So it’s again been a while since my last post, but I again have something to show for it.
*drum roll… with reverberation*
Here’s a page I put together to explain convolution reverb, an effect used by mix masters all over to add reverberation effects to sounds/songs that wouldn’t otherwise have them.
So it’s been a while since I’ve updated – I’ve been rather busy working on some projects. One of those projects, though this one has been done a while now, is a product for graphing concentrations of medications in your body over a 24 hour period.
It doesn’t take into account your bodyweight, nor does it take into account the specific medication other than the half-life, which you must enter yourself, but can be helpful for certain types of medications: ADD meds, pain killers, etc. The graphs displays blood levels of the med after 7 days.
Without further ado, MedGraph: copperthoughts.com/gmed
If there are specific features that you might find useful, post them here and they may be added. Also, bugs!
It’s been cold.
We’re having a warm spell right now, actually. It’s a warming -15º before, of course, you factor in the wind chill.
But I try to look on the bright side: it keeps my brain sharp, my step brisk and my expectations low.
I’m writing to share a little mathematical proof I was reminded of today. Stay with me here, even if math’s not your thing. You might find it interesting… it goes like this:
Starting with the number 1, add consecutive odd integers. Simple, huh?
A pattern begins to emerge from this… see if you can find it.
a = 12, b = 22, c = 32, d = 42 ...
If this is true for as far as you go with the pattern (that is, for 1 + 3 + 5 + … + the next odd integer = number of numbers on the left squared), that’d be sort of cool. But we haven’t proven that. Of course, we could prove it up to any particular odd number we wanted by actually doing the computation, but if I were to ask you to do that for the number 10000000009, you might not be inclined to write that out. So let’s prove it for all numbers. And let’s do it without any more words (aside from my brief explanation of the cryptic symbols I’ll use to “draw” the proof)…
[X and O are representations of a unit square. For all intents and purposes, X = O, but I use two different characters to make the diagram easier to read.]
X = 1
XO
OO = 4
XOX
OOX = 9
XXX
etc...
1357...
XOXO ...
OOXO ...
XXXO ...
OOOO ...
....
....
....
You can hopefully see from these crude little drawings that if you add an odd number of X (or O) to the square, you get another square. And that other square happens to be the next possible square you could make. You can also see that it only requires two more X (or O), plus the number added before it, to make another square. Since odd numbers are spaced two apart (1 + 2 = 3, 3 + 2 = 5, etc), we cover all odd numbers in this fashion, and all squares.
Time to burrow into 6 layers of blankets…
A Space with a view is always a more productive Space than one without.
Whenever I have to get a lot of work done, work that requires more thinking than actual physical action (such as working on a piece of writing or attempting to untangle a mathematical Gordian knot), I need some kind of open area nearby. It doesn’t have to be bright (I love working at night or the early morning) but ideally it’s outdoors and interesting.
Rules and guidelines to further your understanding of a Good View:
• It is not to be examined and observed, rather, it is to be appreciated subconsciously.
• This appreciation will occur while “zoning” out; looking at nothing in the Good View in particular, and not actively thinking about the Good View.
• The Good View should not be a distraction from work, but a conduit through which inspiration flows.
• Physical separation in the form of a window or some distance from the Good View is not required, but encouraged. This prevents “participation” in the space; actively appreciating or observing the Good View, to the detriment of your work.
• Noise should not emanate from the Good View, unless the noise could be categorized as background noise; sounds are a part of the environment: trickling water from the rusty pipes of an abandoned warehouse, birdsong, frequent and predictable gunshots (from silenced weaponry), jazz music from a dusty distant Victrola, and other such subliminal input.
Though the view is rather important, so is the Space. Like the view, there are rules to help you find a Space for you. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t an essentially infinite array of Spaces, but it does mean that there are many places which are not Spaces.
Rules and guidelines to aid in your search for a Space:
• The Space must match your aesthetic; a place has got to feel right, and if it doesn’t, you’ll know immediately. Personally, I’m a fan of coffee shops, libraries, my room and secluded towers. Beaches are nice, too.
• The Space must have a nearby place to empty your bladder. (This is key.)
• For many this may not apply; for me it does: a source of the sacred elixir (coffee) must be close.
• A power outlet is generally required, be it for music and or your computer.
• People must not continuously interact with you, and people you are compelled to frequently interact with must not be too close.
• Ambient noise must be considered – consider as much as much as you can tolerate, then cut that amount in half. That shall be deemed a good amount.
Next time you need to get work done, consider where you’re trying to get that work done. With a Space and a Good View, much is possible.
My first term back at school has just wrapped up, and I’m spending the early morning reading about – what else? – qubits and quantum computing. This looks like the next big field, if it’s not already.
This excellent little article by one of the leaders in the field (Michael Nielsen) is easy enough to understand, but provides some solid details, too.
Perhaps this is the union of math and computer science I’m looking for? Looks like I may be well-served by taking a number of physics courses, soon.