Of lightning bolts and fat men

          Some months ago, we witnessed a remarkable feat- Usain Bolt's performance in the 100m dash in the Olympics. A natural 200m runner, he was slow off the blocks (sixth it turned out) lagging behind till he could hit his stride about a third of the way into the race. Once he was got going at the pace only he can, the only question was whether 100m was enough for him to pull clear. He pulled clear with a little distance to go, looked to his two sides, and pulled began his celebrations a good 15m from the tape. This did not stop him from getting a world record.

          Watching this on television, we were subject to a certain fat man, supposedly a cricket expert, going on about how it was so wrong for the lightning bolt to start his celebrations early and so not finish faster. Somebody should have told him that if he trained 1/1000 as much as Usain Bolt, he would not be so fat (and presumably less obnoxious too). 

         We are a country of `experts' criticising (abusing) all out public figures and analysing all their actions, with performance being attribute to `teamwork', `confidence' etc., or the lack thereof. The (immense) hard work during training, as also the reality that the task these performers face are very difficult, never figure. Hardly surpirising - much of the `analysis' happens in lieu of doing one's job.

Mathematical Exceptionalism

           During the 2008 elections in the US, `American exceptionalism' - the idea that america is special and so what holds for the rest of the world does not hold for the US - had become a campaign issue with Sarah Palin as the face. 

           Mathematicians often work in the setting of a Science and Engineering research institute. This leads to friction - the needs of mathematics are somewhat different for reasons good and bad. Mathematicians keep trying to convince others that they are `different'. 

           The disturbing side to this - when coming from mathematicians,`different' really means ... . In other words -  Mathematical exceptionalism.

The Bat that didn't grow

        During my childhood, I used to be puzzled that people grew larger but I could never see them grow. The explanation I was given  was that people grew mainly in their sleep. I figured that if this is the case, then bats - who used to live around our house, grew mainly in the day - so I could see them grow. One day a bat was sleeping on our balcony - but I still couldn't see it grow.

        The concept of growing so slowly that one could not see this was a little too subtle for me at that age. But there is something a little deeper going on. I can leave my spectacles overnight close to the edge of the table without fearing that they are really moving at 3mm/hour - too slow for me to see yet fast enough that I will wake up in the morning to see them smashed on the floor. The nature of friction in the world we live in ensures that objects which seem to be still are very rarelyin reality  moving too slowly  for us to see.  

        Contrary to what we like to think, our brains are designed to live in the real world - or any rate what was the real world 40,000 years ago, rather than to discover ultimate truths. So it is natural to feel that something that appears to be still is really still, and not moving too slowly for us to notice. Perhaps the limits of what we can see moving are by design such that objects on the scale we deal with are rarely moving below the threshold of our congnition.  And growth is presumably understood as movement.