Thinking Aloud

I am thankful, and I’m sure my siblings are as well, for my parents insistence that learning is more than the exam syllabus.

No country has a perfect education system, simply because there are no perfect parents. Education is a parents reponsibility, I think. Learning starts when a baby is born, and ends when I lie on my deathbed. Education, to put it simply, is the love for learning. And who better to inspire children to become educated than parents themselves.

But we must take responsibility for our own decisions. And we cannot blame our parents for our shortcomings. Unfortunately, there has been a serious lack of willingness to take personal responsibility in Malaysia. That’s the tragedy and part of the malaise that is my tanah tumpah-Nya darahku.

Going back first thing in the morning. My long awaited holiday.

Merry Christmas everyone! 

Here’s an interesting link. How do you feel about Christmas?

Anyway, this is how I feel.

  and

" Eh so what are you doing for a living?"

" Well, I’m doing a higher degree…"

" Oh, that’s great! What’s your thesis about."

" …"

That was a fictional conversation actually. But one that happens fairly often in real life. I remember giving a reply, the condescending and lame: " It’s rather hard to explain it to a layperson." What was I thinking! The guy was a lawyer, I should have put in more effort to explain what my work is all about.

Ok so here it goes.  

Basically what I’m studying is something called the Weil Representation, or sometimes called the harmonic or oscillator representation. This has connection to quantum mechanics; as this representation comes from the study into the equivalences of the Heisenberg picture (which invovle matrices) and the Schrodinger picture (which involve solutions to a certain partial differential equation).

This representation was discovered (among others) by Andre Weil.  This is a representation of the  double cover (called the metaplectic group, abbreviated M2) of the group Sp(n,R) onto the Hilbert space L^2(R^2n). As you probably can see, this is a fairly "large" object. So large that if G and G’ are two groups sitting inside the M2 satisfying certain relationships, a representation of G may lead to another representation of G’ both contained inside the Weil representation.

This relationship was made explicit by Roger Howe and is now known as the local theta lift. This link will take you to a document written by Zhu Chengbo, a Professor with the Deparment of Mathematics at NUS. It explains what the local theta lift is in semi-technical language only in the second section.

But let me try to test my understanding by putting things into layman’s terms. The Weil representation leads to an action of the group on a dense subset of this representation called the (g,K)-module. The good thing is that this module has an explicit realization as a space of polynomials. Polynomials are simple things to understand and manipulate. It is this utility that Howe exploited.

Remember G and G’? If they satisfy a certain relationship, then we call them a (dual) pair. If a representation of G (call it A) sits in the Weil Representation in a certain way, then we can be sure to find a unique representation of G’ (call it B related to A) which also sits inside the Weil Representation. This association of A to B to called the local theta lift.

My thesis is an investigation of the local theta lift for the dual pair U(p,q) and U(r,s). Well, there’s a mouthful. Something to chew upon over Christmas?

I feel very sad. As a Christian and as a Malaysian. Click here to find out why…

Wahlau, doing this can pump more petrol meh?

Check this out. Man they just don’t make phones like they used to make it any more yah. Carl Zeiss lens for its inbuilt camera phone, DVD quality video capture, 3.5G capability (not 3G anymore), GPS and many more goodies that can be crammed into a palm sized "super phone" (?)

The video was shot on a Nokia N95 and produced by the folks at the mrbrownshow.com.

I’m putting this on my Christmas wishlist. (Yes, dream….continue dreaming)

 

Sorry, couldn’t get a clearer picture. 

The PM has given a verdict of his 3 years in office. My, my, isn’t he the politician. But let us remind him of the things that DIDN’t go so well yeah.

1. The AP scandal. So what happens now? If I recall, you still haven’t come clean with that. You let Rafidah off with her "answer" in Parliament which was more hot air than substance.

2. Proton? Need we say more.

3. Racial politics. Apparently it is "ok" for delegates to hurt the feelings of other races in the community. It it "ok" to assert superiority (which doesn’t exist by the way, not in the Constitution and not by any long shot). All you did was to give a grandfatherly nod, "They were just letting of steam". The broke the law and all you did was to invoke a little "discipline".

4. Your son-in-law. Same thing, refer to above.

5. The state of our public universities. Isn’t it so ironic that you give education your primary focus. And rightly so. But it doesn’t seem to translate to action on the ground!!?? Waste of public funds in erecting billboards, unbecoming attitudes by UPM undergraduates (harrasment case), drop in rankings and the fact that many lecturers in universities doesn’t even have a Phd!

