Jamie123

So sealing after death is only available to people who married in life? That goes against what I was led to believe by the missionaries many years ago when I was an investigating the Church. Having recently learned that eternal marriage was necessary for "salvation" - in the Mormon sense of the word - and having previously been told that "everyone would have a chance", I asked them about the many Cambodian women who would never find husbands because so many men had been executed under Pol Pot. (This was not so very distant history back then.) Their response to that was ask "Do you think that God is just?" The only thing I could infer (assuming the Sisters knew what they were talking about) was that the transition from the single state to the married state must be possible after death.

I was actually talking about a googol, not a googolplex, far less a googolplexian. (And less still a googolplexiantantiddlyumpumpum.)

A googolplexian maybe but numbers much bigger than a googol are used in public key cryptographic algorithms like RSA. What's more these numbers need to be prime numbers - or at least very strong pseudoprimes.

According to this website http://www.googolplexian.com/ the largest number with a name is a "googolplexian". To explain: a "googol" is 10^100, or 1 with 100 zeros: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (I may have missed the odd zero - or added 1 too many - but if you're planning to count them to make sure then you're as sad as I am! Having said that, anyone who thinks numbers of that size have no practical purpose needs to read up about RSA.) A "googolplex" is 10^(1 googol), or 10^10^100 or 1 and a googol zeros. (And if you watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos back in the 1980s you'll know that is unwriteoutable. Sagan ran around Trinity College Cambridge with rolls and rolls of paper with zeros on, but eventually admitted that the paper needed couldn't be stuffed into the known universe.) A "googolplexian" is 10^(1 googolplex), or 10^10^10^100 or 1 and a googolplex zeros. (Don't even think about it.) OK.....so I'm now going to make history.... A "googolplexiantantiddlyupmumpum" is 10^(1 googolplexian), or 10^10^10^10^100 or 1 and a googolplexian zeros. Time to re-write the maths books!

This reminds me of something that happened to me when I first graduated from college. I was interviewed and recommended for a technical post at GCHQ (similar to the NSA in America). Of course they have to do a lot of background checks on prospective employees - which I assumed was just to make sure I wasn't a Soviet spy (this was at the tail end of the Cold War). And since I wasn't a Soviet spy I naturally assumed this would be a formality. However, the investigation dragged on for quite some time, during which I bummed around doing occasional warehouse work and gradually lost interest in working for GCHQ. Finally a letter arrived from GCHQ saying that as a result of their investigations they would not be able to employ me. By now I was determined to reject any offer of a job from GCHQ anyway, and was already making arrangements to go back to university. But the letter still bugged me: it was laconic to the point of rudeness, giving no indication of what they had against me. If there was something nasty in my background I wanted to know about it! However several letters and telephone calls left me none the wiser. After a few days I let the matter go and concentrated on preparing for grad school. But it still left a nasty taste in my mouth. I still wonder now what the skeleton had been discovered in my closet!

Or alternatively the smarter you are, the less money you spend to do the same amount of work

Yesterday morning, my wife (lovely thoughtful lady that she is) brought me a nice big cup of coffee to me in bed. I put it on my bedside table. However I had failed to notice two things: (I) My beloved iPhone 5s was on the bookshelf above the nightstand, and (ii) about half of said iPhone 5s was projecting over the edge of said shelf. I think you can guess what's coming... I removed iPhone 5s from cup, dried it and turned it off. Later I tried turning it on again but it wouldn't work. I tried plugging it into charger but still no joy. I looked up online what to do - it suggested putting it in uncooked rice to absorb the moisture. But when I came home yesterday the thing was still as dead as a doornail. You'd think that Apple - with all their advanced technology - would make an iPhone that is waterproof. This sort of thing easily happens, and the things cost about £200 to replace or repair. What a life! Prophecy or not, there seems to be something to be said for WoW!

Just to satisfy my morbid curiosity, would you feel the same about tea and coffee?

Injuries from defective whoopee cushions? I can honestly say I never thought of that before!

Evil definitely has intelligence behind it. The way temptation has worked upon me over the years has certainly been quite organized and cunning. I can very often see after the event what the devil's plan was - but that doesn't always make it easier next time. I suspect C.S. Lewis' depiction of devils in The Screwtape Letters is quite close to the truth - though of course I'm not suggesting that Hell is really organized along the lines of the British Civil Service. That was just a bit of satire on Lewis' part :)

On the subject of school bullying, consider the wisdom of that great sage Nigel Molesworth, reported (as any fule kno) by Wiillans and Searle. "Every skool hav a buly who is fat. There are 2 kind of buly: the buly who can run and the buly who cant run for tofee. The first sort is hardly satisfactory but bulys who cant run are beter. You see one swanking up the corridor and you whiz by shouting 'Look at the clot-faced wet!' Buly run after you but you are already disapearing over the horizon. A few days later buly come up to you at yore desk and sa 'You caled me a clot-faced wet what do you mean by it?' You sa "Honestly I would never sa something so uncouth" (fingers crossed) "someone else must think you a clot-faced wet too!" WAM! But you have nimbly skipped away and buly is left cursing. Bulys are pathetic objects I diskard!" [P.S. Spellcheck is a menace when you're trying to quote Molesworth verbatim!]

