Talking Heads Moment

Another random moment of music.  I’m on a Talking Heads kick as of late.

Amanda’s doc on the web

Amanda’s final NYU documentary is now on the web!  Thanks to Neil Houghton for the web work.  It’s password protected, so if you want access, leave me a message, and I’ll provide you with the necessary info.

Here’s the link:

THE STAINED-GLASS CEILING

TV pilot for a nerdirific show!

My friend Jen Dziura, who co-hosts both the Williamsburg Spelling Bee and the Chelsea Mind Games, recently filmed a pilot for a Sci-Fi Channel reality show involving brainy people channeling their cerebral powers to solve everyday problems.

In the pilot (included below), Jen shows you how you can use logic to hog a dessert and still come across as considerate.

She and her fellow nerds also tackle the ins and outs of finding the perfect parking space in a Los Angeles parking lot.  I enjoyed that part, but mostly, I was glad that I no longer live in Los Angeles, where I suffered endless headaches from navigating through small, crowded parking lots (and got more practice parallel parking than I ever thought possible).

Among Jen’s teammates are a man with a 190+ IQ, a woman with a Ph.D. in Robotics and Engineering, another with a Ph.D. specializing in human behavior, and a tech entrepreneur.

Check out the pilot and bump up the view count!  Sit back and enjoy…

BRAIN TRUST!

Math Problem Cracked, Part 2

As you recall from my blogpost a few days ago, I found a few solutions to the following fun math problem:

Solve this problem, using each of the digits 1 through 9 exactly once:

_ _ _ + _ _ _ – _ _ _ = 0

**Note: There’s more than one answer. Can you come up with all of them?? Or at least one of them?**

I noticed that the digits of the largest of the three numbers always added to 18, and I set about trying to prove unequivocally that in ALL solutions to this problem, the largest number’s digits must add up to 18.

Well…I finally did it!  Here’s the proof:

I called the hundreds digits of the smaller two numbers a1 and a2, then b1 and b2 for the tens, then c1 and c2 for the units. Then I called the hundreds, tens, and units digits of the biggest number x, y, and z, respectively.

So it looks like this:

a1b1c1
+ a2b2c2
———-
= x y z , where each is a distinct digit 1 through 9

The formal equation would be…

Equation 1:

100(a1 + a2) + 10(b1 + b2) + (c1 +c2) = 100x + 10y + z, where each variable is a  distinct digit 1 through 9.

It’s also true that…

Equation 2:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + x + y + z = 45

(since the first 9 positive integers add up to 45)

First, I’m going to prove by contradiction that we can have one and only one column in which we’ll end up carrying a 1 (you’ll see why later)…

And for the record, only a 1 can end up being carried, because the greatest possible total for a column happens if the second column is 8 + 9 plus a carried 1, which is less than 20.

We can’t end up carrying three 1s, since the hundreds column won’t add up to anything 10 or greater. That means we can potentially carry zero, one, or two 1s.

So, let’s assume we never carry a 1. That means that:

a1 + a2 = x
b1 + b2 = y
c1 + c2 = z

Combine those to form:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) = x + y + z

But we know from Eq. 2 that:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + x + y + z = 45

That would mean that x + y + z = 22.5

But we know that x, y, and z are all integers, so they can’t add up to a non-integer, and we therefore have a contradiction.

Similarly, let’s assume we carry two 1s. That means that:

a1 + a2 = x – 1
b1 + b2 = (y + 10) – 1 = y + 9
c1 + c2 = z + 10

Combine those to form:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) = x + y + z + 18

Again, from Eq. 2, we know that:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + x + y + z = 45

That would mean that x + y + z = 13.5, and we have the same contradiction.

So we know that the only option is to have one and only one column in which we’ll end up carrying a 1.

Okay, with that out of the way…

Since there is only one column in which a 1 is carried, there are two scenarios:

1. b1 + b2 > 10, in which case, the one would carry to the hundreds column, and:

a1 + a2 = x – 1
b1 + b2 = y + 10
c1 + c2 = z

2. c1 + c2 > 10, in which case, the one would carry to the tens column, and:

a1 + a2 = x
b1 + b2 = y – 1
c1 + c2 = z + 10

In both cases, the resulting combined equation is:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) = x + y + z + 9

Substitute in Eq 2:

(a1 + a2) + (b1 + b2) + (c1 + c2) + x + y + z = 45

(x + y + z + 9) + x + y + z = 45

2(x + y + z) = 36

x + y + z = 18 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Done and done!!!!

