October 17, 2003

You Asked, Frank Answers

Frank J answers your questions...

What were your parents smoking when they named you and where can I get some of it?
Neither of my parents smoked when I was born. I was named after my dad.

Who's your favorite Beatle? (I was gonna say "Spice Girl," but they're old.)
I dunno... McCartney.

Marsha or Jan?
Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!

What does one have to do to get a Frank-alanche?
E-mailing me a worthy link is a good way to start.
Oh, and if you're a cute female, promising me sexual favors.

Why haven't you de-linked me yet?
Same reason I haven't updated the links of those who have moved off blogspot - I'm lazy.

When is Chomps happiest?
When he is angriest.

Who would win in a fight between Chomps and Zatoichi?
Chomps is too noisy to take on the blind samurai. I'm just going to say it would be a tie.

What is the purest form of humor?
Mockery. It's the evolutionary purpose of humor.

Can something be funny if it does not poke fun at someone/something?
All humor can be traced back to mockery of man. Even when you laugh at a dumb thing a dog does, it's because it reminds you of a stupid human. That said, humor can still be used without purpose of mockery, but that is its roots.

Since the number of numbers are infinite, all odd numbers are infinite. But since odd numbers are only half of all numbers, how can 1/2 of infinity equal Infinity? What's the deal?
Any inifinity can be divided into an inifinite number of smaller infinities. That's just how infiinite infinity is. So, if you put an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters, soon an infinite number will write the greatest novel ever written (which would probably resemble the one I'm going to be editing this weekend before I try to shop for an agent).

(shudder) infinite monkeys...

In your opinion, is blogging a legitimate form of journalism?
Not my blogging.

Where will the blogosphere be in 5 years? In 10?
Still on the internet.
Oh, and ruled by me... I mean the Alliance.

What do you really think of President Bush and his leadership abilities?
He's doing fine by my count, but he ain't wowing me.

Are you still available?
Why? Do you know someone?

Do I have to convert to Catholicism to marry you?
Yes, unless you're like superattractive.

How many kids do you want?
Three worked out for my parents. I'll go with three.

Thanks, Frank J! And thanks to everyone who submitted questions (I know who you are).

Tune in next time, when Heather will be answering your questions.

Posted by Jennifer at October 17, 2003 12:01 AM


Pretty easy to figure out which question Susie asked!

Posted by: Victor at October 17, 2003 08:01 AM

About the whole infinity thing...

Here's a little mathematical analysis lesson for all.

The infinity of whole numbers and the infinity of odd numbers are actually the same size, since we can construct a 1-1 and onto relationship between the two sets.

Consider the rational numbers, those that can be expressed as a fraction. There is an infinite amount of these as well, yet there are many many more rationals than there are whole numbers. So much so in fact, that we can't construct a 1-1 and onto relationship between the two sets. Don't believe me? Look up Cantor's diagonalization argument.

The first form of infinity, that of the whole numbers, odds, evens, primes, etc., is said to be of size aleph 0 (pronounced 'naught'). The second form of infinity, that of the rationals, irrationals, reals, etc., is said to be aleph 1.

FYI, you may also recognize aleph as the transliteration of the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

Posted by: James at October 17, 2003 11:50 AM

If I brown nosed you like a lot of the questioners, would I get my question on? Is your brown like permanent magic marker?

Posted by: Frequent Commie at October 17, 2003 01:26 PM

Without bothering to look up Cantor, lemme ask this:
Why are primes lumped in with wholes, odds and evens? I can see fractions being infinite for each whole number; but we also know that primes -- as we count higher and higher -- become fewer and farther between. Wouldn't they neccessarily resolve at less than 1:1 in the same way the fractions are obviously more than 1:1?
Forgive me but I am but an unfrozen caveman and your mathematical ways seem strange and frightening to me.
(RIP Phil Hartman!!)

Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 17, 2003 07:12 PM

I certainly didn't want my first post on IMAO to be as pedantic as it's going to be, but ...

James is slightly off on his explanation of infinity. There is also a 1-1 relationship between the rationals and the whole numbers (a pretty amazing thing!). Cantor's diagonalization method applies to the reals, of which there are a whole bunch more than there are wholes, rationals, integers, etc.

I haven't seen a proof about the number of primes, Tuning Spork, but there are an infinite number of them, so I'm pretty sure they have the same cardinality as the whole numbers.

This is pretty counterintuitive stuff, this business of infinite set cardinality, but I love it!

I'm going over this with my college logic class on Monday, so I was just reviewing this stuff. Yes, I'm a college professor (although I don't play one on TV). Give me a piece of chalk and a cup of coffee, and I'll go on about this stuff for hours. Oh, and I guess I'll need a chalkboard.

Posted by: NoSalesmanWillCall at October 18, 2003 04:05 PM

My apologies. I should pay more attention to where a hyperlink takes me. I now realize I'm not actualy on IMAO.

Short of shoots a hole in my credibility as a College Professor, doesn't it? Especially since I'm a Computer Science professor!

Anyway, while driving back from the video store, I came up with the proof for the primes having the same cardinality as the integers, etc.

I'll spare you the details. Just trust me.

Posted by: NoSalesmanWillCall at October 18, 2003 09:23 PM

Frequent Commie, you're confusing the continuum hypothesis with fact. So that you don't have to go haul out your analysis textbook, the continuum hypothesis states that *perhaps* there is no infinite number between aleph-0 (the cardinality of the integers) and c ("continuum", the cardinality of the real numbers). In that case c would be the same as aleph-1. But this is not proven.

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at October 19, 2003 02:22 PM