I think I agree with Eowyn: you need to understand the other person's worldview (*) before you can really ask questions and understand the answers. Otherwise you just end up arguing with them on cross purposes. James White (of Phoenix Arizona) for example says that Mormonism has no meaningful doctrine of Grace. And his arguments make perfect sense - so long as the only "doctrine of Grace" you understand is that espoused by the Reformed Baptists. Other evangelicals rubbish Mormonism by suggesting that Mormons think they can put God in their debt - an idea which they claim is nonsensical. And it is certainly is nonsensical in the absolute sense. But what about within the context of a covenant whose very existence is an act of Grace on the part of God? I remember once talking to an Anglican colleague (who knew nothing of Mormonism) about how the Mormons baptize for the dead: he said the idea was ridiculous because dead people don't have agency. I asked him how he knew this and he didn't have a reason: he just knew that they didn't. It was an assumption he had always had and never questioned. And some Mormons do the exact same thing. A few years ago I had this conversation with some Elders at my door: Elder: You do know, don't you, that we are the true restored Church of Jesus Christ? [A ridiculous question to ask a non-member: if I did know that I would already be a Mormon.] Me: I know that's what you believe. Elder: We don't just believe it. We know it! [Another stupid thing to say: demanding the other person accept a-priori that you're right is no way to start a cross-faith discussion. It's just a conversation-stopper.] Me: (Silence) Elder (realizing his mistake and trying to rescue the situation): Do you believe that the Church of England is the True Church of Jesus Christ? Me: No. I don't. Elder: (genuinely surprised) You don't? Me: No. The True Church of Jesus Christ is invisible. Then came some bluster about "Did Jesus Christ found an invisible church?" but you could tell they were floundering. They had not been expecting me to say "no". If I had said "yes" there would doubtless have been a lot of "gotcha" points about Henry VIII's unsuitability as a Church-Founder and Prophet. But those would only have worked if I had held the same sort of ideas about the C of E as they held about the Mormon Church. Yes...yes...I know I'm speculating about what these two young men were thinking, but I reckon I'm not too far off the truth. My real point is that you need to think outside the box: the sort of "gotcha" questions that Eowyn mentioned are usually rooted in the asker's worldview and are either unanswerable, or else a truthful answer would not be meaningful to the one who asked it. (*) I think I should rephrase that a bit: you don't necessarily need to understand the other person's worldview; you need to be open to having your own worldview challenged. I apologise: that is an important distinction.

What a lovely, lovely song :)

Ditto :) Let's hear it comrades... The People's Flag is deepest red, It shrouded oft our martyred dead, And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold, Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold. Now everyone join in with the chorus... To raise the scarlet standard high. Beneath its folds we'll live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here!

I'm not sure what "IQ" is, but you're right, it's "Zeno" not "Xeno". I'm thinking of "Xena Warrior Princess"! P.S. Oh, you mean that movie where Walter Matthau plays Einstein? I saw it but a long, long time ago! I shall need to re-watch it.

My physics teacher at school used to tell this joke: (If this sounds laddish, please bear in mind that physics classes in those days were almost exclusively male.) A mathematician and an engineer are at a party together. The mathematician notices a gorgeous blonde at the other side of the room whom he really wants to get to know better. He says to his friend "Wish me luck; I'm going to try to schmooze with that girl over there." The engineer replies "You don't want to seem too interested. You'll turn her right off! Saunter nonchalantly half way over to her and have a root beer. Then go half the distance again and have another drink. Keep on going until you reach her." The mathematician thinks about this for a moment and says "But this is Xeno's arrow! I'm never going to reach her!" "No," replies the engineer. "But you'll get close enough for most practical purposes!"

When you're a pleb like me, on the very bottom rung of the academic hierarchy, it doesn't always pay to engage Important People in casual conversation. When I arrived in the building this morning, I stepped into the lift, and just as the doors were closing who should appear but the Acting Dean. So naturally I held the door open for her. She was thankful and I asked her how she was, and pleasantries were duly exchanged. I asked her if she was still Acting Dean (she has been since the last proper dean retired earlier this year) and she said she would be until January. Then I made my big mistake: I asked her if the new dean had been appointed. She said "Yes, it has been announced. It was in the Vice Chancellor's newsletter!" So now...as if I don't have enough to worry about...the Acting Dean knows that I don't bother to read the Vice Chancellor's newsletters. And this is quite true: I occasionally scan them through for "juicy bits" (like the recent accusation that the university has been encouraging hate speech http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11870429/British-universities-that-give-the-floor-to-extremist-speakers-are-named-and-shamed.html) but mostly they go straight into a file marked "VC's Newsletters". I'm far more interested in what my students are doing than in the high-level politics of the university. But such parochial attitudes can bite you in the butt if you're not careful! Be warned!

I don't think we'll move there - my wife is terrified enough of normal-sized spiders!