Epilogue:  In that last blogpost, I also listed the 34 three-digit numbers that I thought fit as solutions:

981 972 963 954 945 936 927 918
891 873 864 846 837 819
792 783 765 756 738 729
693 684 675 657 648 639
594 576 567 594
495 486 468 459

It turns out that four of them (765, 756, 684, 576) don’t work for some reason.  The other 30 do, and I showed in the blogpost why each of those 30 has four unique solutions:

“For each one of these, there are 4 unique ways to solve the problem (or 8, if you discount additive commutativity). This is because you can switch the hundreds, tens, and units digits of the two smaller numbers. For example:

235 + 746 = 981
236 + 745 = 981
245 + 736 = 981
246 + 735 = 981

746 + 235 = 981
745 + 236 = 981
736 + 245 = 981
735 + 246 = 981

I’m guessing most wouldn’t count the second four as unique solutions.”

So, with 30 possibilities for the largest number and 4 unique solutions each, there are 120 unique solutions to this problem.

I guess the only thing left to do is prove just why the aforementioned four numbers don’t work.

But this was fun!  It was nice to re-exercise my logic prowess.

Happy π Day!

It’s 3/14.  Happy π Day!  Recite all the digits you know!  (3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816…)

Don’t forget to celebrate Pi minute at 3:14 and Pi second at 3:14:15.

Or some people say Pi minute is on 3/14 at 1:59 (3.14159), making Pi second at 1:59:26.

Here are some Pi-themed pictures and a video:

Math problem cracked!

I have to brag about a solution I outlined for a fun math problem that was posted on the Facebook page Free Weekly Math Problems.  That page, by the way, was started by my friend Soce to promote Math Bee week at the Chelsea Mind Games.

The problem was this:

Solve this problem, using each of the digits 1 through 9 exactly once:

_ _ _ + _ _ _ – _ _ _ = 0

**Note: There’s more than one answer. Can you come up with all of them?? Or at least one of them?**

Below is my solution.  Now, I understand the what of this solution, but not the underlying why.  Any math fiends are welcome to offer their wisdom.

I got a few answers, and I noticed that in all of them, the three digits of the largest number added up to 18, while the remaining six digits added up to 27 (still teasing out the exact reason why…of course, it just HAD to be something involving multiples of 9!). So I started looking at all the three-digit numbers whose digits add up to 18.

For this problem, the hundreds digit of the largest number has to be at least 3, since the smallest that the remaining hundreds digits could be is 1 and 2. None of those possibilities works, I’m guessing because of the restrictions on the hundreds digits.

There are 34 other three-digit numbers whose digits add up to 18:

981 972 963 954 945 936 927 918
891 873 864 846 837 819
792 783 765 756 738 729
693 684 675 657 648 639
594 576 567 594
495 486 468 459

For each one of these, there are 4 unique ways to solve the problem (or 8, if you discount additive commutativity). This is because you can switch the hundreds, tens, and units digits of the two smaller numbers. For example:

235 + 746 = 981
236 + 745 = 981
245 + 736 = 981
246 + 735 = 981

746 + 235 = 981
745 + 236 = 981
736 + 245 = 981
735 + 246 = 981

I’m guessing most wouldn’t count the second four as unique solutions.

So, with 34 numbers whose digits add up to 18, my guess is that there are 136 (or 34*4) unique solutions to this problem. Or 272 solutions, if you count repeats.

Extra note: Just to show that I did work to find some solutions to this problem, here are a few more…

659 + 214 = 873
546 + 192 = 738
478 + 215 = 693
394 + 182 = 576
293 + 175 = 468

Poo to you, NYU!

Are these people kidding me?! I was in the NYU Career Center today, looking at brochures of upcoming events, when I saw the following:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry . . . an event on financial planning co-sponsored by Citi.

“Put your money in the hands of Citi, and someday, you too can know the pratfalls of complete fiscal disintegration!”

During my year-and-a-half as a grad student, NYU impressed me with its dizzying variety of callousness and incompetency, but this is really the topper. It’s an insult to students, to financial supporters of the university, and to any NYU employee with half a brain trying to preserve the illusion that institutes of higher education are actually institutes of higher education. (Come to think of it, anyone trying to preserve that illusion has no brains at all.)

