Fun with isograms

Recently I’ve been cultivating an interest in isograms (words with no repeated letter), especially those with seven letters. Another way to count laps at the pool is to run through the alphabet, so that on successive laps I think of seven-letter isograms starting with ‘a’, ‘b’, and so on. A lap (two lengths) is about the right amount of time. I like to take the view that anything acceptable in a general-knowledge crossword puzzle is fair game, so that, e.g., the first-lap choice could be either ‘acronym’ or ‘Antwerp’. Some letters may have to be skipped, or treated differently in that isograms from an explicitly remembered list are acceptable: there are some tasty ones for ‘j’, such as ‘javelin’ , ‘jealous’, ‘Jericho’, and ‘juniper’, but it’s really hard to come up with new ones quickly, and ‘k’, ‘x’, and ‘z’ are pretty much hopeless.

Six-letter words are ridiculously easy, but seven is a nice spot, or one could stipulate ‘at least seven’. Especially when plurals and other non-base forms are avoided (they seem a bit like cheating), seven-letter words are often very ‘tasty’: either they have three syllables (with, obviously, different vowels) or they feature interesting consonant or vowel clusters.

Then the real challenge is to swim 26 laps and be able to remember all the isograms ‘visited’ during the session. Basically, this means rehearsing the list-so-far constantly, although other mnemonic techniques are conceivable. This is difficult brain work! It is perilously easy to come up with ‘insular’, then go back and recite ‘anxious’, ‘Breslau’, ‘crystal’, ‘disrupt’, ‘Ecuador’, ‘foreign’, ‘Germany’, ‘hirsute’, only to find that the ‘i’ word has been completely forgotten.

This linguistic game is actually a revisiting of a spot from my mindscape of decades ago. There is a connection to discrete mathematics, considering words as specified by pattern together with choice of letters, with the pattern of ‘pattern’ being ‘ABCCDEF’, and the isogrammatic pattern ‘ABCDEFG’ being the simplest of all.

Further, there is an even more obscure connection to my days as a PDP-10 assembly language programmer. The PDP-10 had 36-bit words, and the assembler used an arithmetic coding scheme to represent symbols of up to six characters chosen from the set {‘A’, ‘B’, … ‘Z’, ‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’, ‘$’, ‘%’, ‘.’} in 32 bits, leaving 4 bits free for flags. The allowable characters were treated as digits with values from 1 to 39, forming a base-40 number. This scheme was known as Radix50, where ‘50’ is forty in octal. (Octal was very much the ‘native language’ of the early DEC machines; an odometer reading of ‘13777.7’ looked like it was about to roll over.)

The point here is that although 32 bits are not enough to represent an arbitrary sequence of seven letters, they are sufficient to represent a seven-letter isogram (showing octal below):

>>> print "%o" % (26*26*26*26*26*26*26)
>>> print "%o" % (26*25*24*23*22*21*20)
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


If he were courageous and sufficiently capable of thinking outside the box, President Obama should have declared a national emergency and called for an open, ranked-choice election, to be held in a few months, with many open debates in the interim, with advertising forbidden. This, of course, would need to be accompanied by a commitment by Hilary Clinton not to run. If we want to keep the ‘first woman President’ thing alive she could invite Elizabeth Warren to run.

Turnout was about 56%; so Trump’s support amounts to less than 27% of the electorate. And in the special circumstances of this election we would be right to conclude that Trump is completely unacceptable as President to perhaps a clear majority of Americans; this would be even more certain if we consider those who will turn 18 during the next four years.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A small tragedy within the greater tragedy

To continue our commentary on the recent travesty of an election, let us all remember that in the overall scheme of things this is a small tragedy within a greater tragedy.

Human beings, through their reckless expansion and consumption, have guaranteed, at minimum, that people who are young now will live through a long ‘time of troubles’, during which economic migration increases, agriculture becomes more difficult, and coastal cities are under assault by rising sea level—to mention just a few specifics among many. There is, so far, no sign that a critical number of human beings understand what is happening, neither at the grass roots or among our ‘leaders’.

