withdraw problematic statements and keep going. This is, in my opinion, the best way to go about matters. A summary after the withdrawal may help to keep things clear.

For Jenna

Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:31:13 GMT

patternsofchaos is a genius, I assert.

(Crossed with email from volandum@gmail.com.)
Hello dear,

I missed you and our conversations much also, and certainly have not been trying to avoid you; in fact I've been rather fearing as much on your part.

Be loved, and may we speak much soon!

Volandum

If arinellen reads this, I will be most surprised and delighted.

ego

Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:33:40 GMT

Cong: A dream of mine is that someday someone will be so envious of my divers skills that she will learn everything I know and then summarily thrash me, which will of course be motivation for me to go and learn more.

I am incompetent!

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:01:47 GMT

Now we've established that, who's up for a game of chess?

Also, and most irrelevantly, a fair assumption to make about me is one of intelligent ignorance; and another is that I miss you. amandi estis, after all.

quaesivi;

Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:43:22 GMT

intellego