Back again?
1:00 pm - 24 November, 2005
If you're a long-time reader of my diary, which is probably the case, you will notice that there are several large gaps where I haven't updated for a long time. 'Will this be the end of one, or just the start of another?', you may be asking yourself. Who knows?
So what am I up to today? Well, I've got to get a hi-hat clutch from a guy that I've never met this afternoon at 3:30, which I had better not forget. A slightly interesting, but not at all humorous, story explains why, and I will now relate it.
As I was setting up for Wind Band on Tuesday — low turnout among the clarinets this week, but I digress — this guy came in asking to borrow a Hi-Hat clutch. His story was that he was from RockSoc, I think, and they had a band doing a gig very soon and there was no clutch in their Hi-Hat. Well, I'm a nice kind of guy and I'd seen a Hi-Hat in the music store cupboard, so I took him there and let him take it. I gave him my number and he said he'd call that night after the gig to arrange getting the clutch back. I told you this story wasn't interesting. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of it.
What is interesting? Perhaps my project. I still have to make up my mind exactly what I'm going to do, but I hate to make decisions. I'll probably make the wrong one anyway. I'm leaning towards the adjoint elimination project. The project is basically to take a result that applies to one logic and apply it to other logics, and then try to find some abstraction whereby we can say what logics it applies to. As I understand it, the idea of an adjoint can basically be described like this: You have some kind of operatorn on your model, say |. You want to express composition in your model in a logic, so what you do is say, for instance A*B to mean that the model is of the form a|b where a satisfies A and a satisfies B. Now I might have lost you already, so go back and read that again so I don't have to write it out again. Now you can get an adjoint which basically says that if I | what I have with something that satisfies some property, I get a result which satisfies some other property. You could write it something like A-*B, meaning that if you have something which, whenever it is |ed to something satisfying A, you get something satisfying be. I think these adjoints might be powerful enough (well, in some cases, anyway) to experience the wrath of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, but I'm not sure. Certainly, in some of the logics that use them, model checking is undecidable.
Not interesting either, eh? A few weeks ago I started MUSHing. A few weeks ago I didn't know what a MUSH was. Basically, it's an online environment for role-playing. I joined up to a Star Trek-themed one, and I've started to get into it a bit. I'm an Andorian-born Vulcan called Gurenk, serving aboard the Sovereign-class USS Cochrane in the science department. It's going pretty well. The main event since I arrived was a bomb capable of taking out three systems that had been planted by a vengeful scientist on the moon. I helped to dispose of it, which we did by dumping it in deep space in an escape pod. I was in that escape pod with the bomb and was personally responsible for ejecting it. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to beam out before the pod went out of range, and I couldn't control the pod's systems. That was quite exciting.
Well, if none of that is interesting then I'm just sorry that I don't lead a more interesting life. Perhaps you could peruse the back issues and mourn the days when I used to get up to exciting adventures. Bah!
