Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Most of us have wondered (and cursed) why they taught us the proofs of theorems and formulae at school. Why weren’t we taught only to apply that knowledge instead of deriving what was already known? At that time, it seemed like yet another useless practice of our education system. Only much later have I understood the value of knowing the proofs. It was not the proof itself that was of consequence. Rather, what’s important is to know the assumptions behind that formula, conclusion, model or whatever. Because only by knowing the assumptions can we know when that model is invalid. Or if it is missing anything. Ever seen the flight route from Bangalore to London? It’s a curved path. Why is that? Isn’t the shortest distance between two points a straight line? That “fact” (a line is the shortest distance between two points) only holds for a plane surface . For a curved surface like the earth, a (particular) curved path is the shortest distance between two points. You can see a demo of

Clay Shirky wrote this very interesting article summarizing Joseph Tainter’s 1988 book, “ The Collapse of Complex Societies ”. The book analyzes why some of the most advanced societies of the past like the Romans and the Mayans that rose to such high levels of sophistication eventually collapsed. Tainter’s surprising conclusion: they collapsed because of their high level of sophistication! That seems counter-intuitive at first. Here’s his reasoning: a society starts with a small excess of some resource. Managing that excess requires an additional degree of complexity in management, social structure, economic system etc. This new complexity in turn helps add value to the system. The additional value produced again requires a bit more complexity to be managed. And so the cycle continues. Until, at some point, the additional complexity no longer adds any value. Like a bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. Tainter says that when a major stress is exerted on such a complex system, it is too

Goldman Sachs was the one big name that came out in relatively good shape as the financial crisis unfolded in late 2008. They didn’t have to take government money to weather the storm. They were in a good enough position to get it from private sources instead. Like Warren Buffett. So it looked like Goldman came out in relatively better shape through this carnage. Until now. US regulators filed fraud charges against Goldman a couple of days back. But what’s new? Hasn’t Goldman been charged in the past? And come out unscathed? Don’t they have friends in the highest places? Former Goldman employees include former US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson and Governor of the Bank of Italy, Mario Draghi. Isn’t Goldman Sachs referred to as ‘ Government Sachs ’ because of its connections within the US government? This time it could be different. In the past, the people who suffered due to Goldman’s actions were the general public or other players on Wall Street. As Bloomberg said, that’s some

Plenty of students, ex-students, parents and corporations complain about the education system. The poor quality of teachers. The ways things are taught. And how what’s taught is of little relevance at the workplace. But where exactly does the fault lie? And what could be the solution? Do many teachers lack in-depth subject knowledge? Absolutely. But why is it so? That’s easy. They are not paid well. Certainly not the kind of salaries that would attract the experts in any field. So you pay them peanuts, then expect the smartest people to sign up, to stay motivated, and to find ways to make the subject interesting? Get real! You get what you pay for. So why not increase their salaries? Easier said than done. Everyone, including the middle class and the rich, complains whenever a fee hike is proposed. The government even forces private schools to get parents to agree to fee hikes. Like that’s ever going to happen. If school fees have to be kept low, the money to run a school or col

Can the future be predicted? When it comes to inanimate things, the answer is yes to a pretty large extent. How about the actions of human beings? Can those be predicted as well? t If the answer is yes, it implies that there is no such thing as free will. And if there is no free will, does it make sense to hold anybody accountable for any action? In a universe devoid of free will, how can you punish anybody for anything? After all, that guy whom you are punishing had no control over what he did. He was pre-programmed to do that act. Unless, of course, you too are pre-programmed to punish him for his pre-programmed action. Things are getting very twisted! Then there’s the fallout of predictability on God. Most religions describe God as both omniscient (having unlimited knowledge) and omnipotent (having infinite power). Being omniscient, God knows the future. And being omnipotent, God can change the future. But being omniscient, God would have known that He would change the future at

I saw this interview of Shashi Tharoor (Minister of State - External Affairs) hosted by Vir Sanghvi on CNBC the other day. Here is a politician who is articulate. Speaks very good English. Has worked abroad. Is comfortable in suits. Doesn’t claim to be a poor man, an oppressed caste, a servant of the people or anything else that all our politicians claim to be. In fact, he is similar to many of us in middle-class and urban India. His interview reveals a lot as to why “people like us” don’t join politics. Or even care about elections. Tharoor was frank about the ease of entering Indian politics: “You need either a family back ground or you need people with some sort of worthwhile political connections to be your mentors or godfathers. It doesn’t work that easily.” That is so true. People like us, people who share our world view and our concerns are never the candidates. Why then would we feel “represented”? Asked whether he considered joining Parliament via the Rajya Sabha rou

What is it about the past that makes people feel that things were heading towards a particular outcome? Why does history feel like a story book with a clear causal link between events? After all, we don’t feel that the same can be said about “our times”. We feel our future is rich with uncertainties, that our tomorrow is not already decided by our yesterdays and our todays. Is there really something unique about our period because of which our future is unpredictable? But everything before our time was moving in a direction, towards a particular outcome? Not likely. Time after time, mankind’s feeling that he is unique has been proven to be just an anthropic illusion (arrogance?): we thought that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun revolved around the earth…and we were wrong on all counts. Similarly, each generation thinks it is unique. That it’s different. Sounds like a generational illusion (arrogance?) to me. Take the major events over the last century. It’s