This is a little tangential, but I’m in need of a good, cathartic release of simultaneous anger and laughter, so I’ll throw in the clip from a few days ago in which Jon Stewart takes apart the media, financial institutions, and billionaires all in one segment…

Some Watchmen Alternatives

Yes, the day has finally come.  The long-awaited Watchmen movie arrives today.  Reviews from my favorite critics have been lukewarm.  And I’m trying to forget the few minutes of 300 I caught on TV, which were more than enough to shake my faith in director Zack Snyder.  I suspect I’ll end up wondering what might have been had Darren Aronofsky (who directed π, Requiem for a Dream, and The Wrestler, and was at one point attached to Watchmen) ended up in the director’s seat.  I can’t really take anything away from Alan Moore’s dissociation from the film, since his snubbing yet another adaptation of his work seems more a formality than any statement of ideological or artistic differences.  At any rate, I’m still holding out some hope.

In the meantime, here are a couple of terrific alternatives (a pictorial reimagining followed by possibly the greatest video ever):

Oscar Predictions 2009

I realize I’ve done next to nothing with my blog as of late, so what better way to break the drought than by listing my picks for Oscar winners (along with my choices for “should wins”).  Many years back, I went through an Oscar boycott phase, when I suddenly realized (gasp!) that the Oscars are superficial, political, and entirely unmotivated by artistic concerns.  I also convinced myself that this “sudden” revelation was somehow profound and original.  But now, I realize that it’s more fun, productive, and ultimately satisfying to just laugh at the Oscars and try to get what entertainment I can from them (most likely from unexpected improv moments and slip-ups).  I also came to the conclusion that it’s still fun to bet on them, because you get to see how well you’re attuned to the year’s Hollywood-herd zeitgeist.

This year, it’s especially fun, because it’s damn near impossible to take any lavish awards show seriously amidst recessional turmoil.  The Academy might as well be pissing on the houses of Michigan auto workers.

But that’s a whole ‘nuther story.  Let’s get to the picks.  I’m listing the major categories first.  Here goes…

BEST PICTURE:

Will Win:  Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win (of the nominees):  Milk

Should Win (anyone):  Man on Wire

BEST DIRECTOR:

Will Win:  Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Should win (of the nominees):  Gus Van Sant, Milk

Should win (anyone):  Hou Hsiao-Hsien, The Flight of the Red Balloon

BEST ACTOR

Will win:  Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Should win (of the nominees):  Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

Should win (anyone):  Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Will win:  Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Should win (of the nominees):  Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

Should win (anyone):  Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

BEST ACTRESS

Will win:  Kate Winslet, The Reader

Should win (of the nominees):  Melissa Leo, Frozen River

Should win (anyone):   Melissa Leo, Frozen River

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Will win:  Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Should win (of the nominees):  Viola Davis, Doubt

Should win (anyone):  Tilda Swinton, Benjamin Button

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:

Will Win:  Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win (of the nominees):  Peter Morgan, Frost/Nixon

Should Win (anyone):  François Bégaudeau, The Class

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:

Will Win:  Dustin Lance Black, Milk

Should Win (of the nominees):  Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon, Pete Docter, Wall-E

Should Win (anyone):  Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer, The Dark Knight

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Will win:  Slumdog Millionaire

Should win (of the nominees):  Benjamin Button

Should win (anyone):  Silent Light (Stellet Licht)

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:

Will Win:  Man on Wire

Should Win (of the nominees):  Man on Wire

Should Win (anyone):  Man on Wire (but a close runner-up goes to Up the Yangtze)

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:

Will Win:  Waltz with Bashir

Should Win (of the nominees):  The Class

Should win (anyone):  The Flight of the Red Balloon

EDITING:

Will Win:  Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win (of the nominees):  The Dark Knight

Should Win (anyone):  Man on Wire

BEST ANIMATED FILM

Will win:  Wall-E

Should win (of the nominees):  Wall-E

Should win (anyone):  Wall-E

ART DIRECTION:

Will win:  Benjamin Button

Should win (of the nominees):  Benjamin Button

Should win (anyone):  Benjamin Button

COSTUME DESIGN:

Will win:  Benjamin Button

Should win (of the nominees):  Benjamin Button

Should win (anyone):  The Dark Knight

MAKEUP:

Will Win:  Benjamin Button

Should Win (of the nominees):  Benjamin Button

Should Win (anyone):  Benjamin Button

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE):

Will Win:  A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win (of the nominees):  Thomas Newman, Wall-E

Should Win (anyone):  Thomas Newman, Wall-E

MUSIC (ORIGNAL SONG):