6. Religous intolerance. Moorthy case, Rayappan, Lina Joy. Church in Ipoh. Overzealous religious officers knocking on the door of a holidaying American couple in Langkawi. Dear sir, seems that your version of Islam Hadhari is good, only on paper.

7. The NEP controversy. There always is controversy whenever affirmative action is concerned. But when affirmative action becomes racial pride and priveledge. This is racism. It is beyond any educated man to understand why when not one, but 3 bi-partisan reports on bumiputra equity ownership have contradicted reasearch by "official" sources; you still stand by the wrong figures.

8. Historical revisionism. With regards to the NEP, you aren’t exactly innocent when you allow ministers like Hishamuddin assert that the "special rights of bumiputras cannot be challenged and enshrined in the Constitution". That simply is false.

9. Misunderstanding of basic workings of government. When the former Lord President Salleh Abbas asked for a look into the event surrounding his dismissal from office by the Executive, Lord Nazri promptly brushed it aside. Even before that, he had the cheek to suggest the Parliament be made a government department. What ever happened to separation of powers.

10. Integrity and corruption. Malaysia slipped down many more places in the  Corruption Perception Survey. And all this while you, a professedly religious person was in power.

11. Press freedom and responsibility. Dear sir, how can you say, "The Press has never been freer," when a) Internal Security Ministry orders a media blackout on what Noh Omar said, b) The resignation of two editors of Chinese Dailies (wrt the nude-squatting case). Talk about missing the forest for the trees. c) Your "advice" to the newspapers to give more "feel good" stories. It seems to me when the press tries to be honest, you tell them to be "responsibile". When they are not, then they are "free". Great, such attitudes does not make a reponsible (not to mention a free) press. And ultimately, you are responsible for the Catch-22 situation.

Dear sir, if (which I don’t think you will) ever read this blog, don’t forget what one of the ministers said about registering bloggers and a merry Christmas.

The High Cardinal has replied to my previous post. And this is what he wrote. Rather long, but worth a look through, if you are so inclined.

Another interesting link, for those following the event happening in Malaysia, is a download link to an e-book: Doing the Right Thing: A Practical Guide on Legal Matters for Churches in Malaysia on the Kairos Research Center website.

Somethings are worth sharing. Love these ads, excellent work! 

(Judging from the language, it could be Thai or Veitnamese, but I’m not sure. Anyone care to enlighten me?) 

I need someone to teach me how to embed a youtube object on blogsome.  

Since the exams are over, have some time on my hands to respond to this interesting topic brought up by the High Cardinal. No one expresses this dilemma more clearly than he, so allow me to quote directly from his blog.

"…The question raised early was this: If you could create a utopia from scratch, including populating its inhabitants, where they would be eternally happy and blissful, but yet in order to achieve this utopia, it is necessary to torture to death one child (or Son of God in the Christian context), would you do it? Let us call this question, the Utopia Question…"

"…As I said earlier, the reason why I raised the Utopia Question is to draw a strong analogy to God and the creation of the universe. God seeks the utopia of the free love of man and in order to realize this utopia, He creates man with freewill which God infallibly knows will lead to all kinds of wickedness, evil and suffering into the world. Thus the Utopia Question applied to God is this, does the goal to realize this Utopia of man’s free love of God morally justify all the horrible evil and suffering that must follow? (note: whether or not the evil that follow is a "necessary process" to realize this utopia is besides the point, the important thing is that it is necessary that is all that matters)

" If one’s answer is simply that, no, it does not justify it, then we are done. God does not exist. For a morally good God would never create a world where people must suffer pain and injustice, even though it may lead to a future heaven or utopia of utter bliss. The pain and injustice will never ever be outweighted by the future bliss and happiness of others. If the pain and injustice is, in some sense, necessary to realize this utopia, then God should not create at all…"

This post will be a reponse. This is a link to the first and second post concerning this subject.

The very kickstart of the discussion is summarized by the following syllogism.

Premise 1: If God creates an utopia, then a child gets tortured.

Premise 2: If a child gets tortured, then it is a morally unjustifiable act.

Conclusion: If God create an utopia, then it is a morally unjustifiable act.

So then, if Premise 1 was true, the creation of an utopia is unjustifiable. The crux of the matter here is encapsulated in the first premise. What is the price of utopia?

Admittedly there are versions of utopia that require sacrifice and struggle. No war is great, voilence is always evil, though at times the lesser of two evils. But there are wars which lead to a betterment of mankind. The conclusion of World War II ended the Holocaust, stemmed Japanese militancy and brought mankind out of the lala-land of modernity. Nearer to home, it marked the rise of Asian nationalism and the relative peaceful struggles to gain independance.

There are many good things that came out of a terrible time as war. So, does the good justify world war II. Different strokes for different people, and historians of different ages will judge differently. But from the brute logic of the syllogism above, the answer is NO.

From the Christian point of view; from the Almighty’s point of view, I venture that the answer is NO.

Evil is never justified by the good it produces. Ivory Tower is right to be disturbed

 

"…It has disturbed my heart often to think that all of our pain and suffering are just, to use Ivan’s term, "manure" to fertilize the fields of this utopia…"

The word redemption is a Christian invention. The truth that evil can be forgiven and something good brought out of it is God’s answer to suffering. It is a very deep observation that no other religion or philosophy teaches forgiveness the way Jesus taught it. It does not explain suffering (much less justifies it), but provides a solution to the evil that suffering often engenders: vengeance, bitterness, cynicism and hate.

 

When God promised a heaven, it wasn’t meant to be a justification for the suffering we have to endure here on earth. No child needs to suffer in order for heaven to be created; they suffer because of our sin. In fact, Heaven ‘was there’ before the world was created. Also, heaven isn’t some kind of ‘carrot’ God dangles at the end of a stick to make the struggles here on earth a little bearable (like what is a popular philosophy nowadays.)

Heaven is a promise of rest. A promise of an end to the struggles here on earth. The promise of communion with God forever. It is a mistake to think that promise is just a vieled way of saying, "Dun complain so much lar, you gonna get big juicy prize at the end. So for now, shut up and endure!" Heaven is comfort, not as some of our more cynical friends would understand comfort, but the way godly people understand comfort. Read the psalms, biographies of great men and see the way they understand comfort and how they are comforted.

I must conclude this post. Ivory Tower quoted two great works of literature in which this theme features prominently: Brothers Karamazov and The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (by Ursula LeGuin). It is thought provoking work; but my conclusion is that the analogue and parrallel to the Christian story is false. Simply put, their version of utopia and its construction has nothing in common with God’s story of heaven, redemption and forgiveness.  

 

I just realized that I haven’t got into the business of registering as a voter. But whenever there is a chance for me to do so i.e. GE time, I’m in Singapore! (and I definately will be when the next one is due around 2008).

I wanna vote!  

Newsflash, yours truly the MB of Johor speaks again.

Ooooh…indeed yeah your eminence. Little mortals like us tremble before your brilliance and patriotism. I have gazed deep into the crystal ball and see you teaching Pengajian am and Sejarah F5.

Goodness, dear sir, do you even know what your little hole is spouting! 

This is an interesting article. Compares and contrasts the thinking process in a fundamentalist mindset and the mindset of a chess player.

I couldn’t resist adding this as well. The mind of a chess player may be just as similiar to the way a mathematician works.

Mathematics is about nuances. Although many people have this perception that mathematics is boring, just about numbers and logic, dry and overtly tedious.

But in fact, those are exaggerations. I’ll never get tired of saying this: Mathematics is beautiful. Its like chess. The rules of logic are the rules of chess: They tell you how to move. Strategy in chess is like the overarching theory. Tactics are comparable to the techniques of argument that we use to prove stuff. Getting from hypothesis to conclusion is like painting. First you sketch, then you ink, then paint and frame and enjoy.

Yes mathematics is complex, as with chess, as it is with life. Sometimes, I can’t solve problems because they are too hard for me, sometimes I get them wrong. But the practise and experience in thinking gives me that extra edge in noticing little things that a normal person would have otherwise passed over. This is nuance, this is a way of looking at life and being able to be precise and yet flexible.

I wish that there were more Malaysians who is willing to look beyond pragmatism and take up this beautiful subject as a life study.  

 

This is another case involving a controversy between JAIS and an Indian family.

Sometimes I wonder what might be going inside a JAIS officer’s head. Zeal for Allah? A sense of duty to carry out a dead man’s wish? Religious fevour?

But when you look at a bereaving family, a family that just wants to bury their own dead in the way they see fit, don’t you feel anything? What is a dead man’s body to you?

The man is already dead (God rest his soul), why does the state want to concern themselves with it? Goodness, sometimes zeal is blinding.