And by the way, the United States, with ~4.5% of the world’s population, is responsible for something in excess of 25% of the already-committed damage to the climate.

So, Trump and the Republicans will try to make policy changes in the wrong direction; but this will happen at the margins. A Clinton administration would not be proposing a large and rising carbon tax, let alone getting it enacted (certainly not with a Republican House). But this is still the single best thing we could do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The travesty of an election

First, let everyone keep in mind, not just today but for the next four years, that this was not democracy at work; this was our anti-democratic Constitution at work.

The practical effect of the provisions of the Constitution is to give Republicans an unfair advantage in the Presidency (and this has been decisive twice now in the last 16 years), in the Senate (fairly obvious), and in the House of Representatives (this one is harder to explain to people, but true nonetheless).

Every time a talking head interviews a Republican, they should ask them what justification they can give for holding on to this unfair advantage.

If Democrats want to make out like they are the ‘good guys’ in Washington, constantly trolling us all for campaign contributions, they should be proposing Amendments that do away with these anti-democratic provisions. Every Senator or Congressperson, if they pretend to hold lower-case-d democratic values, should support such Amendments. If representatives from small states stonewall them, they are guilty of violating what I would call the ‘implicit oath of office’: to place the public good ahead of personal or partisan considerations.

Indeed, if Republicans stand in the way of this change, they are in the position of abusers: they are saying to Democrats, saying to California and New York and Massachusetts (and so on) ‘An accident of history has given me a position of power over you, but that’s just too bad for you.’ This abuse is less egregious than what went on in South Africa in the days of apartheid, but it is still abuse.

‘That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …’

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

An admirable book on consciousness

On a recent long train journey, I read Consciousness: a user’s guide, by Adam Zeman (Yale, 2002), and I cannot recommend it too highly. The author is a neurologist and a teacher of neurologists, with an engaging and lucid prose style. He inclines strongly (as do I) to the belief that physical facts about brains are sufficient to account for consciousness, but without being strident about it; he recognizes that it is very natural for us to feel that there is something mysterious about consciousness.

From his Preface:

I wrote this book partly to satisfy my own curiousity about consciousness, partly because I felt a need for an introduction to the subject which would do justice both to the science and to the philosophy of consciousness, to ‘mechanics’ and to experience. Much of the recent writing about consciousness, some of it brilliant, has been polemical and partial: I have done my best to strike an equitable balance between the warring faction, to chart out the territory and draw a faithful map.

After an initial exploration into the contemporary and historical usage of the word ‘conscious’ and its close relatives, he turns to neurology, providing a detailed but accessible introduction to the structure and activity of neurons and brain structures, with special emphasis on the systems subserving vision. This material can be a bit dry, but the narrative is enlivened by many excursions: into the stages of sleep, into faints, whether induced recreationally or by the large g forces to which fighter pilots are subjected, into ‘opium, alcohol and other anaesthetics’, and especially into those ‘experiments of nature’ where selective damage to the nervous system reveals subtleties that are invisible when everything is working properly: agnosias, neglect, and blindsight, for example.

The book then steps back to look at what evolutionary biology can tell us about neurology and consciousness, and how other mammals stack up compared to humans. The last Part, ‘Consciousness considered’, first surveys a number of grand theories about consciousness coming from the scientific side, and then takes up what historical and contemporary philosophers of mind have to say on the matter.