Will Win:  “Jai Ho” from Slumdog Millionaire, A.R. Rahman

Should Win (of the nominees):  “Down to Earth” from Wall-E, Peter Gabriel

Should Win (anyone):  “Down to Earth” from Wall-E, Peter Gabriel

SOUND EDITING

Will Win:  Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win (of the nominees):  Wall-E

Should Win (anyone):  Wall-E

SOUND MIXING:

Will Win:  Benjamin Button

Should Win (of the nominees):  Wall-E

Should Win (anyone):  Silent Light (Stellet Licht)

VISUAL EFFECTS:

Will Win:  Benjamin Button

Should Win (of the nominees):  Benjamin Button

Should Win (anyone):   Benjamin Button

Thoughts on Slumdog Millionaire

Thankfully, it seems I’m not alone in my disapproval of Slumdog Millionaire, America’s flavor of the year for international cinema.

My friend Neil in Rochester posted the following on his blog earlier today:

“OK … so here is my point, waking up after the Golden Globes gave SM Best Pictue – Drama. It was a picture that could have made a real statement, but it missed the mark. The word “dalit” was mentioned once in the screams of the police chasing the kids in the first slum sequences. The situation in India is so incredibly sad that I found the redemption of one slumdog by winning the lottery demeaning. There was not one word of political comment in the acceptance for the Golden Globe speech of the idea that this slum is beyond anything that we in the US could even imagine. This really took the shine off an otherwise exceptional movie to me… and it took me days to figure out why I wasn’t on board the SD Bandwagon.”

My delight upon reading somewhat similar sentiment prompted the following response:

“I wouldn’t have even labeled Slumdog an “exceptional movie.” Artistically, I thought it was soulless and empty. It had none of the exuberance or fun I find in Bollywood, and it felt like a filmmaker exercise on Boyle’s part. Also, was it just me, or did they give a bunch of chimps some crack and then throw them in the editing room? After seeing Trainspotting, I expected the like from Boyle, but not to this extent. The camera placement and editing showed zero imagination. (And tying in to your political comments, the aestheticized poverty really irked me; destitution never looked so slick and cool!)

In terms of style, Bollywood never pretends to be anything other than escapism; yet Slumdog mish-moshes Bollywood’s levity and deliberate cheesiness with a kind of faux-neorealism, and it’s just a horrific mess. Someone I talked to tried to call it a “survey” of Indian cinema starting with Satyajit Ray’s Apu trilogy from the 1950s, and while the intellectual argument made sense (and while Boyle may have casually nodded to Ray here and there), labelling Slumdog as a survey seems cursory and tenuous at best. Ray’s films are meditative and deliberately paced. They also display a highly artful and judicious use of editing and camerawork. Slumdog is the diametric opposite.

My other annoyance is that Slumdog is to Indian cinema what Crouching Tiger was to “wire-fu” and Chinese cinema. Both resulted in a nice faddy packaging for American audiences, who took both WAY too seriously. I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve talked to who blast me for hating Slumdog and think that it is has great literary value in terms of its commentary on the human spirit. Yet as you pointed out, redemption (maybe even salvation!) comes in the form of vacuous consumerism (i.e. the millionaire game show).

If you interpret the film with a sense of humor (as a professor of mine did), that part is ironic and pretty damn funny, a sly jab at the seemingly ubiquituous attitude that monetary gain is indeed synonymous with redemption. That still doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s a disaster cinematically, but at least a more post-modern, ironic interpretation gets a little bit closer to the truth. But most people aren’t looking at the film that way. They find it genuinely lyrical and uplifting, and I don’t get how people are taking it that seriously. The fact that the Globes put it in the “Drama” category is laughable enough, but to give it a “Best” is just plain sad. (Not that I expected anything less, of course.)

Perhaps I wouldn’t have hated this movie so much had I caught it before the fad hit big. That happened to me last year with Juno. I saw it before every white person in the country started drooling over it, and I thought it was mildly entertaining if ultimately silly and forgettable. As enthusiasm for the film snowballed, I started to get more and more annoyed, especially since people were willing to indulge the overly conscious, hit-or-miss “cleverness” of the dialogue and the cuteness of its protagonist while completely disregarding some serious implausibilities in the script.

I think where you and I share sentiment is in our disgust with the way Slumdog is catching on as the foreign film darling of the year among American audiences, who take the film at face value, buy the soundtrack of catchy songs, and remain completely unaware of what struggle in India is really like (and how grossly this film sidesteps addressing that struggle). And again, if the film registered as true Bollywood (without the neorealist trappings), that wouldn’t even be an issue, and I’d more easily take the film as pure fantasy.”