The Pope goes on an official visit to New Your City. When he gets off the plane at JFK Airport there is a limousine waiting for him. It is a very nice shiny limousine and the Pope likes the look at it. "Driver," he says to the driver. "I've always wanted to drive a nice shiny limousine like this, but I've never got to do it. Please will you let me drive it to the hotel?" "I can't let you do that Your Holiness," says the driver. "You're the Pope. You're supposed to sit comfortably in the back and wave to people while I do the driving." "Oh please!" says the Pope. "I'm so sick of sitting in the back and waving. It's all I ever get to do! Just this once I want to drive for a change!" The driver thinks about this for a moment; he's sure this is against the rules, but this is the Pope. "All right," he says. "But please Your Holiness, be careful!" "Oh I will!" says the Pope eagerly, jumping into the driver's seat and revving the engine. Reluctantly the driver climbs into the back and off they go. At first the Pope drives carefully, obeying all the street signs, but gradually the power of this beautiful car goes to his head. He wants to see how fast he can make it go! The speedometer creeps slowly up: 35mph, 40mph...50mph! Eventually he is driving through Manhattan at 60 mph, and he is pulled over by a traffic cop. The cop takes one look at him, turns almost as white as the Pope's robes, and radios his superior officer at the station. "Excuse me Lieutenant," he says. "I've pulled someone over for speeding, but...well, he's someone rather important." "Who?" asks the lieutenant. "Is it the Mayor?" "No," says the cop, "More important than that!" "Well...is it the State Governor?" "No sir....more important than that even!" "Don't tell me you've stopped the President!" "No...even more important than him!" "Well....who?" The cop pauses before replying. "Well sir....I think it must be God, because the Pope is driving!"

I think it was The Big Bang Theory rather than Frasier

This makes me think of "At the Back of the North Wind" by George MacDonald. It is (***SPOILER ALERT**) a story of a boy called Diamond who is dying. He meets a goddess-like woman who is a personification of the North Wind; sometimes she is a huge giantess and sometimes she is tiny (just as the wind varies in size) and she takes him away on a magical adventure. There is one point in the story where Diamond has to walk on a high precipice; he is afraid but says he will try to be brave. The North Wind replies (I've paraphrased it slightly): "To try to be brave is to be brave - a coward who tries to be brave is braver than the brave man who never had to try". Maybe to try to do our best is to do our best.

Maybe so, but I don't expect them to pull sledges to the South Pole. I mean....that's just plain silly!

And 2. ?

We could hang out over a cool glass of nectar and ambrosia - that would be quite something! :)

No...this is *not* more drivel about the Flat Earth people and how Antarctica is really a giant ice-wall holding the oceans in and spilling out into...well presumably into Nifelheim and the roots of Ygdrassil (if you're into that sort of thing). This is something far more important... The fact is that Antarctic exploration makes me VERY angry! Why? Well there are two very important reasons... Firstly because Roald Amundsen ate his dogs! They were nice cute husky dogs that anyone else would have been glad to have for a pet. Good, loyal, faithful, hard-working dogs who pulled his sleds all the way to the south pole, allowing him to beat Scott (who despite his poor organization played things fair as far as doggy-woof-woofs went). And how did that Norwegian git repay them? By using them not only as a source of propulsion but also as a source of food. He and his men ate almost the whole lot of them! While Scott was freezing and Oats was going out for "some time", the Norwegians were stuffing themselves with husky-burgers and fries! Amundsen brought only ONE dog back to Norway. You can see it today, stuffed in a museum in Olso. If you ask me Amundsen should be disqualified, and the credit given to Scott instead! (Please excuse me while I go and grind my teeth.) But there's another reason as well... When I was 10 years old, my teacher (I'll call him Mr. Keswick - which is very nearly his name) told us the story of Robert Falcon Scott, and how he used horses to pull his sleds to the pole. I asked him why he didn't use mechanical tractors to pull the sleds. Mr. Keswick looked at me and said "For goodness sake this was in 1910! Did they have mechanical tractors then?" Now I had no idea whether they had mechanical tractors in 1910, but the class was already looking at me with amusement, so instead of confessing my ignorance I said "no". Mr.Keswick then led the whole class in a good old laugh at "stupid old Jamie". Well, that summer, when our family was on holiday, I was given some spending money by my Ma and Da which I used to buy a book about Antarctic exploration. (I bought a book on dinosaurs too, but that doesn't come into this story.) On the centre pages it had a cut-out penguin which you made to stand up by pasting it to a toilet roll middle. It also had the story of Scott's and Amundsen's expeditions and - in the middle of one page was a picture of a vehicle with caterpillar tracks, and a caption underneath reading "Motorized sled used by Scott on his 1910 expedition to the south pole!" Check it out here: http://mp.natlib.govt.nz/image/?imageId=images-18720&profile=access So Scott DID attempt to use "tractors". He had two of them. Admittedly neither of them reached the South Pole, but my question had been quite valid! Despite the teacher-induced snickering all around the classroom, it wasn't "stupid old Jamie" at all. It was "stupid old Mr. Keswick!" So I got a train straight back home, went to Mr.Keswick's house, grabbed him by the front of his shirt, pushed the picture in his face and shouted "Look at this, Mush! Who's stupid now???!!!" Well ... OK so the last bit of the story is pure fantasy but I certainly did it in my head!