There is one especially choice passage that I must quote and comment on. In the course of taking up vision there is a subsection headed ‘Recognition’:

Recognition is usually so effortless that we take it for granted. Once in a while a visual mistake startles us from our complacency: a tree trunk on an evening walk looms up like a dark attacker, a twist of black cotton on the floor announces itself as SPIDER. …

A little reflection reveals that such processes are not the exception but the rule. Our knowledge of the world pervades perception: we are always seeking after meaning. … What we see resonates in the memory of what we have seen: new experience always percolates through old, leaving a hint of its flavour as it passes. …

What we see resonates in the memory of what we have seen: this captures, precisely but also poetically, why, in my view, the so-called ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is not a problem at all, even if it will also and forever remain in one sense a mystery. If it is like something to ‘see red’ (in what seems to be the universal canonical example), what it is like is seeing red on thousands of previous occasions.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


One of the many items lodged in my musical memory (and it’s been there for forty years) is the ‘ritornello’ heard at the beginning of Bach’s Fifth Brandenburg Concerto, all 121 notes of it. You can see it notated here. (I didn’t have it quite perfect, it turns out; I thought the eighth-note ‘e’ at the end of the second bar was two sixteenth-notes.) I can play it through in my ‘mind’s ear’ at will, or sing it (though the range, of over 2 octaves, makes that a bit tricky). It’s not ‘random-access’: I basically have to start from the beginning.

Now,  to represent this tune in a straightforward computer-friendly way would occupy about 4096 bits. But, obviously, its brain-based representation is nothing like what a computer would use.

In one sense there is far less information content than the note-for-note calculation would imply: the tune is ‘memorable’ precisely because it is a tune; it makes musical sense. An arbitrary sequence of 121 notes chosen from a span of 2.1 octaves would be virtually impossible to memorize. In a real tune, the choices for each successive note are limited; we could draw an analogy with the predictive algorithms by which the email app on your phone offers you a few likely choices for each word in your message based on what has gone before.

But consider what this means for the brain-based representation of the tune: it is tied in subtle ways to a whole subsystem of musical knowledge.

Just ponder the implications for the gap between the fact-of-the-matter about connections between neurons and the meaning that those connections represent. More to come on this topic.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Sketch for a new Constitution

The governmental structures dictated by the current Constitution of the United States, together with certain extra-Constitutional traditions that they have accreted, are a disaster for responsive government. I won’t go into specifics in this post, although most of them are clear in my mind, and I’ve summarized them in emails to various people involved in political advocacy.

The odd thing is that, despite widespread disaffection with ‘Washington’, one gets the impression that most people don’t blame the Constitution, as they should. Education is needed so that people realize that there really is a big problem (and that tweaks like attempting to ‘end Citizens United’ are just a distraction).

Here is a sketch for a governmental structure that could actually work.

Legislative power is vested in a body which I will call the ‘Governing Council’ (GC). This would comprise about 24 members, though this number could be tuned based on experience.

Each member of the GC would represent the votes of at least five million Americans (again, this number could be tuned). This is the same kind of representation as occurs at corporate annual meetings, where most shares are voted not directly by their owner but by someone who holds the owner’s proxy. So when the GC takes a vote, members have different voting strengths: note this well. The GC would select the President from among its number.

The intention is that each political point of view held by a reasonably large subset of Americans should have a representative on the GC. My own vote would go to someone who would advocate a large and gradually increasing carbon tax, along with measures to mitigate the economic disruption this would cause; but the GC might also include a would-be theocrat, or a hard-money advocate for whom ending the Federal Reserve is Job #1.

A big part of the mandate for the GC would be to create and maintain a lively political discourse that revolves around policy rather than personality. For example, there would be substantial budgetary support for town meetings, and for focused debates, each one involving a small number of GC members or their designates. Thus, my carbon-tax proponent would have the resources to try to persuade more Americans that the current cheap-energy policy guarantees a miserable future for their children.

In addition to the GC, there could be a much larger (seriously, much larger, maybe 100,000 or so) group of public servants representing small geographic districts, more or less as ombudsmen: receiving and investigating citizen complaints. They would, of course, never all meet in one place, though regional subsets might.

Okay, that’s as far as I’ve gotten right now. Food for thought, I hope.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments