Duke Phillips Preschool

A wardrobe malfunction waiting to happen

2010-11-01T10:07:00.002-04:00

I got up at 6:30 to walk the dog. I was feeling good about being up early, getting the day started right. And then I considered my choices of attire for a pre-dawn walk in 40-degree weather.

pants: black, dark gray, or navy
jacket: dark gray or navy
gloves: black
hat: brown, black, or dark gray

At least the dog is reflective.

Here's your headline: Bunnies Bite Breslin, Breslin Bleeds Badly

2010-10-30T11:39:00.008-04:00

I am pleased to announce that this blog has been named one of the top Pre-K teacher blogs in the Midwest! Thanks to Teacher Salary Info for the much-deserved, if geographically iffy, plaudits. We wear our badge with pride.
If you're coming here looking for information about preschool teaching, I should warn you that you may have to dig a little to find it. Also, please ignore the post entitled "Britney Spears Sex Riot."
New trivia coming soon. Really, this time I mean it.

Also, that two-week-old grilled cheese could not have been tasty

2010-10-05T22:16:00.001-04:00

We begin this week with Finn, praying to his newly created Cheesy Savior for a win in their first football game...

... and I'm out.

Last season's timeline was... flexible, but Murphy & Co. could at least plead poetic license for stretching the last two weeks before each competition over five or six episodes. But what school, at any level, has its first football game of the season after a month of classes? This time last year, the team was already 0-6. And while we're on the subject of football, Sam gets leveled by a defensive back who was "cheating right all night," then we come back from commercial to a bit about him being injured by a 23-year-old left tackle on steroids? Left tackle is an offensive position, for Pete's sake. If we're not even going to pretend to get the details right, I'm not going to pretend to watch this as anything other than a 70's-style sitcom in which time does not exist and every episode ends with no permanent changes to anyone's world. It's a shame.

Trivia returns later this week.

Britney Spears Sex Riot

2010-09-29T13:17:00.002-04:00

Today's Glee post is unnecessary, as there was no temporal placement (not to mention no real plot advancement). I give you instead the following link.

All coffee, no omelet

2010-09-22T17:36:00.001-04:00

That didn't make any sense.

Okay, let's get past the strange character turns, particularly Quinn's and Santana's. High schoolers are teenagers, and they do things even they can't fully explain all the time. The whole Sunshine subplot was absurd, but we needed to introduce new characters. The lack of Jayma Mays is distressing, but only slightly so, particularly since this particular episode was so concerned with catching us up with the kids and stuffing as many songs as possible into a single episode like frat boys into a phone booth. Lots of this episode didn't make sense, but what I talk about here is temporal issues, and so that's where I'll focus.

The new football coach comes in to practice and announces everyone is cut, and it's time for new tryouts. That's great and all, but if classes have started, the team has been practicing for weeks, and has probably already had a game. It's not unheard of for a new coach to show up after the season has started (particularly if the old coach has a breakdown), but school budgets don't get set after the students show up. When does this episode take place? If it's before classes start, what is everyone doing in the halls? If it's after, why are all of these little subplots just happening now? Did anyone associated with this show actually go to high school?

Speaking of going to high school, are all of these kids in the same class or what? We know that Rachel is a junior (sure, she looks like she's in her twenties, but John Hughes did this all the time), but all we know about the rest of the cast is that none of them graduated. Even Matt, who we could have graduated in a nod to the fact that people are only high schoolers for a short time, transferred. Finn was the star quarterback for the football team last year, and Quinn the head cheerleader, and Santana her replacement, so one might have thought at least one of them was a senior, but that wasn't going to happen. Perhaps this is their graduation year? Certainly, the school's best football players, the captains of the cheerleading squad, not to mention the school's #1 "power couple," weren't all sophomores last year?

Anyway, there were funny bits, but mostly this episode was a steer with six teats and no oink. Hopefully, this is an aberration, and we can get back to some actual plot, instead of six music videos interspersed with whatever filler is deemed necessary to get to the next song.

A Quick Tip

2010-08-27T09:06:00.003-04:00

I'm not sure who it is that has decided that I am a "Mom Blogger." I'm not a mom. I'm not a parent at all, but the point is that, if I were, I still wouldn't be a mom. Maybe having my gender mis-identified shouldn't be offensive, but it is.

As thrilled as I am to get mail in the blog's inbox, sending the Preschool information about your site, and then telling me how great it will be to "connect with other moms in [my] area," is a good way to ensure that you're reported as spam.

Thanks for your attention, and happy back-to-school week.

Just Put Some In My Hands For A Dime!

2010-08-23T11:07:00.002-04:00

Actual conversation at Jimmy John's this weekend:

Manager: Hi folks, I'm afraid all we've got left is wheat bread.

Me: Wow, really?

Manager: Yeah, we just got slammed and are trying to catch back up.

(this is backed up by the large stack of trays containing uncooked bread)

We have enough bread for one sandwich.

Me: Oh. Okay, well, in that case... (scanning the menu board) I'll have an Italian Club.

Manager: Would you like it on wheat?

...

Summer School, Part II

2010-08-08T21:15:00.002-04:00

It's been a while since I've been to trivia (my reduced schedule for the summer quarter lasted three weeks), but I did save up a few misses, and have spotted a few cool tidbits. Here's a new set to tide you over for a while.

What was the name of Little Anthony's backup band?
In Chico and The Man, who played The Man?
What is Maxwell Smart's agent number?
What 1978 album was The Who's last studio album?
Who co-wrote "China Girl" with David Bowie?
Who directed the films Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, and Punch-Drunk Love?

Summer School

2010-08-08T20:47:00.004-04:00

I'll post new trivia in a bit, but since I do claim to talk about math here, I would be remiss not to point out a shocker in the world of mathematics: A possible proof that P ≠ NP. There's been no confirmation that the proof is correct (the paper is only two days old), but it certainly doesn't appear to be a joke.
The shock is not so much the result (I think P=NP would have been the bigger surprise), but that there was little warning that anyone was close to proving it. This has big implications for computer science. For example, data encryption that relies on factoring large numbers (a problem known to be in NP) is secure, in that there is no algorithm that will allow an adversary to quickly find the decryption key.
We do live in interesting times. Here's hoping the proof is correct.

(HT: This guy.)

I'm A Winner, And You're Fat

2010-06-09T12:13:00.002-04:00

WARNING: As always, Glee spoilers ahead. Go watch the season finale before you read.

Well, that's the end of that.

The majority of this episode takes place over one day (specifically, Saturday, April 17), so there's no need to hash out an episode timeline. So, instead, let's talk about the end of the pregnancy plot line, which I (and millions of others, no doubt) called a month ago.

We start with Quinn saying she isn't due... for a month?

This is not so. Terri's whole fake-pregnancy scam operated on the premise that Quinn was due during Spring Break, and thus the switch could happen without a lot of questions. Carmel High, I might remind you, had its Spring Break five weeks ago. There just isn't that big a window for high schools to have a week off. It should have been three weeks ago. It's conceivable that it was last week. It certainly isn't still a month away.

On top of that, no matter when Quinn is due, she got pregnant during the summer, which leads me to the second annoyance about this scene - her uniform. It's one thing for the Cheerios to still be in uniform every single day, even though Nationals were a week ago - I'm sure they're just practicing for next year, and Sue Sylvester isn't the kind to give them time to rest on their laurels - but surely they don't wear those uniforms every single day all summer long. Were the writers afraid that if Quinn was wearing street clothes, we'd forget that she was a cheerleader?

The birth itself actually illustrates pretty well a point I've been making most of the season, about the difference between "suspension of disbelief" and "bad writing." Quinn goes from backstage to the hospital to having the baby in the time it takes for Vocal Adrenaline to perform (Rachel tells Shelby about the baby while the judges are deliberating), and everyone gets back to the auditorium in time for the results to be announced. That's a mighty close hospital, and a mighty short labor, but that's what suspension of disbelief covers. Putting a date on something and then ignoring or changing that date is bad writing.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Season One of the show, much like New Directions' first season, was a good start. Tune in this fall and see if the kids, and the show, can build on it.

Youth League basketball needs replay NOW!

2010-06-04T14:24:00.003-04:00

I hereby demand that the following calls be reversed:
1) Don Denkinger calls Jorge Orta safe, Game 6, 1985 World Series.
2) A Dennis Rodman layup called back because the referee claimed that the shot clock should not have been reset after a Kareem miss (this was incorrect, and he admitted this after seeing replay), Game 6, 1988 NBA Finals.
3) Two calls at second base during the 1999 ALCS (games 1 and 3).
4) The "fifth down" game, Colorado vs. Missouri, 1990.
5) The in-the-crease-call against Tim Thomas during the 1998 Bruins-Caps series.
6) Kenny Anderson's "buzzer-beater" against Michigan State, 1990 NCAA tournament.
7) At least three of the fouls that Bryan Gildea called on me in a GLYBA game in 1988.

If the commissioners and directors of the various sports involved do not correct these clear injustices that everyone agrees are wrong, then they are spineless.

Foo-Tweet!

2010-06-02T15:17:00.004-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoliers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode yet, consider coming back later. Please do come back, though.

Lima, Ohio, has become unstuck in time.

How else can one explain the muddled temporal mess that was this episode? For that matter, how else does one explain Vocal Adrenaline's twenty-something female lead? (Actually, we were shown a while back that VA plays with the eligibility rules, so I suppose that one can pass.)
I guess I'll begin where the show begins, with the gang looking forward to, and I quote, "Regionals next month." People, Regionals were next month last month. Regionals should be next week at the latest. At least we do find that Cheerleading Nationals are on Saturday. Saturday is, based on the last episode, April 4. That's about as late in the year as Spring Break could be, so we seem to have missed that. It couldn't have happened already, because everyone is hanging out in the school. Spring Break is a fairly important plot point for this show, remember?
Anyway, let's move on to Will and Sue's "date." This takes place, per Will, on Wednesday. This is three days before Nationals, but we soon find out that the Cheerios are all upset because Sue won't leave her house and they haven't practiced, and I quote, "in days." By "days," Kurt surely meant, "almost one day," because no way does this take place later than Thursday afternoon, if Will manages to get Sue back to practice in time for the weekend.
And then there are the multiple showdowns with Vocal Adrenaline. Will throws down the gauntlet, and invites VA to the McKinley auditorium on Friday. This invite takes place after Nationals (there's a big ol' trophy in the rehearsal room), so we've actually taken up two weeks, and it is now April 9. Regionals, clearly, have been postponed, as has Spring Break.
I've said this before, but what truly annoys me here is that it doesn't have to be this way. You don't have to write yourself into a corner by putting one event on Wednesday, and another on Saturday, and then forcing us to believe there's an interminable stretch of days between them. You don't have to set a date for anything. You don't have to put everyone in a new outfit every single scene. Because when you do, it looks shoddy, and when the Universe ends and then begins again, it will always be shoddy.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week, the whole charade ends.

Frailty, thy name is plot

2010-05-27T15:58:00.001-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead.

Here we go again. Much like "Road to Sectionals," this show has set a timeline, and then ignored it in an attempt to cram as many songs as possible into each episode. The show is funny (though less so than it was early in the season), and it usually hits the right notes, but did anyone in charge of this show actually go to high school? You don't get to show up at your convenience (actually, given the behavior of my students, perhaps you do, now). It takes place within the confines of a five-day week. Every time you have a scene with people milling about in the hallways, that's a school day. Every time you change everyone's outfit, that's a school day. Every time you have five of them, that's two days of weekend you've also used up. It doesn't bother me that we never see these kids doing anything that would indicate that they have classes besides Glee Club, but it bothers me that they live in an Ohio that's always warm and sunny and has a 400-day year.

Anyway, this episode's timeline:

Day one: The assignment for the week.

Day two: "Funny Girl." This isn't day one, because everyone, as usual, is wearing different outfits.

Day Three: "Bad Romance." Per Mercedes, the scene at Carmel High took place the day before. "Shout It Out Loud" takes place the same day.

Day Four: Burt Hummel Is Awesome. Kurt skipped school to decorate the room, so it isn't day three.

Day Five: "Beth." We can assume that "Poker Face" occurs the same day. By the way, Rachel was born in the middle of the first season of Friends.

Day Six: The confrontation in the hallway. To think this was day five, we'd have to assume that a) Shelby came over to McKinley in the middle of the school day and b) Rachel changed outfits in the middle of the day, then changed back into her Gaga outfit. Nope.

This is six school days we've seen, so we could be at March 25... BUT, during day six, Artie states that it's the end of the week. So it's Friday, March 26. Next week, Regionals!

...Right? It has to be. They're next week. Actually, so is McKinley's spring break, but I can't imagine anyone has paid attention to that.

Two notes:

1. Jesse is gone again. No one even makes note of this, much less attempts to explain it.

2. Are we going to see the Cheerios at Nationals? That should have been this week, but Mercedes and Brittany were never absent.

That's the name of that tune

2010-05-26T14:14:00.001-04:00

Trivia is back again, and the questions have gotten tough. Plenty of misses this week, which should tide you over if they decide not to hold it next week.

1. What sport's athletes compete in the Coronation Cup?

2. Soundgarden frontman Chris Cornell and members of Rage Against The Machine combined to form what group in 2001?

3. Who wrote the Peter, Paul, and Mary hit "Leavin' on a Jet Plane?"

4. What group performed the 1965 hit "Do You Believe in Magic?"

The next four questions all have answers starting with "B."

5. What is Charlie Brown's father's profession?

6. What was the name of the mechanical shark(s) built for the filming of Jaws?

7. What watch company had the first television commercial?

8. What is the name of the dog on a box of Cracker Jack?

The final four questions all have answers starting with "F."

9. What was the name of Tony Beretta's cockatoo?

10. What Ohio town was the setting for the comedy "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman?"

11. Which actress is the daughter of Maureen O'Sullivan?

12. Which Hemingway novel was made into a 1929 movie starring Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes?

Another day, another destiny, this never ending road to Calva-wait for it!

2010-05-20T18:07:00.001-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode yet, what are you waiting for?

When we last saw the gang, it was early March, and we were starting down the road to Regionals. This week, time marched on, even if the plot didn't. Let's take a look.

First of all, Jesse is back from Spring Break, so it's after last week's episode. Let's say he gets back on Monday; this would make sense, seeing as he has to go to school and all. It doesn't really matter, though, nor does the first fifteen minutes, because, per Will, auditions for Les Miz take place on Friday, so the rest of the episode must take place over the week after that. Let's assume we learn about Sue's "secret room" on Monday. She's wearing the same track suit (I think) in the next scene, so that's Monday, too. Will gives up his part on Tuesday, and the club is saved, yet again, on Wednesday. That puts us, at the very earliest, at St. Patrick's Day. McKinley's Spring Break, cheerleading Nationals, and show choir Regionals are all coming, and fast. Not coming so fast, apparently, is baby Fabray; my theory is Quinn only gets one line a show in an attempt to make us forget about the baby plotline until it's convenient.

One other temporal clue of note: Rachel was born December 18, 1994, so Sectionals took place... the day after her fifteenth birthday? It's certainly not unusual for students to turn fifteen during their sophomore year, but I was having enough trouble buying Lea Michele as an underclassman without knowing she spent the entire Road to Sectionals playing a fourteen-year-old. You know, writers, sometimes the gun goes off accidentally, and sometimes you load it, cock it, and take aim at your toes.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week, Kurt gets a brother!

There's never an excuse for stirrup pants

2010-05-13T22:59:00.001-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. The show was on two nights ago, though, so if you haven't seen it yet, you've probably been spoiled already.

This show is glorious. Here I was, thinking they weren't paying any attention to timeframe, and they go and hand me an episode so time-specific they might as well have hung calendars on the walls.

As far as how long the episode takes, it's just the standard week-long episode, so there's no real point in trying to pin down the specific day that everything happens. However, we are treated to a couple of juicy facts. Fact one is that Jesse is not around. Specifically, he's not around because he's on Spring Break with his Carmel High buddies.

I'll give you a second to process that.

Jesse is on Spring Break.

I've been worrying that it's already mid-February and that they're not going to have time to cram in any more plot and get to Regionals before summer vacation. I've been thinking that the writers are completely ignoring the calendar or inhabiting some weird universe where it's still October or something. All of a sudden, I find out that a) they are keeping track of when things happen, and b) it's actually later than I thought it was, because Spring Break does not happen in mid-February. We are at least at the first week of March. McKinley's Spring Break could be up to four weeks away, I suppose.

Fact two is that National Cheerleading Championships are in three weeks. This gives us potential for a show's worth of subplot, or it may make us scratch our heads in a couple of weeks when Santana and Brittany and possibly Kurt are still rehearsing 24/7 with the Glee Club instead of at Nationals. Fact two, though, is really just a lead-up to fact three:

Regionals is in a month.

That puts Regionals at the beginning of April, possibly during Spring Break. You know what else happens during Spring Break? Quinn's due date. This is too good not to be a major plot point in four weeks. That is still the due date, right? That baby bump is mighty small for someone finishing up her eighth month. At least we know (and this, I suppose, would be fact four) that she's living with the Puckermans (Puckermen?) after Finn kicked her out, and not in a refrigerator carton somewhere.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week: NPH!

Your Lucky Day

2010-05-11T11:59:00.002-04:00

After much searching, I have finally located the Famous Floating Monday Night Trivia Game, which means that we have non-Glee content!
Trivia will be sporadic for the next two or three weeks, but I expect several updates over the summer. For now, though, here are last night's misses, plus several lucky non-misses.

1. Who was the narrator for the film Stand By Me?
2. What actress co-starred with Sean Penn in the 1983 film Bad Boys?
3. In 2006, which quarterback became the last USFL veteran to play in an NFL game?
4. Name the only father and son to hit back-to-back home runs in a major league baseball game.
5. Which Beatle has his back turned on the back cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?
6. Whose 1980 album Emotional Rescue spent seven weeks at #1 on the U.S. Pop charts?

You had me at "sex tape"

2010-05-07T13:01:00.001-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode yet, consider coming back tomorrow.

I've been dealing with a nasty stomach virus, but the public needs to know, so I'm here to tell them. Where are we? Or, rather, when are we?

Monday: Sue Sylvester goes viral! Sadly, I can find no links to this performance, on YouTube or elsewhere.

Tuesday: Rachel has an idea. Will is a slut.

Wednesday: U Can't Touch This, but Olivia Newton-John can.

Thursday: Sue goes viral again. Rachel, not so much. Again, there's no link to the "Physical" video, except for something someone pulled off their TV. I gotta think Fox missed an opportunity here.

Friday: Will, Quinn, and Rachel are all sorry.

Assuming it was the 5th or 6th at the end of the last episode, it is now February 12. I stand by my statement two weeks ago that I won't be bothered when they don't mention Valentine's Day next week.

I haven't had a drink in almost 45 minutes

2010-04-29T18:11:00.001-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode, consider coming back tomorrow.

After last season ended with lots of temporally ambiguous episodes, this season has come out swinging, with two straight episodes of references to days and recaps of the past and just the generally casual treatment of the space-time continuum that you know I love, because ever since I asked where we were in the semester, I haven't been able to let this go. Last time, we were getting close to the end of January. Where are we this week?

We begin with the revelation that there's someone coming to interview Sue in seven days. That gives us the standard one-week timeframe for this episode, so we just need to figure out what day the show begins. The last episode ended on Wednesday, so this week's episode could plausibly start that day, or Thursday, or Friday, and still only advance "show-time" by a single week. There are two clues:

After a weigh-in, Sue informs Mercedes that she has four days left to lose her weight before the pep rally. If said rally was on a Wednesday, that would place this scene some time during the weekend. Thus, Wednesday is out. Thursday is possible; the weigh-in could be Monday, and Sue could then have included Monday in the four days. More plausibly, the opening and pep rally could take place on Friday.
The pep rally happens, and the reporter offers to finish the interview the next day. This day includes a Glee club rehearsal, so one assumes it was a school day, which would end the show on a Friday. However, I lean towards the pep rally being Friday, and the interview being on Saturday; there are no hallway conversations to indicate that it's a school day, and there's no reason to think that a dedicated show choir wouldn't practice on Saturday. Either way, we're at the end of the first week of February, either the 5th or the 6th.

Two other temporal clues of note:

Kurt states that Parent-Teacher Conferences took place "about a month ago," but then states that he expects the Hudsons to be moving in with to the Hummel residence "before mid-terms." The first statement would put conferences smack at the beginning of January, but the second would make me wonder when else those conferences could have been. Thinking back to my own high school's schedule, January basically starts with first-semester final exams, so I guess right before finals is as good a time as any for conferences. Right?
April mentions that, right after her last appearance (yes, I've linked to the same post twice, so save your emails), she spent "a couple of months" in a bar. This, excitingly, lines up with the estimate that that episode ended in late October.

Finally, let's talk a bit about poor Quinn. It's lovely that she actually got a few lines in this show, but she's largely a forgotten plotline so far. She's seven months pregnant (she's due during Spring Break, which is the end of March/beginning of April) and barely showing, which has me concerned about the health of her child. Worse, she's no longer living with Finn, and there's been no word of her parents taking her back, so one assumes the poor girl is living on the street. This would, come to think of it, explain her sad-but-defiant stare in almost every scene, but the pregnant girl shouldn't be shunted aside like Ross and Rachel's baby. Free Quinn Fabray!

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week... well, I forget what's happening next week. Maybe T-Pain shows up, and the show won't have to pretend it isn't using autotune for a week.

Tick Tock Tick Tock

2010-04-21T20:50:00.001-04:00

WARNING: As usual, minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode, consider coming back tomorrow. It's okay, we'll still be here.

Sometimes, this whole chronology-of-Glee business can be a grind. Most of the episodes take place over the course of a week, and no amount of minute analysis (not that I'd ever be guilty of that) will move things more than a day, so it's easy enough to just move the date ahead six or seven days and say that's where we are and golly shouldn't they be talking about [insert holiday] here?

They shouldn't be talking about [insert holiday], of course. It is a goal of the show, at least implicitly, to be "timeless;" we rarely hear about actual dates, only days of the week. That way, it can be any time of year. More to the point, it can be any year; the show doesn't have to take place during the 2009-2010 school year. It does, however, take place during a school year, and that's the sort of thing that has schedules and rules, and that's what makes these posts worth doing to me. But I digress.

This week's episode, far from being a grind, is chock-full of juicy temporal clues. We begin with a reference to a Rachel-Jesse date, which took place on a weekend, and had to have happened after last week's episode. That gives us a starting point. If we assume that the opening conversation, and first Cheerios' routine, take place on Monday, then Will hands out the Madonna assignment on Tuesday. The Rachel/Finn duet and Will/Sue hair-joke-off take place on Wednesday. The "Vogue" video could be Thursday, or maybe Friday. None of this matters, of course, because we know that everyone has sex (or possibly not) on Friday night. We know this, of course, because Finn asks Rachel directly about her date with Jesse on Friday. This conversation, takes place on Monday, at which point New Directions gets a new member (snicker). Kurt and Mercedes see Sue on Monday, and presumably join the Cheerios then, but the "4 Minutes" number would then have to take place on Tuesday, which makes it Wednesday when the boys sing about being girls. That moves the show through almost two full weeks. If we allow the Wiggles concert to be on the first weekend after the last episode (i.e., January 15th or 16th), we are now at least at January 27. They really do have to start talking about Regionals soon, or Nationals won't happen until next Christmas.

And that's what you missed on Glee. I promise not to harp on the fact that they're not talking about Valentines Day next week.

It's Date Night!

2010-04-15T18:36:00.002-04:00

Previously on Glee: The team won Sectionals the weekend before Christmas, then came to school that Monday (which we assumed was due to having to make up snow days), then took a long and well-deserved break. Will broke up with Terri, then made out with Emma, who, presumably, un-resigned. What shenanigans will we get into in 2010?

It's a new year and a new season as we head towards Regionals, but that doesn't mean we can't circle some dates on Glee's Crazy Calendar, now, does it? Let's review the chronology:

Actually, let's start with an aside, in which I point this out to the watchers, the writers, and most especially, the wardrobe personnel of this show: There are way too many outfit changes for the characters. This, in and of itself, provides fodder for this particular batch of posts. I can accept that people might change clothes when they get home from school, but, other than Rachel (who, I assume, keeps several lockers full of clothes around the school), if someone is wearing a different outfit, it is a different day. I get that it's TV, but even on TV there are rules to the non-cartoon world, and one of those rules is that time keeps moving forward, and there are only so many days that people actually spend in school. Suspension of disbelief can cover Rachel telepathically telling the backup band that she's about to sing "Hope it Gives You Hell," and the fact that everyone else in the already knows the words and has thought out the choreography. It cannot cover saying "Sectionals are in two weeks," and then having 30 days' worth of plot before Sectionals. If Regionals takes place in July, and then next season is an interminable march to Nationals, then... I suppose I'll have to write a very stern letter to... someone.

Anyway, thanks to the aforementioned outfit changes, and the fact that people can't be in two places at once and don't live at the school, we go through no fewer than six, and possibly seven, different days:

1) Sue's back! She'd have brought you coffee, but she doesn't like you. Will finds out that he has to place at Regionals.

2) Will hands out the week's assignment, Finn sings his Hello song. Brittany and Santana ask him out.

3) Finn goes on a date with Brittany and Santana. Meanwhile, Rachel meets Jesse.

4) The rest of the gang tell Rachel she can't date Jesse. Will goes to the VA performance and makes out with Idina Menzel. I cannot blame him for this.

5) Emma fixes Will dinner and runs into Terri. (This cannot happen on the same day as 4, by the way, because Will and Idina are clearly at his apartment.)

5ish) Sue brings Rachel to the "Old Maids' Club," Rachel sees Jesse and we find out he's playing her. These could be the same day, or they could be the same day that the Glee Club threatens Rachel, but in three scenes, she has—see previous rant—three different outfits. Not that it really matters, because they don't really have to bleed into a sixth day.

6) Emma confronts Will with a yearbook.

6ish) Final "Hello" sequence. Is it a fantasy sequence, or a rehearsal? I'll go with fantasy, because if it's an actual rehearsal, then this is day 7, because—you guessed it!—Will and Emma are in different outfits.

So, we've gone through at least a week of school days. However, we have a further temporal cue, because the scene with Terri and Emma takes place on Wednesday. Thus, we are at least at the second Thursday of the school year. In Ohio, that means it's January 14.

A few more temporal items of note:

Jesse mentions having watched McKinley at Sectionals, which immediately struck me as odd, though I suppose it's not out of the question that their own competition would have been on a different day.
By pointedly telling Finn that she's met "a senior," Rachel implies that Finn is not one. Thus, we have to assume that he is a junior, and by extension, so are Quinn and Puck. This makes little sense to me from the standpoint of high school social hierarchy, but at least they've figured out how to keep them around an extra season without going 90210 on us.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week: Madonna!

TWIFB Notes - April 11

2010-04-11T23:02:00.001-04:00

Transaction Report:

On Thursday, red-hot shortstops Cliff Pennington and Edgar Renteria finally made it to rosters. Other pickups of note include St. Louis rookie hurler Jamie Garcia (6 IP, 1 ER and a win in his first start), and Joel Zumaya (notable mostly because Ryan Perry, who actually got the Tigers' first non-Valverde save, was dropped on the same day).

Sunday, though, saw the first closer replacement of the season, and the Athl3tics won the bidding war for Jim Johnson at a whopping $4. A month from now, they may wish they'd just used that money on a year-old Happy Meal, but maybe Johnson is this year's Ryan Franklin. We also saw the second closer replacement of the season, but because Neftali Feliz was (rightly) drafted, no bidding ensued.

Meanwhile, the league played Musical Middle Infielders, as Clint Barmes spent three days on waivers, and Jerry Hairston spent three days on a roster. The other Hairston (Scott) slipped on to Duke Silver's roster for $0, which will look good as the Padres' other outfield options continue to struggle. Also of note is Mouse Rat's acquisition of Jeff Mathis, as popular sleeper catcher Miguel Montero gets an early DL stint.

Jeff Clement Report:

I have proclaimed Pittsburgh 1B Jeff Clement "this year's Brandon Inge." Like Inge last year, Clement is a catcher-eligible player who is playing another position. In theory, the extra playing time garnered from playing a non-catcher position allows these players to be more valuable than your average catcher, because they can accumulate more counting stats. I'll be tracking this proclamation throughout the season.

Through week one, Jeff has accumulated one home run, two runs, and three RBI. While this does put him among the top 15 catchers in all three categories, he's a bit behind Brandon, who homered in his first three games last year, and had 7 runs and RBI by the end of the first week. The .294 OBP, though, is quite Inge-like.

This Week In Fake Baseball

2010-04-04T20:36:00.002-04:00

The Preschool returns from our latest two-month hiatus with what I hope will be a weekly feature here (mainly, because it would give us some regular content). I am participating in ALOTT5MA's absurd 16-team, 400-player head-to-head baseball league.

Draft Recap

The major story of the draft is the drink I came up with: fresh-squeezed tangelo juice with bourbon and a splash of club soda. Serve it on the rocks. I call it a John McLaughlin, because I can't hear the word tangelo without thinking of a Saturday Night Live "McLaughlin Group" parody (the linked transcript is not the one with the tangelo reference).
The other story was the fact that this league uses on-base percentage as a scoring category instead of batting average, and a couple of teams didn't adjust to that (or, they planned to punt OBP in favor of other offensive categories). In a batting average league, Ichiro is usually goes by about the 25th pick, even though he's only a plus contributor in three categories. This is because he not only gives you a high batting average, his contact-heavy style means he does it over 50-60 more at-bats than the Pujolses of the world, which can more than cancel out a low-BA slugger later in your draft. In an OBP league, he still gives you runs and steals, but his OBP is much closer to average, and he doesn't give you the weight of a lot of extra plate appearances. There's nothing wrong with speedy leadoff guys, but they don't carry as much cachet in this setup. Carlos Peña, on the other hand, goes from a late-round utility player to just outside the top 10 first basemen (depending on what you do with guys who are eligible elsewhere).

I was all set to hand the "best pick" prize to Duke Silver's Moustache for snagging OBP-machine Jack Cust in round 19, until the A's went and designated him for assignment on Saturday. No one really wants to read 25 rounds of draft highlights, anyway, so let's move on.

Transaction Report

Most of this league hasn't played with an acquisition budget (each team has a mythical $100 to bid for free agents twice a week) before, and we're all getting used to it.

With Jose Reyes due to miss the first week, and Freddy Sanchez out longer than that, the Chicago American Giants needed some help at middle infield. Fifteen dollars on Juan Uribe, though, was probably not what they had in mind. Only two teams bid for John Bowker, so the Pawnee Possum Tacklers overspent a bit at $5. However, given the number of fourth outfielders (hello, Seth Smith!) on starting rosters, more teams should probably have been bidding for Bowker's services. Similarly, $2 for C.J. Wilson was $2 more than the Athl3tics needed to spend, but with only four healthy starters, this team was a rainout away from missing the starts minimum for the week.

Among the $0 bids, Vicente Padilla's two-start week makes him worth the pickup. Ziegler will be a nice add if Andrew Bailey steps awkwardly off a mound again. Kudos to the Bowling Alley Lawyers for snagging Chris Getz after teams with better bids or higher priority had already filled their rosters.

Coming Soon

Rather than continuing to fill up inches with the season preview, we'll save that for the next couple of posts. If you're not into the fake sports, there should be a new post about Scat this week.

Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen?

2010-02-06T09:34:00.006-05:00

I've run into two separate discussions based on this article about Jeopardy! and baseball questions (er, answers). The relevant quote:

Let's say you're on 'Jeopardy!' and you're absolutely routing your two opponents. You have $40,000 going into the final round, while one of your opponents has, let's say, $15,000. You're guaranteed to move onto the next day, but the final category comes up and it has something to do with baseball, which is your favorite sport. How much — if anything — do you risk?

The discussions of this article go along two paths. One is to compare how many of the ten Final Jeopardy! answers everyone got right (most participants have gotten at least seven of the ten - both sites have a fair number of people who are very knowledgeable about baseball). The other is to loudly decry the article's premise that, since you should be fairly confident that you will respond correctly (the article, on the Yahoo! Sports site, assumes you're a baseball fan), you should bet your entire $40,000 haul, rather than the $10,000 that will guarantee a win. Since the Preschool is all about the math these days, let's look at this in a little more detail. Specifically, let's look at the following situation: you have $40,000, the second-place competitor has $15,000, and the Final Jeopardy! category is something squarely in your wheelhouse. How much do you bet?

This (like the Scat decisions I'm supposedly writing about) is a problem of expected value. Suppose that you estimate the probability you will respond correctly as p; for example, if p is 0.8, it means you think you're 80% likely to be correct. If you respond correctly (as you will do 100p% of the time), you gain whatever you've bet; call this number b. If you respond incorrectly (which will happen 100(1-p)% of the time), you will lose b dollars. Your expectation for this decision is then 40,000 + bp - b(1-p), which simplifies to 40,000 - b + 2bp. If your only goal is to maximize your expectation for this decision, then the answer is simple: if p is at least 0.5, you should bet everything; if it's less than 0.5, you should bet nothing.

However, this is not your only goal, because if you win the game, you get to come back tomorrow, and try to win more money. Thus, we must also factor in your expectation of future winnings. (Incidentally, the primary argument I'm seeing against betting everything is that "you're risking a lot in future winnings.") Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the second-place competitor will bet his entire $15,000, and will respond correctly. Thus, if you bet $10,000 (or less), you will win (or tie), and come back tomorrow, regardless of your response. If you bet more than $10,000, and respond incorrectly, you will lose.

At this time, I should point out that we could make this a more complicated model, estimating the probabilities that the other competitors will respond correctly. Also, you could bet something other than $10,000 or $40,000. Even if you factor in the chance of the other competitors missing, betting something like $20,000 seems a doubly bad idea; you leave $20,000 "on the table" if you are right, and risk losing if you are wrong. You could bet slightly less than $40,000, thus improving the probability that you will win if everyone misses the final answer. In fact, I think $39,998 might be the best bet if you're "going for broke." That said, complicating the model takes time, and might be better suited to a paper than a blog post—any undergrads looking for a thesis, this might be a starting point! Once we decide to stick with a simple model, betting anything other than $40,000 or $10,000 makes the math work out less nicely, and a couple of dollars here and there isn't going to make much difference, nor will the tiny probability that you'll win with $2. Let's assume, then, that this is a binary decision: bet $10,000 and always win, or bet $40,000 and lose if you're wrong.

Assume that, if you win, your expected earnings from future shows is x (we could take some time and figure out what x might be, but let's wait to decide whether or not to deal with that). Now, we can look at two different expectations: one for playing conservatively, and one for betting everything. If you play conservatively, and bet $10,000, you will always win, thus adding x to your expectation. Using the formula above, your expectation is now 30,000 + 20,000p + x. If you bet your entire $40,000, you will lose everything, including future winnings, if you respond incorrectly. However, when you respond correctly, you double your money, and you still get to come back tomorrow. Thus, you add px to your expectation, which is now 80,000p + px.

An aside: I think this is what a lot of the folks making the "future winnings" argument miss—you aren't giving up your future winnings, just a portion of them. If you can win more today than you're likely to get on future days, there's a strong incentive to go for it.

Anyway, let's see what that incentive is. The difference between playing recklessly and playing safe is 60,000p - (30,000 + (1-p)x). Economists refer to this as an opportunity cost - by betting only $10,000, you are forfeiting whatever you could have earned by betting everything. If this cost is positive, then, economically, you are making a mistake by only betting $10,000; if it is negative, then playing it safe is the right call. Your decision is based on whether 60,000p is larger than (30,000 + (1-p)x).

Let's look at an example: Suppose you think you're 80% likely to get the Final Jeopardy! question correct. You are then comparing 48,000 to 30,000 + .2x. If x is less than 90,000, then 48,000 will be larger. In other words, you should bet everything unless you think you'll make at least $90,000 from future shows; given that $50,000 is a pretty hefty one-day total, this would require a fair amount of confidence on your part!

Does this mean Jeopardy! players should be wagering more recklessly? Well, perhaps. The example above is pretty solidly in favor of betting it all, but the big issue is estimating that probabilty. I managed to get 8 of the ten questions posed in the linked article (nine, actually, but I had to think about one for more than 30 seconds, so I'd have been hosed in Final Jeopardy), but that doesn't mean I'd be 80% confident I could answer a question based only the fact that it would be about baseball. Also, the necessary value for x in order to play conservatively goes down very quickly; if p = 0.7, then you're comparing $42,000 to 30,000 + .3x, and x only needs to be $40,000 to break even; considering that you've got $40,000 right now, this is getting to the realm of possibility. If we knew x (and we can probably come up with a statistical value, given the probability that the previous day's champion wins again, and the mean winning total), we could come up with a "break-even" value for p. I might return to this, but for now, I think the risk-averse behavior is better, unless you are very very sure of yourself.

Another Post Just To Prove I Still Post

2010-02-03T14:01:00.001-05:00

The latest post on Scat strategy has been half-finished for over a week, as I have been working on presentations of old and new research. Also, I'm still trying to find a new trivia night; I may give up soon and just start posting my own stuff. For now, here's a fun definition:

Let A_k be the set {1, 2, ..., k}. A graph G has an optimal t-tone coloring if each vertex can be assigned a t-element subset of A_k in such a way that if vertices u and v are distance d apart (in other words, the shortest path in G connecting these vertices contains d edges), then their subsets have at most d-1 elements in common.

For example, vertices adjacent to each other can have no shared elements in their subsets, while if the distance between two vertices is greater than t, they may be assigned identical subsets.

Sometimes, a pendant vertex is just a pendant vertex.

2010-01-29T09:10:00.003-05:00

I had a dream last night, in which I saw the proof of a mathematical theorem. It involved copies of K₅, with pendant vertices arranged in such a way that all of the graphs linked perfectly together into a larger complete graph. It was a simple, beautiful proof, and I can still see the end of it now, hours later. A few of the details are fuzzy, but I'm sure I could work them out. There's only one problem.

I have absolutely no idea what it was I was proving.

You Know What I Mean

2010-01-16T22:23:00.004-05:00

The Naboo half of Phantom Menace, stretched out to two and a half hours.

Total Recall, but without the cool perception-vs.-reality philosophy.

An evening of watching someone else play Halo and they won't let you play and they watch all the cut scenes.

An Inconvenient (and Ham-Handed) Truth.

Like Star Trek IV, but when they get back to the present, Kirk helps the whale-aliens blow up Starfleet Headquarters.

Courtesy of the w: A live-action remake of Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.

A late addition: Pocahontas in space.

Probabilistic Filler

2010-01-16T13:36:00.001-05:00

Some important probabilities related to Scat:

As I mentioned last time, your chance of getting scat (no 1's) on your first roll is 3125/7776, or (5/6)⁵, which is just over 40% of the time. The probability, then, of having scat as your final hand is (5/6)¹⁵, or 6.5%, which works out to about twice every 31 turns.

The probability of rolling five 1's within three rolls is, in theory, about 1.3% (the exact probability simplifies to (91/216)⁵, which I think is kind of neat—not because that ratio has any significance, but because the otherwise-complicated calculation ends up simplifying so neatly), or about once every 75 turns. In practice, though, this probability is smaller, because of situations which dictate abandoning the all-1's strategy.

If there are k people still left to roll, then, the chance that at least one person gets scat is 1 - (1 - (5/6)¹⁵)^k; and the maximum probability that at least one person rolls all 1's is 1 - (1 - (91/216)⁵)^k. If, for example, four players were still to roll after you, there would be a 23.5% chance that at least one would roll scat (thus saving you from elimination, if you had a fairly low roll), and as much as a 5% chance that someone would end the game prematurely by rolling five 1's.

The main factor we must consider when deciding which dice to re-roll is the expectation of each decision; this expectation is specifically based on the probability of winning or losing the game after this decision. The probabilities above are part of calculating the expectation - you can make riskier moves (i.e., keeping only your 1's) when there are more players still to roll, because there is a higher chance that someone after you will get a bad hand, and because there is a higher chance that if you don't win right now, someone else will do so before you get another roll. I'll get more into the decision-making process next time.

Roll the dice, don't think twice

2010-01-12T13:52:00.001-05:00

I'm a little behind on everything these days, and Scat strategy is one of them. Go back a month to review the rules.

When it is your turn, you have two strategies available:

Attempt to roll five 1's, thus winning the game.
Obtain a hand which is not likely to be the low hand for the round, thus avoiding elimination.

After your first roll, you have two opportunities to decide which dice to keep, and which dice to re-roll. This decision is a choice among three options:

Keep only the 1's, and re-roll all of the other dice.
Keep the 1's and your highest-ranking die or dice.
Keep the best hand you can make with the current dice.

For example, if your roll is 1-3-3-4-6, you can keep only the 1 (option 1), the 1 and the 6 (option 2), or the 1 and both 3's (option 3). There is no reason, ever, to keep the 4, or to not keep the 1.

In many cases, the decision is not even as complicated as the previous example; if the roll had been 1-3-4-6-6, or 1-3-4-5-6, options 2 and 3 would be the same. In fact, a little over 40% of the time (3126/7776, to be exact), there is only no decision to make - either you roll no 1's (3125 times), and must re-roll all five dice, or you roll five 1's (1 time), and win the game.

For those times when there is a decision to make, several additional factors should be considered:

The current low hand. The low hand in each round is eliminated, so you will often (not always) choose the option with the best chance to beat the current low. More importantly, you will want to avoid options that have a very low probability of beating the low hand (keeping three 2's when the current low hand is four 4's, for example, is usually a bad plan).
The number of players still to roll. Remember, you only need to beat one player each round, so if there are several players still to roll, you can choose a riskier option, based on the chance that not all of those players will beat you.
The number of players still in the game. Without taking strategy into account, if there are n players at the beginning of the next round, your chance of winning by avoiding elimination this round is roughly 1/n.

I'll start getting into the probabilities of the game next time (and I hope that next time comes more quickly than this time did). However, I expect we'll find that, early in the game, the expectation gained by winning the game immediately will outweigh the risks of being eliminated early. In other words, rolling five 1's is the primary strategy (in my limited experience, most players make avoiding the low hand primary, and rarely go for the outright win unless they have already beaten the current low). This means that option 1 will frequently be the correct decision, because the other two options necessarily abandon the primary strategy. This will be particularly true after the first roll, because committing to any die other than a 1 restricts the ways for a hand to improve. I also expect that avoiding the low hand will become the primary strategy later in the game, when simply staying alive represents a greater increase in the probability of winning—my guess is that this happens when there are three players remaining, but we'll see.

Finally, and perhaps unfortunately, I expect we'll find that, while skillful play does increase one's expectation of winning, the overall effect won't be that great against people who do not play as well. In other words, you'll be able to win an n-player game against "normal" players more often than once every n games, but you'll likely need to play a few hundred games to see that result. Also, since each player's hand is independent of the other hands, we may find that there is a single pure strategy that maximizes one's probability of winning. In this case, the result of all players adopting that strategy makes the probability of winning an n-player game exactly 1/n. This is all conjecture for another time, though. Stay tuned.

A son! A son! A son! Hear the joyful celebrations in the street!

2009-12-14T13:15:00.001-05:00

The trivia posts have been slowing down lately. The caller has moved to a new location, but hasn't set up trivia night yet, so this may have to hold you until 2010. Don't despair, though, I remain steadfast in my search for good trivia.

What early-'80s rock diva was originally classically trained as an opera singer?
Speaking of rock, and opera, what is Tommy's last name?
In the novel Treasure Island, what is the name of Long John Silver's parrot?
Who was the Girl from U.N.C.L.E.? (the character's name, not the actress)
What was the name of Carrie's high school (in the film)?
What is the only Van Gogh painting sold during the artist's lifetime?
Which NFL team won its first game of the season 17 years in a row, from 1973-1985?

Hit your marks, Stay in the light, and do the same thing every time, for continuity

2009-12-10T17:08:00.002-05:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode, consider coming back tomorrow.

When we last saw the gang at McKinley High, it was Wednesday, and Will had just stepped down as director. Sectionals are Saturday, and Saturday, just to remind you, is December 19.

We start with Emma taking over the glee club, and Mercedes showing us she ain't no Kelly Rowland. This might happen Wednesday, or it might be the next day, but that doesn't matter, because the team puts together its set list with just a few days to go, and then we jump to Saturday, and everyone's on the bus! Well, everyone except Mr. Schu, because he can't go, and Finn, because he's quit, and is busy cleaning out his locker, because football season has ended. Football season has ended? Really? The State Finals are Thanksgiving Weekend, and, as I have pointed out several times, McKinley wasn't making the playoffs. Football season has been over for this bunch for six weeks.

Anyway, we're over at Sectionals, and Frances McDormand and Lauren Hutton are rocking out to Jane Adams Academy and Haverhurst (no, seriously, watch it again, they're sitting right in front of the McKinley kids), and the set list has been compromised! That's okay, though, because Finn un-quits again (he's as good at this as Rachel), and the kids put together a song, complete with harmony and choreography, in one hour. This, I will point out, bothered the w quite a bit, but not me. I said this in a comment a while back, but a show like this is all about where you choose to suspend your disbelief. I'm okay with it being High School Musical, and everyone already knows the lyrics to every song and just starts dancing. What I'm not okay with is poor continuity.

And speaking of which, here comes Rachel and her amazing disappearing/reappearing band-aid (it's on her right knee... in about half of the first number)! Lea Michele is fantastic, but I gotta say, she has never looked less like a high school sophomore than in this number. Then we have the one-hour song, and we're off to judging. It's amusing and all, but then the Vice Comptroller mentions that she's only there because her boss got tickets to a NASCAR event at the last minute. And this is where I choose not to suspend my disbelief. It is December. Even if we give the show a couple of weeks of credit by just ignoring things like the football team's record (which gave us our first clue as to an actual date), it's the end of November at the earliest. Here is this year's NASCAR schedule. There isn't a NASCAR event in December. There isn't one remotely close to Ohio in November. On top of that, races are on SUNDAY! I know it's a throwaway line, it's just meant to be funny, but come on, people!

Anyway, the show ends, Emma resigns, her last day is Monday, and on Monday Sue is suspended and the kids sing Will a song and everyone is there despite the fact that it is December 21, and almost every public high school in the country let out for the year on the 18th. Maybe there was a snow day (and the snow completely melted away the next day, because the trees outside are still green), and now they have to make it up.

Anyway, that's what you missed on Glee. Join us in April for the Spring Semester. It had better be the Spring Semester.

Deep Blue Something, or possibly not.

2009-12-03T15:38:00.001-05:00

We're a bit behind on trivia because of the holidays, too. We've only been going about every other week, as the popularity at this particular watering hole has slowed down; it's just not that much fun if there are only four teams, even if we do win more often. The trivia caller is, apparently, moving his gig to a new restaurant, so we'll see if that picks things up.

1. What occurred the day before the Passion of the Christ?

2. Which comedian famously stopped aging at 39?

3. Who was the last American man to win the Olympic marathon?

4. More Olympics: who was the only American to win a gold medal during the '68 Winter Games?

5. Who played Hazel?

6. Who sang the score for the film Breakfast at Tiffany's?

This show has 74 flaws as of yesterday...

2009-12-03T11:44:00.002-05:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode yet, you may want to come back tomorrow.

We missed last week's Glee recap because of the holiday, so it's time to pack two episodes into one post. This will work out well, because we absolutely must assume most of these episodes take place in parallel, as we're about to see.

Last week, we met the competition for Sectionals. We don't really know when Will met with their respective choirmasters, but we do know that the rehearsal with the School for the Deaf took place on Monday. That's not the same Monday as the previous episode, so it has to be the next Monday, December 14.

This week, we find out that Sectionals are "a week from Saturday." If it's already after the Monday from last week, that means Sectionals are on St. Stephen's Day, which doesn't seem likely. Therefore, this has to have happened the previous week. That's all very well and good, but the episode still has to end later than last week's episode, because Will is no longer the Glee Club director. It is, at the earliest, December 16 - the "Imagine" rehearsal is Monday, Will sleeps in the office on Tuesday (we need the day on Tuesday to resolve other subplots), Mattressgate hits on Wednesday. Sectionals are now set in stone as December 19, there is no further way around it.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Next week we finally see Sectionals, and figure out how Emma is there and at her wedding at the same time, and perhaps resolve once and for all the fake baby plotline.

There's no beating Judy's ham!

2009-11-21T12:24:00.001-05:00

There's not much to say about this week's Glee. It's hard to stay with a timeline, as I can't find any point in this week's episode that specifically references an occurrence in the previous week's episode. There is a temporal clue, though, as we know that Finn is invited to the Fabrays' house for Sunday dinner. This does, of course, lead to more time-continuity issues, as Rachel appears to run into Susie Pepper in a restroom at school, immediately after dinner. That could be Monday morning, but then Rachel is wearing a different outfit before rehearsing with Mr. Schuester. Is that Tuesday?

Let's be generous, and assume that some of this week's episode happened in parallel with the previous episode's events. This seems unlikely, given that the gang would be spending a lot of time in wheelchairs, but if we don't start crediting the show a week here and there, we're going to hit Holiday Break in a hurry, and Sectionals (which are now "in a few weeks," by the way) will be happening around Valentine's Day. (This, as I alluded to last week, would actually be more in line with the schedule of show choir events in Ohio, but that's a whole other kettle of home-cured meat.) Sunday dinner is still going to happen after last week, but I'll assume that the final Schu-Rachel scene does take place on Monday (perhaps Rachel was slushied after lunch and had to change). That gives us a current date of December 7. Last day of school is the 18th, people, so sectionals better get here fast.

Back then, of course, if the fight lasted less than fifty rounds, we demanded our nickel back!

2009-11-15T19:56:00.001-05:00

It's been a while since I put up trivia, and I've been stocking up on misses. Unfortunately, I've misplaced most of that stock, but here are a couple of the tougher ones from the last few weeks. Get these, and you too could be taking your local pub for a bottle of wine and a gift certificate every week.

According to Mattel, what is Barbie's last name?
Who is the only Major League Baseball player to hit a home run for both leagues in the All-Star Game? (Not in the same game, obviously)
What African dog breed is also known as "The Barkless Dog?"
What comedian introduced Johnny Carson as the new host of The Tonight Show on October 1, 1962?
What fruit forms the base for the liqueur creme de cassis?
Who was the only boxer to defeat John L. Sullivan by knockout?

It's beginning to look a lot like...

2009-11-12T17:28:00.003-05:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoliers ahead. If you haven't watched this week's episode, you may want to come back tomorrow. Also, there's a spot where I link to a blog post that links back here, so you could get caught in a Recursive Internet Loop if you're not careful.

Previously on Glee: The football team won its first game with three weeks left in the season, and then continued to practice for six more weeks. Meanwhile, Mr. Schuester announced that we were two weeks away from Sectionals, then led his merry band of singing, dancing teens through three weeks of mash-ups and throwdowns, all in preparation for the aforementioned Sectionals, which still haven't happened as of November 19.

They won't happen this week, either, as we find out that the team can't afford to rent the short bus to travel to Sectionals. There's cupcakes, and fighting, and more Artie than we're used to, which is a good thing, and more Brittany than we're used to, which is probably also a good thing. The plots all advance a little, but the main point of this episode is to showcase the Rachel-Kurt "Defying Gravity" performance, which is quite spectacular. Everyone feels good, everyone's happy, and there's no mention of fake pregnancy or any of the uncomfortable adult relationships or why anyone ever mentioned that Sectionals were in two weeks when most Ohio show choir competitions won't take place before next semester anyway.

So, what's the date? As usual, the show gives us one temporal clue, as Schu tells everyone to "be ready on Thursday" for the diva-off. We can assume, as usual, that all of the subplots and outfit changes take place over as short a time frame as possible, given the previous episode. The Thursday after November 19 would be the 26th, but that happens to be Thanksgiving. Thus, it has to be the following Thursday, December 3. We will note that the Cheerios have begun to practice indoors, so there is some attempt to keep the show in a universe in which Ohio actually gets cold in autumn and winter.

This week, it occurred to me that maybe the show wasn't totally serialized, and thus it could be earlier. After all, most of the subplots, particularly the various teen interactions, could easily have run in parallel. Kurt could join the football team and come out to his dad, and the whole Kristen Chenoweth thing could have been the week before, and that could still have been in a later episode, because they don't really have anything to do with each other. But every single episode has a moment, often just a few lines, that mark it as happening after the previous episode. This week, it's Quinn being kicked out of Cheerios. I get the need to tell the story as one continuous arc — it's easier for the viewer to keep track of everyone's relationships if we don't have to worry about whether today's events happened before or after the stuff we saw last week — but you have to account for the fact that time always moves forward. You can't just have everyone be a junior again for the second season.

Obviously, I'm more into the date-continuity issues of this show than most folks, but what really bothers me about them is how easy they would have been to avoid. If you don't say that the football team is 0-6, you can still claim it's early September. "Sectionals are in two weeks" was part of a throwaway line meant to show us that the kids weren't focusing, but details like that are exactly the sort of thing writers need to pay attention to. If you say "two weeks," you've committed yourself to a date, and that's a problem four episodes down the road, when you've had a month's worth of subplot, and still four more episodes until the actual competition.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Join us next week, as we'll find out whether women throw themselves at Will in spite of his v-neck cardigan/skinny tie ensembles, or because of them.

Why does it happen? Because it happens.

2009-11-10T10:42:00.002-05:00

When I lived in Michigan, a friend of mine hosted Monday Night Football parties. I expect he still hosts them, I just don't live there anymore. Anyway, a bunch of guys would show up, and we'd spend the evening drinking beer and sort-of watching the game. Since we usually only had a passing interest in the game, we would turn quickly to other distractions, usually games. It was at these parties that I was introduced to a dice game my friends called "Scat." Scat is a variation of poker dice. The rules are as follows:

The goal for each player is to make the best "hand" (actually, it's to avoid making the worst hand, but I'll get to that in a second). A hand is the best possible set of any one rank. Sets are ranked first by cardinality (the size of the set) and then by ordinality (the rank of the dice in the set); for example, three sixes is better than three fours, but four twos is better than three sixes. Only the set itself counts, the "kickers" are irrelevant, e.g. four twos and a six is the same as four twos and a three). Ones are wild, so a one and two sixes is really three sixes. However, a hand must have a one to be valid; a hand with no ones is "scat," and is worth nothing.
Each player has three rolls to make a hand. After each of the first two rolls, the player may choose to stop rolling any or all of the dice. However, the player must roll a one before setting aside any dice, i.e., if the player has scat, he must re-roll all five dice. If a die is set aside after the first roll, it may not be re-rolled after the second roll.
Play passes clockwise around the table. After each player has rolled, the lowest hand is eliminated, and the remaining players begin a new round. The honor of starting each round passes counter-clockwise: the last player to roll in the previous round rolls first in this round, the first player in the previous round now rolls second, and so on. When only two players are left, the game becomes best-of-three (the first player to have the low roll twice loses).
If, at any time, a player's dice "stack" (i.e., one die lands on top of another), that player is immediately eliminated, and the round ends.
If, at any time, a player rolls five ones, that player wins the game, regardless of how many players are remaining.

Obviously, this is largely a game of chance, so its main purpose was to shift small sums of money around a table. However, I noticed the occasional opportunity for skillful play. For example, a player who rolled two ones, two threes, and a six would usually keep the threes, thus keeping four threes instead of three sixes. However, if the low roll was four fours, that player would need to roll a one or three on the fifth die to avoid elimination. A player who kept the six in the same situation would still need to roll a one or six, but would have two dice, thus improving his odds.

This round of math lessons will focus on this game. I'll first point out some basic probabilities related to the game, and then delve a little into strategies in specific situations. Finally, I'll look at the game theory aspects, in an attempt to come up with a basic strategy.

Lesson 12: Why Bigger Isn't Better

2009-11-04T10:03:00.001-05:00

In the final post on strongly asteroidal graphs, we look at asteroidal graphs other than S₃; namely, graphs III_n (for n > 2) and IV_n (for n > 1). Fortunately, changing these graphs into minimal strongly asteroidal graphs is not nearly as complicated as it was for S₃, for two reasons. The first, and most important, is that there is only one potential middle vertex (a₁) in the asteroidal triple, so only one construction need be applied. The second reason is that applying the category B constructions (and, by extension, category C constructions) fails to produce a light path. Here's why:

Suppose that X₁ has three consecutive a₁-heavy vertices x-y-z, with a₁-light vertices u between x and y, and v between y and z. If x and z are not adjacent, then this creates a copy of graph II (with u, v, and a₁ as the strongly asteroidal triple). If, on the other hand, we attempt to place a single a₁-light vertex adjacent to x, y, and z, then this creates a chordless cycle with a₁. Therefore, category B constructions are minimal only if X₁ contains just two consecutive a1-heavy vertices, so we need not apply them when n > 2. Further, applying any category B construction to graph IV₂ will create a k-sun, where k is 3, 4, or 5, depending on the adjacencies between the a₁-light vertices and the neighbors of a₁.

This means we only need to focus on the category A constructions. Applying construction A1 to any of these graphs creates a copy of graph I, except in the case of graph IV₂, in which case we get graph 9. Applying construction A3 to any of these graphs results in a copy of graph II. Only construction A2 creates new minimal graphs. For the graphs in family IV_n, the added vertex must be adjacent to both neighbors of a₁; if it is only adjacent to one of the neighbors, a copy of graph II is created. This gives us two families of minimal strongly asteroidal graphs; these are 55_n and 56_n below.

There is one final construction to consider for graph IV_n; adding a pendant vertex v somewhere along the path X₁ might create a new sAT, in which a1 becomes part of a v-light path between a₂ and a₃. This construction can only work for n > 2, because v cannot be adjacent to a neighbor of a₂ or a₃. However, for n > 3, this construction will create a copy of graph II. The construction does work for graph IV₃, but the graph it creates is graph 43. We are out of ways to modify the minimal asteroidal graphs, so we conclude that we have, at long last, found all of the minimal strongly asteroidal graphs.

We have also, at long last, concluded this topic. The math talk will continue, though. Next up is some probability theory, as I examine a dice game.

Lesson 11: From C To Shining C

2009-10-28T10:22:00.004-04:00

Welcome to the penultimate post on strongly asteroidal graphs. We've seen category A constructions, in which a neighbor is added to one of the asteroidal vertices of S₃, and category B constructions, which modify the path between two asteroidal vertices. Today, we will look at category C constructions, which do both.

In a category C construction, a vertex c₁ is added which is adjacent to a₁, b₁, b₂ and b₃, and a category B construction is added to the path X₁. In addition, edges are added between b₁ and every vertex in the category B construction. The modified category B construction still creates an a₁-light path, because there will not be consecutive vertices adjacent to c₁. Equivalently, this can be thought of as adding a regular category B construction, and then making c₁ adjacent to every vertex except a₂ and a₃. However, it is more convenient, in terms of adding later constructions, to modify the category B construction so that all of the vertices are adjacent to b₁. Each category B construction has a corresponding category C construction, so the category C constructions can intuitively be labeled C1-C4. The constructions are in the figure below.

Because c₁ is adjacent to b₂ and b₃, removing b₁ from construction Cn will make a graph isomorphic to one with construction Bn applied. Therefore, in order to create a new minimal sAT, it is necessary for b₁ to be part of another light path.

In construction C1, this means that a category B or C construction must be applied to either a₂ or a₃, but in constructions C2 and C4, b₁ is already part of at least one light path, which includes one vertex from the category B construction (it is difficult to see, but these paths are colored red and blue in the diagram).

Construction C1 does not combine with construction A3 (a parasol is created), but we do get new minimal sATs by applying construction B1 or B2 to the path X₂, and applying constructions A1, A2, or B1 to a₃ (or X₃); these are graphs 37-41. In addition, construction C1 can be combined with constructions B1 and B3 to create graph 42; construction B4 can be used instead of B3 to create graph 44, which we'll get to in a second. In the above figure, note that several of these graphs have been rotated/reflected.

Applying C1 a second time can lead to several new graphs. If the vertices c₁ and c₂ are not adjacent to each other, then the vertices v₁ and v₂ become unnecessary. If c₁ and c₂ are adjacent, but v₁ and c₂ are not, then v₂ is still unnecessary. Finally, we can allow c₁ to be adjacent to c₂ and v₂, and c₂ to be additionally adjacent to v₁.

Adding construction B1 or B2 to any of these combinations, or B3 to either of the latter two combinations, will create a new minimal strongly asteroidal graph. Graphs 43-45 are those that occur using construction B2, graphs 46-48 use B2, and graphs 49 and 50 use B3. The category A constructions and construction B4 do not lead to new minimal graphs.

Finally, there is one way to apply construction C1 to all three asteroidal vertices. The vertices c₁, c₂, and c₃ are adjacent to each other, and only one additional vertex v is necessary; it is adjacent to b₁, b₂, and b₃. This creates graph 51. Other modifications of the adjacencies between c₁, c₂, c₃, and v₁, v₂, and v₃ do not create new minimal graphs; the most common result is a 3-sun.

Only a few minimal graphs arise from the other category C constructions. Construction C2 actually is a minimal sAT by itself, as the adjacencies between b₁ and the B2 portion of the construction create a₂- and a₃-light paths. This is graph 52. Construction C3 does not lead to any new minimal graphs; because the only added vertex in construction B3 is already adjacent to b₁, the addition of vertex c₁ is unnecessary to create an a₁-light path. Finally, construction C4, like construction C2, contains an a₂-light path. Category B constructions that modify the path X₃ do not combine with this, for the same reason they do not combine with construction B4. However, constructions A1 and A2 can be applied to a₃ to make graphs 53 and 54.

These are the final minimal sATs that arise from the graph S₃. Next time, we'll finish up by looking at the infinite families of asteroidal graphs, and seeing how to modify those to create strongly asteroidal graphs.

Zoot Suit Riotous

2009-10-21T23:31:00.004-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoliers ahead. If you haven't watched this week's episode, you may want to come back tomorrow.

It's rehearsal time at McKinley, and we acknowledge the fact that we've had Sue as co-director for a week, but now that's over, and we're back on track for Sectionals. Apparently, Sectionals have been postponed, because they should have been this past weekend. Remember that, writers? When you said that Sectionals were "in two weeks," and then you packed two weeks' worth of "show" time into the next two episodes?

That doesn't matter, though, because now there's trouble brewing at football practice. Coach Tanaka has his knickers in a twist, and has declared that the team must practice this Thursday, when the glee club normally rehearses. The issue of why the team is still practicing at all, given that the football season ended three weeks ago, is not brought up. Remember that, writers? When you said the football team was 0-6, and then ran through two months without showing any more football? High school teams don't play into December. We will note that the students are beginning to wear cold-weather clothing.

Anyway, back to the stated premise of these posts. Let's assume that the original rehearsal is on the Monday following last week's episode (so, November 16). The Thursday practice happens. Let's further assume that the Rachel-Puck scene occurs at the end of that particular practice (even though that means Rachel changed outfits post-rehearsal), which will allow Finn to return to glee club on Friday. This packs a heck of a lot of subplot into one week, but as usual, we are generous here at the Preschool. The date is Friday, November 20. We've missed Halloween, and are getting ready for Thanksgiving break.

And that's what you've missed on Glee. It sounds like there will be a few weeks without new episodes, which might allow real time to catch up with show time. Sectionals, no doubt, will be postponed without explanation again. See you in a month.

Eight Days a Week?

2009-10-15T09:30:00.007-04:00

WARNING: Minor Glee spoilers ahead. If you haven't seen this week's episode, you may want to stop reading now. Of course, if you have normal human eyeballs, it's probably already too late. Sorry.

So... was "Keep Holding On" the sectionals song?

As you'll recall, last week's episode began with sectionals two weeks away, and ended a week (plus a few days) later. So, presumably, sectionals will be the next weekend.

This week, we begin with Sue and Schu fighting like Mom and Dad on payday, and then there's a flashback. A lot happens: Sue splits up the Glee Club, there's practices for a singing competition, Will flunks all the Cheerios (except for Quinn and Santana and Brittany, apparently), we find out that Puck is one of the Chosen People (shalom!), there's a big fight in Principal Figgins' office.

We could try to figure out dates for all of these. For example, assuming the previous episode ended on Thursday, the original meeting with Figgins has to be, at the very earliest, Monday - surely, he's not trying to "take the temperature" after a single practice? Fortunately, trying to figure out how all of these events shoehorn into a few days is totally unnecessary, thanks (as usual) to the B-plot - Terri's increasingly absurd fake pregnancy. Without going into any additional commentary on the ideas, writing, and character development surrounding this donnybrook, I'll just point out that the ultrasound appointment takes place (per Will) on Friday, just after the big shouting match with Sue. Assuming everything else did take place in the course of a single week (and, since there is no mention of sectionals, we have to assume that), we have a date for these events - it's Friday, November 13.

And this is where the show (finally) begins to lose date continuity. Will comes into Sue's office, and they apologize, and talk about the set list. We still haven't seen sectionals, so this scene takes place... when? Saturday morning? The sectionals were, per previous exposition, scheduled for this particular weekend. The gang sings us out, but it's unclear if this is the competition, or a practice, or a daydream. So, Will and Sue either make up Saturday, before sectionals, or Monday after sectionals which we didn't see (given the competition, plausible), or sectionals got postponed and no one told us, or most of the McKinley students and faculty own time-turners.

And that's what you missed on Glee. Tune in next week for football three weeks after the end of football season, and perhaps Halloween decorations just in time for Thanksgiving.

I also make a better door than a window

2009-10-13T01:00:00.001-04:00

A while back, our regular trivia host took sick, and was missing for two weeks. One of the regulars got in touch with him, picked up the clues, and read them in his stead. In an effort to help out, I offered to write and read a round of trivia, and was allowed to do so the second week. I came up with ten questions that I thought were great. Unfortunately, it turns out I'm a better trivia-taker than trivia writer; the winning group in my round got one (1) question right, and they were the only ones to get that right. To be sure, I did a poor job. Hard questions are fine, but they're for separating the wheat from the chaff; you have to throw a couple of softballs out to keep people playing. Surely, though, you can do better than one.

Name the Pep Boys.
In Calvin and Hobbes, what is Calvin's favorite bedtime story?
Who was the 23rd President of the United States, serving between Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms?
What dog won the first three Frisbee World Championships, which are now named after him?
In the Velvet Underground song, "Waiting for the Man," how much money is in the singer's hand?
How many Canadian provinces border at least one Great Lake?
Who was the first African-American woman awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature?
On which island did Napoleon die, on May 5, 1821?
What is the name of the theme music for The Daily Show?
What Dutch driver holds the Indy 500 records for fastest practice lap, qualifying lap, four-lap qualifying time, and 200-lap race?

Lesson 10: All This Has Happened B4

2009-10-12T12:25:00.001-04:00

It has been two months since I posted lesson 9. There are a few reasons for the delay, but one reason is that the final category B construction has been a thorn in my side for months. I originally thought that it gave rise to no new minimal graphs. Then, I found one new sAT, then two, then three, then went back down to two, and so on. Every time I thought that I had thoroughly examined the construction, another combination occurred to me. Over the last month, I have examined each combination of constructions that included B4, one by one, and have officially convinced myself whether each combination does or does not produce a new minimal sAT.

Construction B4: The vertex v₁ is adjacent to a₂. In addition, a vertex u₁ is added, which is adjacent to v₁ and b₃. This creates the a₁-light path a₂-v₁-u₁-b₃-a₃.

The great difficulty in construction B4 lies in the fact that it lacks symmetry. With the previous category B constructions, adding a construction to a₂ was no different than adding it to a₃. For example, two combinations produce graph 16. With B4, this is no longer the case; when we apply other constructions, it is important whether they are applied to a₂ or a₃. In addition, if we apply B4 a second time, it matters which of the asteroidal vertices is adjacent to the vertex v₂.

One important thing to note is that applying this construction, and then removing the vertex b₂, is equivalent to just applying construction B1. To create a minimal sAT, the other two constructions must be applied in such a way that either b₂ is part of every a₃-light path, or that every a₂-light path would be heavy if b₂ were removed. This means that the construction applied to a₂ cannot be a category A construction, or construction B3. In addition, applying construction B1 or B2 to the path X₃ creates either a graph in which b₂ can be removed, or one with a chordless cycle. Applying construction A3 to either a₂ or a₃ creates a copy of the parasol.

If we apply a category B construction to the path X₂, the added vertices must be adjacent to v₁, in order to avoid suns and parasols. Construction B1 will create new minimal graphs when constructions A1, A2, or B3 are applied to a3; these are graphs 33-35 below. Construction B2 results in a graph in which u₁ is removable; in fact, it creates a category C construction, which we'll get to next time.

Attempting to apply B4 a second time creates problems. If it is applied to the path X₂, we must decide whether the vertex v₂ is adajcent to a₁ or a₃. If it is adjacent to a₁, then we do not get a minimal sAT, as (depending on the adjacencies) the resulting graph will contain suns, chordless cycles, or a category C construction. Suppose, then, that v₂ is adjacent to a₃. Then applying a category A construction to a₃, or construction B3 to the path X₃ is no longer possible (for the same reasons they could not be applied to a₂ or X₂ earlier). However, allowing v₁ to be adjacent to u₂ and v₂, and v₂ to additionally be adjacent to u₁, creates the a₃-light path a₁-b₁-u₂-v₁-a₂, while also preventing the removal of b₂ or b₃. This is, therefore, a minimal sAT; this is graph 36 at left.

Applying construction B4 to path X3 does not create new strongly asteroidal graphs; in any strongly chordal graph where this is applied, either a1 or b2 will be removable.

Next time, I'll start on the category C constructions. It's all downhill from here, kids. Two more posts max, and then we can move to a new topic.

What Time Is It, Mr. Fox?

2009-10-08T19:04:00.004-04:00

If you're like me, you spend your Wednesdays from 9-10 p.m. watching Glee (if you're not like me, you still watch it, but you have a DVR, so you watch it later and without commercials). I love the singing, love the one-liners, and I'd watch Jane Lynch read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," because I think she'd read it in a sardonic tone that would just crack me up the whole time. The relationships (all of them) are AWK-ward, but I prefer to view that as intentional, like it's a whole school of Michael Scotts. One thing has been bothering me, though. A couple weeks ago, I made the following comment over at ALOTT5MA:

I'm having trouble with the tiimeline for this show. If there's enough time passing that it's noticeable that Mr. Shuster only shows up for rehearsal once a week, where are we in the semester?

(This was referring to the "Acafellas" episode. And yes, I've misspelled "Schuester.")

Fortunately, the next week, we got an answer to exactly where we were: towards the beginning of the episode, Ken Tanaka made reference to the football team being 0-6. Assuming (generously) that it took one week for the following:

Kurt joins the football team as its kicker (Monday)
Kurt and Finn convince the entire football team to take dance lessons (Tuesday)
The team choreographs and rehearses a dance routine to "Single Ladies" to the point of presentability (Wednesday, Thursday)
The football team, with the help of their newfound dancing skills, wins their game on Friday.

Then the team has run its record to 1-6. High school football in the North generally starts the last Friday in August, so, assuming there were no bye weeks, the game took place on October 9. Finally, we have pinned down a date!

(NOTE: At ALOTT5MA, I said this game would have taken place on October 16, based on the fact that football starts the week before Labor Day. However, with the late Labor Day this year, that was not the case. This jibes with my own high school's football schedule.)

Having figured out what day it is for a specific episode, we can keep track of the chronology by estimating how long each new episode takes. Again, I want to be generous with these estimates - a lot more happens in a typical high schooler's day than most of us remember. Anyway, "The Rhodes Not Taken" begins with Rachel having quit the Glee Club to join the school play (this happened at the end of the previous episode). Let's assume that this happened on Saturday, at a weekend rehearsal. Then the episode opens at Monday's reharsal. In the course of this episode:

Will talks to Emma about having found April's transcripts, then gets in touch with April.
April returns to high school and meets the gang. This, obviously, couldn't happen until Tuesday.
The Glee Club rehearses two songs. Along the way, April wins over the teenagers by contributing to their delinquency. This, plausibly, takes place over the course of the rest of the week. Given the number of outfit changes, this can't just be Tuesday and Wednesday. This is important, because:
They perform two songs at their invitational. This, presumably, takes place on Saturday - given the previous assumption, it can't only be Thursday, and the football team (and Cheerios) would have a game on Friday. April leaves after the first song. Fortunately, Rachel has gotten fed up with Sandy Ryerson (after, what, two rehearsals? Three?), and re-joins Glee for the second song.

After this episode, I estimate the date as being October 17. We're now caught up to this week's episode, which begins with Mr. Schuester saying that sectionals are in two weeks, and that the kids have been coasting since last week, when they got the notice that their only competition would be a school for the deaf and an all-girls alternative school. I had originally given the benefit of the doubt and decided this announcement took place before the invitational, despite April's absence, but Rachel's presence (and outfit - she did re-join Glee for a day in the last episode, but quit again partway through the rehearsal) indicates that this is post-invitational, and thus we begin on October 26 at the earliest. Will then pits the boys and girls against each other in a singing competition, to be started, and I quote, "one week from today." The boys sing on Tuesday (so it was actually the 27th at the beginning of the episode), the girls sing on Wednesday, a drug scandal hits the program on Thursday. Sue Sylvester is now co-coach of the Glee Club as of, at the earliest, November 5. Two things to note from this:

It is still sunny and warm in Lima, Ohio - as evidenced by none of the Cheerios wearing tights or long-sleeved shirts under their uniforms.
The Ohio high school football playoffs begin on November 6. Even if the football team has won out to finish their season, they are, at best, 4-6, and not making the playoffs. Football season is over.

And that's what you've missed on Glee. Stay tuned in the following weeks, as I keep everyone up to date on the date!

Back to Bedlam

2009-10-08T15:09:00.001-04:00

We're back, after a two-month hiatus. I hope that I have a little more energy to keep this thing going this time.

Anyway, the last couple of graph theory lessons are ready (oh joy!), I've got a stockpile of trivia questions, and there's one new piece that needs to be somewhere other than ALOTT5MA comment threads. Stick around.

Sports and Spice (but not Sporty Spice)

2009-08-05T15:05:00.001-04:00

While we're waiting for the next graph theory lesson, here's some sports and music trivia to tide you over. We've been rocking the Monday trivia lately, so this ought to catch me up. The last few weeks have been in our wheelhouse, but the writer at this particular establishment is pretty in tune to that, so I expect things to get difficult in short order.

1. Who is the only player to hit a grand slam in the Major League Baseball All-Star Game?

2. In the forty-three Super Bowls to date, only once has either team failed to score a touchdown. Which team was it? (Bonus: which year?)

3. Which team lost Super Bowl II?

4. Which NHL team plays in an arena known as "The Igloo?"

5. Which island nation produces 90% of the world's cinnamon (as of 2006)?

6. What was the name of John Lennon and Paul McCartney's first band?

7. John Lennon was shot in front of what New York hotel?

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

2009-08-02T14:34:00.002-04:00

Lesson 10 is coming. Really. Re-checking this construction is a bear.

Sarek Knows Best

2009-07-28T11:21:00.001-04:00

This week's trivia misses themes: science fiction and Oscars trivia!

1. According to starwars.com, how old was Jabba the Hutt?

2. What year did the original Star Trek first premiere on television?

3. What actress played Spock's mother on both the Star Trek television series and in the fourth film?

4. What science fiction novel, now one of the top-selling sci-fi novels of all time, won the 1985 Nebula Award for best novel?

5. What song, from The Poseidon Adventure, won the 1972 Academy Award for Best Original Song?

6. What Best Picture-winning comedy also earned Billy Wilder Academy Awards for directing and writing?

Lesson 9: Construction B3

2009-07-27T15:49:00.002-04:00

We're still looking for minimal strongly asteroidal graphs, and it's time to move on to the next category B construction. Recall (from last time) that this construction will involve adding a vertex which is adjacent to all three interior vertices; we will call this vertex v₁.

Construction B3: v₁ is adjacent to both a₂ and a₃, thus creating the path a₂-v₁-a₃, which is a₁-light. Combining this construction with previous constructions is tricky. Adding constructions A1 or A2 to both a₂ and a₃ creates a copy of the bad aster. However, if we modify these constructions by making the added vertices adjacent to v₁ as well, this creates a minimal graph (if a₂ uses the modified construction, but a₃ does not, then b₂ could be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph). Similarly, adding construction B1 to both X₂ and X₃ creates a sun, unless we modify the construction by making the added vertices adjacent to v₁. This modification does not work for construction A3, however, as it creates a copy of the parasol.

If we combine constructions of type A with construction B1, we must still use the modified construction of B1; otherwise, we will create a graph in which a₁ can be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph. We may, however, use modified or unmodified type A constructions. Graphs 19-21 use only type A constructions with construction B3, and graphs 22-26 use construction B1 at least once.

Construction B3 can also be combined with construction B2. If vertices u₂, V₂, and W₂ are added to create the path a₁-b₁-u₂-v₂-w₂-b₃-a₃, then there is a parasol, unless v₂ and/or w₂ is adjacent to v₁. If only w₂ is adjacent to v₁, a chordless cycle is created, and if only v₂ is adjacent to v₁, a₁ and b₁ can be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph, regardless of the construction added to a₃ (which must be a type A construction, because B2 does not combine with B1, and applying B2 twice will produce a copy of graph 18). If both are adjacent, then removing a₁ and b₁ leaves a graph equivalent to combining B3 with B1 (with u₂ and v₁ standing in for a₁ and b₁). So, u₂, v₂, and w₂ must all be adjacent to v₁. Then, either a modified or unmodified type A construction can be added to a₃, producing graphs 27-30.

If construction B3 is applied twice, with vertex v₂ adjacent to a₁ and a₃ (as well as each vertex b_i), then v₁ and v₂ must be adjacent to avoid chordless cycles. Adding construction A1 or A2 to a₃ will produce a copy of graph 9, so we must add a type B construction to X₃ to obtain a minimal graph. Applying B3 a third time will result in a 3-sun, but both B1 and B2 will work, as long as all of the added vertices are adjacent to both v₁ and v₂. Construction B1 produces graph 31, and construction B2 produces graph 32.

Next time, we face the horror that is construction B4. For those who couldn't give a rip about all of this graph theory, there will be trivia posted tonight or tomorrow.

Lesson 8: B2, or not-B2

2009-07-24T19:47:00.003-04:00

Welcome to the latest installment in the continuing struggle to find minimal strongly asteroidal graphs. We are creating these graphs by adding vertices to the minimal asteroidal graphs, as discussed in lesson 5. Specifically, we're adding these vertices to the graph S₃; see lesson 7 for the terminology I use in referring to the various vertices in that graph. Last time, we looked at category A constructions, which add a neighbor to the vertex a_i, in order to prevent it from being a middle vertex. In today's lesson, we'll start to look at the category B constructions, which involve adding vertices to the path X_i to make it a_i-light. The number of vertices we can add is limited somewhat; I'll spare the details, but an a_i-light path in a minimal sAT will have a maximum of three a_i-heavy vertices. This is a small result, but it is important, because it a) means that there are only a small number of constructions in this category, and b) it places an upper bound on the length of the a_i-light paths, which in turn places an upper bound on the order of the minimal graphs we can get by adding vertices to S₃, which means the number of sporadic cases is finite. Before we begin, recall that, when a construction of category B (or C) is applied, the added vertices can be adjacent to the added vertices from other constructions from category B or C. This adds a level of complexity not found in the category A constructions.

Construction B1: a single vertex u₁ is added, adjacent to b₂ and b₃. This creates an a₁-light path, and thus prevents a₁ from being a middle vertex. If this construction is applied twice, say by adding a vertex u₂ to prevent a₂ from being the middle vertex, then the new vertices cannot be adjacent: this would create a chordless cycle u₁−u₂−b₁−b₂−u₁, and adding a chord between b_iand u_i (where i is 1 or 2) would make u_i a_i-heavy, defeating the purpose of the construction. Then B1 cannot be applied to all three paths, as this will create a 3-sun. It may be applied up to twice, though, in combination with constructions A1 or A2, to produce graphs 10-14. Applying constructions A3 and B1 together produces a copy of the parasol, so this is not minimal.

Starting with construction B2, the remaining constructions all involve adding one or more vertices which are adjacent to all three interior vertices, and to other vertices (possibly one or more of the asteroidal vertices) to create a_i-light paths. The other constructions of type B involve adding only one such vertex; we will call this vertex v₁.

Construction B2: In addition to v₁, vertices u₁and w₁are added, such that u₁ is adjacent only to b₂ and v₁, and w₁ is adjacent only to b₃ and v₁. Then a₂−b₂−u₁−v₁−w₁−b₃−a₃ is a₁-light. This construction can be applied once, in combination with constructions A1 and A2, to produce graphs 15-17. Combining B2 with A3, by adding a neighbor to a₂, does not produce a minimal graph: this combination will have a copy of the parasol, unless the vertex added to a₂is adjacent to v₁. But, in this case, a₁, a₂, and w₁ are in a strongly asteroidal triple, so a₃ can be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph (it is, in fact, graph 35, which we will see later). Combining B2 and B1 (by adding u₂ to the path X₂) also fails to make a minimal graph; adding any of the previous constructions to a₃ or X₃ will produce a graph in which a₂ (at least) can be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph. Applying B2 a second time creates an irregular construction. If vertices u₂, v₂, and w₂ are added to create the path a₁−b₁−u₂−v₂−w₂−b₃−a₃, then there is a 3-sun unless v₁ and v₂ are adjacent. Adding construction B1 to X₃ will produce a sun. Adding a construction of type A to a₃ creates a copy of either graph 13 or 14 (in which u₁, u₂, and a₃ are a strongly asteroidal triple), unless u₂ is adjacent to v₁ and/or u₁ is adjacent to v₂; we may assume the former. In this case, though, v₂ and w₂ (and the construction added to a₃) can be removed to make a smaller strongly asteroidal graph. Specifically, this is graph 18, in which, for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, there is a vertex u_i adjacent only to b_i and v₁. Each u_i is a_j-light for j ≠ i, and so for each i, there is an a_i-light path between the other two asteroidal vertices. Applying B2 a third time creates a graph which contains either a sun, or a copy of graph 18, so this does not give us an additional minimal graph.

That wasn't so bad, was it? Things get tougher, though, with construction B3, and I may need to spend the weekend re-checking my notes before I'm ready to show you B4.

Lesson 7: A is for Adjacent

2009-07-23T12:36:00.001-04:00

In the previous lesson, I broke down the categories of construction which we can use to change an asteroidal triple into a strongly asteroidal triple. Today, we'll examine the category A constructions. Right now, we're only looking at S₃; let's label the vertices of the asteroidal triple as a₁, a₂, and a₃, and let b₁, b₂, and b₃ be their respective neighbors. Then the path X₁, for example, would be a₂-b₂-b₃-a₃. Each path X_i is a_i-heavy; our goal is to add vertices in such a way as to make either make this path a_i-light, or to create a new path that is a_i-light.

The category A constructions involve adding a single vertex adjacent to the vertex a_i, and possibly to additional vertices, specifically to prevent a_i from being a middle vertex. There are three constructions in this category, each of which involves adding only one vertex, which we will call v.

Before we go further: when describing each construction, in this lesson and in future lessons, I will assume that vertices are being added for the explicit purpose of preventing a₁ from being a middle vertex unless otherwise noted. Some constructions may affect other vertices or paths, and some constructions have special considerations when they are being used more than once; I will discuss these considerations when they come up.

Construction A1: v is a pendant vertex; in other words, the v is adjacent only to a₁. This means that a₁ is no longer simplicial, and thus cannot be a middle vertex. This construction can be applied to all three vertices to produce a minimal sAT; this is graph 3, shown below.

Construction A2: v is adjacent to both a₁ and b₁. While a₁ is still simplicial, v is not adjacent to any vertex on the path X₁, which makes this path a₁-light. This construction can be applied to all three vertices, to produce graph 4; or, it can be applied in combination with construction A1 to produce graphs 5 and 6, shown below.

Construction A3: v is adjacent to both a₁ and b₁, and to one of the other interior vertices; in the example at left, v is adjacent to b₃. Like construction A2, this makes the path X₁ a₁-light. However, the path a₁-v-b₃-a₃ is a₂-light, so this construction also prevents a₂ from being a middle vertex! Thus, only one more construction is necessary to create a minimal sAT. If we attempt to combine this with construction A1, then we create a graph which contains the bad aster. However, combining it with construction A2 creates graph 7, below. Construction A3 can be applied twice, but the second added vertex must be adjacent to the same interior vertices (in the example above, b₁ and b₃) as v to create a minimal sAT. The second added vertex may be adjacent to v or not. If it is not, we create graph 8; if it is adjacent to v, we create graph 9.

Other adjacencies for v do not create new constructions in this category. If v is adjacent to both b₂ and b₃, then we create no new light paths, so adding v would not prevent any of the asteroidal vertices from being the middle vertex. If v is adjacent to any of the other asteroidal vertices, then this would create a new light path, but the other adjacencies required (to keep our graph strongly chordal) will actually fall under category B or C. In this vein, construction A3 might be considered a category B construction; I have placed this construction in category A because it fits the definition of adding exactly one vertex, which is adjacent to exactly one asteroidal vertex, and which prevents that asteroidal vertex from being a middle vertex.

Next time, we'll get started on the category B constructions. Because each new construction can be combined (in most cases) with previous constructions, I'll probably break this category up into two or more parts. This also means fewer breaks if I want to get through this, so maybe it will have the added benefit of speeding up the lessons.

He only dreamed of places now and of the lions on the beach.

2009-07-17T14:33:00.002-04:00

As I continue to catch up on our trivia misses, this week's theme is Famous Characters in Literature (and other media). The Lone Ranger's nephew's horse is still not a question.

1. Which family did Hazel work for?

2. Who is the superhero alter ego of Steve Rogers?

3. What is the name of Andy Capp's wife?

4. What is the name of Oscar Madison's wife?

5. What well-known novel features a character named Aarfy Aardvark?

6. Who is Tom Sawyer's girlfriend?

7. In The Old Man and the Sea, what is the old man's name?

Lesson 6: There is NO lesson 6

2009-07-16T16:26:00.004-04:00

We now know a few of the minimal forbidden subgraphs for the co-TT class of graphs:

Chordless cycles (co-TT graphs are chordal)
k-suns (co-TT graphs are, in fact, strongly chordal)
The bad aster
The parasol

Last time, we learned that we can find the minimal strongly asteroidal graphs by modifying the minimal asteroidal graphs to create light paths. Let a₁, a₂, and a₃ be our asteroidal triple, and X₁, X₂, and X₃ the paths connecting them, as described previously.

The only graphs we need concern ourselves with are graphs from the III_n and IV_n families, where n > 1 (graph IV₁, recall, is the 3-sun). We will begin with graph III₂, which is S₃. This graph is unique, because of its rotational symmetry; any of the three asteroidal vertices could be a middle vertex (the rest of the graphs which we have to consider have only one middle vertex, and only one heavy path). This means we must create light paths for each of these vertices. There are several constructions that we can use to prevent an asteroidal vertex a_i from being a middle vertex. I have grouped these constructions into three categories:

Category A constructions involve adding a vertex adjacent to a_i. This vertex may or may not be adjacent to any neighbors of a_i. In fact, adding a pendant vertex to a_i is the easiest way to prevent a_i from being a middle vertex, because it is no longer simplicial.
Category B constructions modify the a_i-heavy path X_i by adding a_i-light vertices. When category B constructions are added to more than one of the asteroidal vertices, we also gain the option of adding edges between the newly added vertices. This has to be done carefully; many graphs produced by these constructions are not strongly chordal.
Category C constructions combine the other two constructions, adding a new neighbor to a_i which is adjacent to the a_i-heavy vertices on X_i, and then adding vertices to X_i which are not (all) adjacent to this new neighbor. These are the most difficult constructions to find, but in at least one case, applying this construction to one asteroidal vertex prevents the entire triple from having a middle vertex.

We'll start with the category A constructions next time. They are fairly simple, so we should be able to get through all of them in one go. This will not be the case for the other two categories.

Lesson 5: The Journey Begins

2009-07-14T19:05:00.003-04:00

We're ready to start our search for minimal strongly asteroidal triples. There is a fairly important result which will make the search easier. In previous lessons, I've just been stating results and either linking to the relevant citation, or referring to my dissertation, but this result actually doesn't exist in print anywhere, so I need to prove it. As a result, this section will be much more technical than the first four; if you are not a trained mathematician, you may want to take proper safety precautions, or you may just want to skip to the end, where I sum everything up.

First, we need to introduce one more concept, that of the irreducible path. A path in a graph G is a sequence of distinct vertices x₁, x₂, ..., x_k, such that the vertex x_i is adjacent to the vertex x_i+1. If x_i and x_j are adjacent in G, and i and j differ by more than one, the path is reducible. For example, if a path has vertices x₁, x₂, ..., x₆, and x₂ is adjacent to x₅, then we can skip over vertices x₃ and x₄, making a shorter path between x₁ and x₆. A path which is not reducible is irreducible. Lekkerkerker and Boland showed that the paths in a minimal AT must be irreducible. Once more, let us consider the minimal asteroidal graphs, below.

Suppose that G is a chordal, strongly asteroidal graph, and that no proper subgraph of G is strongly asteroidal (in other words, G is minimal). As was mentioned in lesson 2, the bad aster and parasol (graphs I and II) are strongly asteroidal. These are also mimimally asteroidal, so these are our first two minimal strongly asteroidal graphs. In lesson 3, I stated that k-suns are also minimal strongly asteroidal graphs. Recall that a strongly chordal graph is one which is chordal and sun-free, so, as we search for the other minimal sATs, we may assume that G is strongly chordal, not just chordal.

Let a₁, a₂, and a₃ be a strongly asteroidal triple in G. Note that, even if G is minimal, it may contain more than one sAT. We may have to choose a specific triple in a few sentences, but, for now, let's just pick the first one we find.

Let W₁, W₂, and W₃ be paths such that W_i is a_i-light, and contains no neighbor of a_i. Each of these paths contains an irreducible path, if it is not itself irreducible; let W′₁, W′₂, and W′₃ be these irreducible paths.

Because G is minimal, it follows that
W₁ ∪W₂ ∪W₃ ∪ N(a₁) ∪ N(a₂) ∪ N(a₃) = G

(where N(v) refers to the open neighborhood of v - the set of all vertices adjacent to v.)
If we consider W′₁ ∪ W′₂ ∪ W′₃, each a_i must be simplicial: if a_i has two neighbors b_i and c_i (it will not have more, as each W′_i is irreducible), then the three paths contain a cycle which contains b_i−a_i−c_i as consecutive vertices, where b_i ≠ c_i and a_i has no other neighbors. Then (because G is chordal) b_i is adjacent to c_i. Further, because a_i is necessarily a_j-light for j ≠ i, there is no need to place a vertex of W_j between a_i and either b_i or c_i. Therefore, we may assume that each a_i is simplicial in W₁ ∪ W₂ ∪ W₃. Finally (and here's where we may have to pick a different triple), we may assume that each a_i has at least one neighbor adjacent to vertices on W_i: if not, then let b be any neighbor of a_i. Then, because a_i is not adjacent to any member of W_i, b is also in a sAT with the vertices a_j , j ≠ i. If b has a neighbor adjacent to a member of W_i, then replace a_i with b; if it does not, then G is not minimal.

Now, let G′ be a minimal subgraph such that a₁, a₂, and a₃ are asteroidal. In other words, remove as many vertices from G as we can while keeping those three vertices as an AT (not a sAT). Then G' is a minimal asteroidal triple - in other words, G' is one of the graphs above!

To see this, note that G′ is a subgraph of W′₁ ∪ W′₂ ∪ W′₃, and that each of the vertices a_i is necessarily simplicial in G′, and are the only simplicial vertices in G′. Let X₁, X₂, and X₃ be irreducible paths of G′ such that X_i contains no neighbor of a_i (while connecting the other two vertices in the triple). If G′ contains another minimal asteroidal triple, then at least one of a₁, a₂, or a₃ is not in this triple. Because this vertex is simplicial, it would not be part of an irreducible path; thus, it can be removed to make a smaller asteroidal graph. Without loss of generality, suppose that a₁ can be removed. Then G′−a₁ has an asteroidal triple of simplicial points (this is a result of Lekkerkerker and Boland, in the paper linked above). The only simplicial points are a₂, a₃, and (possibly) the neighbors of a₁, so a₁ has some neighbor b which is in an asteroidal triple with a₂ and a₃. Then b is the next vertex on one of the irreducible paths X₂ or X₃; without loss of generality, suppose b is on X₂. Consider W₂ and W₃; if b is not the second vertex (after a₁) of these paths, then it is adjacent to that vertex. Because b is not adjacent to every neighbor of a₂ or a₃, we can replace a₁ with b as the first vertex of W₂ and W₃, and these paths will still be a₂-light and a₃-light, respectively. If any a₂−a₃ path is b-light, then b, a₂, and a₃ are strongly asteroidal in G−a₁, which contradicts the minimality of G. So, X₁ must be b-heavy. Specifically, X₁ must have two consecutive vertices u and v (with v closer to a₂) adjacent to the next vertex on X₂; call this vertex c. None of these vertices can be a₃, so we may assume that u is not a neighbor of a₃. Neither u nor c is adjacent to a₁, so the portion of X₁ from a₂ to a, plus the portion of X₂ from c to a₃, contains no neighbor of a₁. Thus, we can eliminate v, and any vertices of X₁ between v and a₃, and obtain a proper subgraph of G′ in which a₁, a₂, and a₃ are still asteroidal, a contradiction. Phew!

This result implies that we can obtain the minimal strongly asteroidal graphs by simply appending vertices to the minimal asteroidal graphs in such a way as to make the asteroidal triples strongly asteroidal. We can break down our search for the strongly asteroidal graphs by looking at the minimal asteroidal graphs they contain. We'll get started on the first few cases next time.

Lesson 4: Stuck In the Middle

2009-07-13T11:01:00.002-04:00

In lesson 2, I pointed out that, while two of Lekkerkerker and Boland's minimal asteroidal graphs also contain sATs, the two infinite families (except for the 3-sun) do not. This is because the lower path contains consecutive vertices adjacent to the neighbor(s) of the "top" vertex (and this is the only path between the "left" and "right" vertices not passing through these neighbors).

In their original paper, Monma, Reed, and Trotter showed that a graph is a co-TT graph if and only if each vertex x can be assigned two real numbers, a_x and b_x, such that vertices x and y are adjacent if and only if a_x ≤ b_y and a_y ≤ b_x. If, for vertex x, a_x ≤ b_x, then x is known as a bounded vertex; if a_x ≥ b_x, then x is unbounded. A graph which contains only bounded vertices is equivalent to an interval graph (Jamison, "Cross Comparison Graphs," no citation currently exists), so the unbounded vertices are the key to the difference between interval graphs and co-TT graphs.

At left is a graph with the a and b values assigned to each vertex. The "top" vertex is the only unbounded vertex in this assignment, though any or all of the pendant vertices could be made unbounded.

If a graph does not contain an AT, it is an interval graph, so we are most interested in what happens with asteroidal triples. For a vertex v in an AT to be given an unbounded assignment, it must satisfy the requirement that every path between the other two vertices in the AT that does not contain a neighbor of v must be v-heavy. A vertex is v-heavy if it is adjacent to every neighbor of v; a path is v-heavy if it contains two consecutive heavy vertices. A vertex or path which is not v-heavy is v-light.

A vertex in an AT which satisfies these two properties is a middle vertex. In families III and IV, the "top" vertex is a middle vertex; to obtain sATs, we must add vertices to these graphs to create a light path between the other two asteroidal vertices. How do we do that? Stay tuned.

Like Lazarus (which, by the way, was a question last week)

2009-07-10T10:20:00.004-04:00

We've found a new place for trivia, so the weekly "trivia misses" post is back!

The new format is old-style pub quiz: rounds of ten questions each, so we've got a bunch of misses saved up. I'll dole them out slowly, just in case we miss a week. There's also a round or two of "celebrity photos," in which one must identify the celebrity face, which the quizmaster has cut from a magazine and pasted onto a cartoon body. These, sadly, do not translate well to the Internets, or we'd have a lot more questions. Here, anyway, are some of our recent misses. This week's theme: animal names. Everyone's favorite animal name question was not asked.

1. On Bonanza, what was the name of Ben Cartwright's horse?

2. What is the name of the Yale Bulldog? (as in, the dog himself has a name, what is it)

3. What was the name of the goldfish in the Disney version of Pinocchio?

4. Who is Porky Pig's girlfriend?

5. What was the name of the cross-eyed lion on Daktari?

Lesson 3: Here Comes The Sun

2009-07-09T17:28:00.002-04:00

I've mentioned chordal graphs a few times already. Today, we'll look at strongly chordal graphs. If a graph has a cycle with k vertices in it (where k > 3), and we label the vertices 1, 2, ..., k, consecutively (so 1 is adjacent to 2 and to k), then if vertices i and j are adjacent, and i and j differ by more than one (and aren't 1 and k), then the edge between i and j is a chord. If the difference between i and j is odd (even), then this edge is an odd (even) chord. A strongly chordal graph is a graph in which every cycle of at least four vertices has a chord (which makes it chordal), and every cycle of at least six vertices has an odd chord.

Strongly chordal graphs are equivalently defined as graphs which have a strong elimination ordering (the definition begins at the bottom of page 76 in the linked text). Farber defined the strong elimination ordering in a 1983 paper, and also showed that strongly chordal graphs are precisely the graphs which are chordal and sun-free. A k-sun is an even cycle, with at 2k vertices (k > 2), in which the vertices can be numbered such that the even vertices have no additional edges (beyond the two you'd expect), and the odd vertices form a clique. If the odd vertices form a chordal graph, but not a complete graph, then the cycle is an incomplete sun. Some graph theorists prefer to call the latter graph a sun, and the former a complete sun. Every incomplete sun contains a k-sun, so the difference is semantic. Below are S₃ (again) and S₄.

As was mentioned yesterday, S₃ contains a sAT. So does S₄, and, in fact, every sun. This is not a surprise; Monma, Reed, and Trotter showed in their original paper that co-TT graphs are strongly chordal (by finding a strong elimination ordering). In my dissertation, I showed that the k-suns are minimal forbidden subgraphs; removing any vertex from a k-sun results in a co-TT graph. If we label the vertices of a k-sun as described above, any three of the even vertices form a sAT; simply moving along the cycle from one vertex to the next gives a light path, as opposed to a heavy path, which I mentioned yesterday, and will talk about tomorrow.

Lesson 2: More Triples Than Johnny Damon

2009-07-08T12:29:00.005-04:00

Yesterday, I introduced (again) the strongly asteroidal triple, and began laying the groundwork for the search for minimal strongly asteroidal graphs. First, though, I should mention where the term "strongly asteroidal" comes from. The sAT is related to two weaker conditions:

Given three distinct vertices a, b, and c in a graph, if there are paths between each pair of vertices which contain no neighbor of the third, then a, b, and c are an asteroidal triple (AT). If the paths between each pair of vertices do not contain two consecutive neighbors of the third, then a, b, and c are a astral triple. Every strongly asteroidal triple is also asteroidal, and every asteroidal triple is also astral. The astral and asteroidal triples are known in graph theory for being forbidden subgraphs of other graph classes. Interval graphs were shown by Lekkerkerker and Boland to be precisely the graphs which are chordal and AT-free (in other words, containing no asteroidal triple). Jackowski showed that unit interval graphs (interval graphs in which each interval is the same length) are precisely the graphs which are astral triple-free.

The three graphs to the left are the minimal chordal graphs containing an astral triple (each cycle of length at least 4 also contains astral triples). The graph on the far left is known as the claw, and is also denoted K_1,3. The graph on the right, the 3-sun, is denoted S₃; the middle graph is its complement, denoted S₃.

These four graphs are the minimal chordal graphs containing an asteroidal triple. The first graph, which one of my advisors refers to as the "bad aster," is sometimes denoted T₂. The second graph has no name that I know of; I occasionally refer to it as the "parasol" (the "umbrella" is something else), or simply as Graph II. The remaining two graphs represent infinite families; the dashed line represents a path with as many vertices as desired (even 0, in which case the vertices on either end are the same vertex), all of which are adjacent to the neighbor(s) of the "top" vertex. The smallest member of family III, graph III₂, is S₃. In family IV, the entire path on the "bottom" may just have one vertex, so the smallest member of this family, graph IV₁, is the 3-sun.

A quick check of these graphs reveals that the asteroidal triples in the bad aster and the parasol are also strongly asteroidal, as is the 3-sun. However, for n ≥ 2, graphs III_n and IV_n do not contain a sAT, as every path between the "right" and "left" asteroidal vertices either passes through a neighbor of the "top" vertex, or contains consecutive vertices adjacent to all of those neighbors (I refer to such a path as heavy). More on heavy paths and middle vertices later; tomorrow, I'll talk about suns and strongly chordal graphs.

Deep Impact

2009-07-07T13:13:00.006-04:00

So, on to the promised new content. I'll put up some trivia this week, too, but for now, I'm beginning a little lecture on graph theory. For those unfamiliar with the topic, one can find some basic definitions on Wikipedia, or Mathworld, or in this nice little primer.

In my final post of 2008, I defined a strongly asteroidal graph as one which contains three distinct vertices a, b, and c, such that there is a path between each pair of these vertices which

contains no neighbor of the third vertex, and which
does not contain two consecutive vertices adjacent to every neighbor of the third vertex.

The vertices a, b, and c are then referred to as a strongly asteroidal triple. This will often be referred to as a sAT in the later posts on this topic.

All very well and good, but why am I telling you this? In my dissertation, I showed that the class of graphs known as co-TT graphs (which are the complements of threshold tolerance graphs, defined in this paper) are precisely the graphs which are chordal and sAT-free. This is a major step towards finding the minimal forbidden subgraphs for this class. It is, therefore, of some interest to find the minimal graphs (a graph minimally satisfies a condition if the removal of any vertex leaves a graph which no longer satisfies that condition) which are both chordal and contain a sAT. There are three infinite families of minimal (chordal) strongly asteroidal graphs, plus at least 54 sporadic cases. Finding these cases is tedious, and does not lend itself well towards publishing in a journal. I want this work out there, though, so that there is actually a record of what the minimal forbidden subgraphs for this class are. So, for the next few weeks, I'll be working through the minimal strongly asteroidal graphs. There will be pictures, there will be words, there may be mistakes (which is one reason I hope people start following this). If you stick with me, you might learn something, or you might teach me something, or you might be really bored.

A rough outline of where we're going:

1. Intro (that's this post)

2. Astral and asteroidal triples

3. Suns and strongly chordal graphs

4. Constructing strongly asteroidal graphs from asteroidal graphs

a. Type A constructions

b. Type B constructions

c. Type C constructions

Like School In Summer

2009-07-01T16:52:00.001-04:00

I hope everyone is enjoying their Summer Break. Here at the Preschool, we're undergoing the long-threatened redesign, which involves more than just a layout change. There will still be trivia (I've been saving some up), but I've got something planned for after Independence Day weekend. If you're not a mathematician, you probably won't find the first series interesting. Or maybe you will; it's graph theory, which means there might be pictures. Happy weekend!

Don't Be Cruel, Just Beat It

2009-06-25T18:23:00.001-04:00

The L.A. Times reports that Michael Jackson has died. Someone will come up with a conspiracy theory fairly quickly; this is my attempt to beat everyone else to it. The following statement is entirely fabricated.

As everyone knows, Elvis faked his death back in 1977, and has since been living a comfortable retirement on a South Pacific island. What you may not know, however, is that Presley actually passed away last month at the age of 74. In an auction attended only by members of the Pentavirate (Jacko joined shortly after the release of Bad, filling the void left by Colonel Sanders a decade earlier), Jackson purchased Presley's island, and has faked his own death to retire to same.

The members of Duke Phillips Preschool wishes to send their condolences and prayers to Jackson's family.

I'm gonna be a supermodel

2009-06-11T12:19:00.001-04:00

Everyone loved Suzanne Vega so much, now I give you:

"Ordinary Girl"

Go ahead, try to get it out of your head.

Slouching Towards Oblivion

2009-05-20T13:04:00.002-04:00

I am contemplating (again) a site redesign, but in the meantime, I give you the misses from last week's trivia night. I've said this before, but this was almost certainly my last appearance at this particular trivia night. This time, it's not the general crappiness of the questions, but the fact that I no longer have any reason to be in Clemson on a Thursday.

Last week was the restaurant's 10th anniversary, so all questions are about events that took place in 1999. We had first place wrapped up, until we declined to guess which day of the month the restaurant opened. It was, apparently, an easy thing to guess, as we did not place, despite a healthy lead.

1. One of the most devastating earthquakes of the 20th Century struck in August of 1999, killing over 15,000 people in what country?

2. What popular Nickelodeon cartoon debuted in May 1999, with an episode entitled "Help Wanted/Reef Blower/Tea at the Treedome?"

3. Halftime: Name the three countries which joined NATO on March 12, 1999.

4. Which two oil companies merged in November of 1999, creating what was at the time the largest company on the planet?

5. Which Royal couple was featured on a postage stamp prior to their June 1999 wedding?

Guaranteeing me 25 extra minutes in Purgatory

2009-05-03T22:29:00.002-04:00

Internet Meme Of The Week!

Inspired by a comment thread over at ALOTT5MA, I hereby stick in your head Suzanne Vega's "Tom's Diner."

Original version of the song is here.

The version you probably know is here.

(edited to remove the wacky suggestion that you reference Vega as often as possible for the rest of the week)

Return of the Son of Trivia Night

2009-04-23T22:10:00.001-04:00

Bad questions abound! Bonus points for explaining why they're bad questions.

1. Which Spice Girl was first to have a baby?

2. What famous five-word phrase, spoken in Apollo 13 by Ed Harris, was never actually uttered by Gene Kranz?

3. Which Yankee hurler threw the 15th perfect game in Major League Baseball history?

Final:

4. The Sonny Bono Act protects an artist's copyrighted work for how many years after their death?

The Jailhouse Queen

2009-04-13T22:27:00.001-04:00

As a combination late-birthday/graduation present, the w and I got backstage passes to last week's Death Cab For Cutie concert at Davidson College. Here follows my largely stream-of-consciousness review. Full disclosure at this point: I've been going to Death Cab shows since 1999, when they played places like the Go! Rehearsal Room in Carrboro and T.T. The Bear's in Cambridge. I've only met (drummer) Jason McGerr once, but I do know the other members of the band.

Parking was... a challenge. The parking lots looked a lot bigger on the map than they actually were. By the time we found a place across campus and made it back to the arena, it was 8:30, and we managed to hear a song and a half from Ra Ra Riot. I did like the tune I heard, and I definitely dig a band with a violinist and cellist on stage.

When their set ended, we figured out how to get backstage (people are very friendly when you're wearing a VIP sticker), and Ben Gibbard happened to be hanging out just outside the dressing room. We talked about the Carolinas, and whether or not Western Washington would be willing to give Ben an honorary doctorate someday. I got to introduce the w to Chris Walla, and I said hi to Nick Harmer, but I didn't get to talk to them. Back in the days when the band was still schlepping their own instruments, they used to come out into the crowd to watch the openers, and we'd have conversations, but that hasn't happened in about five years. I kind of miss that.

We went up to the floor to see Cold War Kids. They're the sort of band that I feel like I've heard before, but probably haven't - I had the same experience the first time I heard a Soul Coughing album. Not that CWK sound like Soul Coughing, they're more like White Stripes + honky-tonk piano + extra guitar. Anyway, they started out great, but they kind of bogged down after a while; the middle of their set had what I considered an unreasonable amount of falsetto, plus one thing with a constant vibrating bassline that just felt like something Beck decided not to put on "Midnite Vultures." Still, they finished strong.

It occurs to me that I'm not as enamored with being on the main floor as I used to be. When DCFC played Clemson (my first "date" with the w), we had floor passes, which was nice, but I just don't feel like standing up for that long anymore. Plus, people on the floor are irritating, like they feel like the communal atmosphere gives them license to push social boundaries. Our favorites tonight were the three girls who spent most of the set holding shouted conversations and texting their friends and started their own mini-mosh pit and generally ignored the band, then got annoyed with us when we decided to move in front of them because they couldn't see anymore.

After CWK, we decide to find seats in the upper area. We make the mistake of going to the student section, which are bleachers as opposed to actual seats, but at least we're sitting. They start with "The Employment Pages." A song from Facts (five albums and several eps ago)? Here's a question for your favorite bands: do they prefer tours when they're supporting an album, and thus playing mostly new stuff, or the tweener tours, when they have two or three new songs they're toying with, and can otherwise play anything they want? Personally, I prefer the non-album tours.

Davidson's arena, by the way, has a fantastic sound system. The w told me she had earplugs, but she meant *she* had earplugs, not several pairs of them. But the sound hear manages to be clear without being ear-splittingly loud. It isn't even distorted up in the bleachers.

The lighting for this tour has some good and bad things. I particularly liked the LED "tears" during at least one song. But the bits with a couple of spotlights expanding and contracting in patterns were, at best, distracting.

The set is mostly tight, except Ben gets lost in the middle of "Movie Script Ending." They have a chuckle on stage, and then just jump right back into the song.

More annoying people: some guy starts shouting "You're awesome! Woo!" during the quiet part of "I Will Follow You Into the Dark". Several times. You, sir, are a douchebag. Sit down.

They move on to "I Will Possess Your Heart." This is the new "Transatlantacism," with the long buildup and kickass bassline. I have to think they wrote this song thinking what a blast it would be to play live. Too bad this means they probably won't play "Transatlantacism." They do, however, play "Fake Frowns," which I haven't heard live in a long, long time. Awesome.

The set ends, they leave the stage, everybody keeps cheering, of course there's going to be an encore. Still, that doesn't stop the two coeds behind us from completely losing their nut when the band comes back out on stage. I can only assume that this is their first show, ever. They start the encore with "What Sarah Said," and there's even more screaming. Seriously? The most depressing song in, let's face it, a catalog of depressing songs, and folks are bouncing off the walls. Then there's a song off the ep - I really want the ep now - then "Soul Meets Body," and then "Transatlantacism!" This is my favorite Death Cab live song, mainly because I'm waiting for the time when Nick simply snaps the neck off his bass. The song ends, we wander back across campus to the car, and find our way to the nearest Waffle House.

I could also play one on TV

2009-03-31T10:52:00.001-04:00

When I went off to college, in a far-away city, the folks and I decided it would be a good idea if I signed up for some frequent-flyer programs. You know how the applications have the boxes to check for your salutation (Mr., Mrs., Ms., etc.)? Well, I checked "Dr." At 20, I found this to be hilarious. Whenever I have called customer service, I have been referred to as "Doctor." Again, this was much more amusing to me at 24 then at 34.

The official ceremony is not until May, but, as of yesterday, I am pleased to report that I am no longer living a lie. Now, if only the advanced degree actually came with a job.

Another vague post

2009-03-21T20:44:00.001-04:00

Let's say you have a plan. The goal of this plan is not relevant; maybe it's to colonize Mars, maybe it's to ensure the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl. Part of this plan, though, involves poisoning a number of people. Not a large number of people, just a few. This is done covertly, and even if it is discovered that these people have been poisoned, the cause will be attributed to asbestos or unwashed spinach or something.

Would you make a list of these people? Would you leave this list in a place where anyone, at all, could find it? Would there be any possible reason to have a paper trail of this particular deed?

No, YOU are!

2009-02-27T16:53:00.003-05:00

When I was in college, I was in a fraternity. This is apropos of very little, except that I'm about to tell a story involving my little brother, which is a frat thing; I do not actually have a younger brother.

Anyway, one night, my little brother, aided by some goading from his housemates, made a phone call which... well, let's just say he probably still regrets it. Before we go on, I will point out that he was not much of a drinker, and in particular was not drinking that evening, in my recollection. I don't know if that makes it better, or worse. But I digress. The next day, I talked with him about how to make amends. Our house President talked with him. His pledge trainer --- whoops! We don't have those, uh, his "New Member Liaison" --- talked with him. At that point, he trudged off to some afternoon activity. However, that's when the fallout really began. As brothers began getting home from class, they stopped by our room.

"Is Skippy (note: not his real name, nor, despite my efforts, his nickname) around?"

"No."

"Well, when you see him, tell him I want to talk to him."

This conversation was repeated over a dozen times. Most of the brothers wanted to talk to him. Several of their girlfriends wanted to talk to him. Some guy I had never met before wanted to talk to him. Finally, it occurred to me to start getting annoyed, and I asked one person why he wanted to talk to Skippy.

Person:"You heard what happened?"

Me:"Yes. I talked to him about it. [President] talked to him. [N.M.L.] talked to him. Why do you need to talk to him?"

P:"Well, a lot of people are angry."

M:"Yes, three people have mentioned that to him. He feels bad. Why do you need to talk to him?"

P:"To let him know that he's made a lot of people angry."

M:"Oh. I never would have thought to do that."

In the end, what really bothered me was not the staggering number of people who thought that they were going to offer some unique perspective on the situation. It was the readiness with which they were willing to dispense their bile, without really knowing what had happened (none of the people present at the incident, it should be noted, came by to talk).

I think about this incident whenver I see things like this note, in which one participant of Top Chef gets, well, a bit catty about another contestant. Certainly, she probably shouldn't have said what she said. Probably, she regrets whatever she said, whether or not the quote is accurate. But the followup is inexcusable; the 200+ comments read like a contest to see who can come up with the meanest, most vitriolic response. Very few of the commenters claim to know Casey Thompson, or to have any knowledge of the actual goings-on during the final episode, and those who do are shouted down.

I stopped participating in most forms of Internet discussion a while ago, because I just had no stomach for the folks who came in determined to ruin someone else's day. There are forums where people participate in reasoned, respectful discussion, to be sure. But this kind of anger just seems like the norm, and makes me wonder why it's tolerated.

Oscars Trivia!

2009-02-22T19:50:00.002-05:00

Something to do while you're waiting for the Barbara Walters special to end:

When was the first televised Academy Awards program?
What was the first Best Picture winner?
Who has the most Academy Awards for directing?
How many times have all four of the major acting Oscars gone to non-Americans?
What individual has won the most Academy Awards?
Name the only two men to have won three Academy Awards for acting.
Name all three films to have won the "Big Five" awards (Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director).

Final: Who holds the record for most Academy Award nominations without a win?

(This may or may not be a hint: The answer to this question does not depend on tonight's results.)

Working Title

2009-02-20T11:00:00.004-05:00

I'm not sure what to do about trivia this week. It was "movie trivia" night, which we figured was in honor of the Academy Awards, but instead of asking questions about, you know, Oscar-winning films, we got a bunch of crap along the lines of "what was the name of the dog in Next Friday?"

Maybe I'll post some of our misses later, but more likely I'll come up with some better movie trivia before Oscar Night. Stay tuned.

He'll tell you what he wants, what he really really wants

2009-02-06T10:32:00.002-05:00

This week's trivia ended badly, as we decided to guess on the final question, and missed, costing us a tie for second. We never get the tiebreaker questions, anyway. Irritatingly, a fairly clear error on one question is what put us in the tie in the first place. Our "misses:"

1. How many toes does an ostrich have?

2. Which President is on record as having given the longest inaugural speech?

3. Who was the first male tennis player to win Grand Slam titles on all three playing surfaces?

4. Which diva's "Reach" was the theme song of the 1996 Summer Olympics?

5. What Nobel Peace Prize winner referred to meeting the Spice Girls as one of the greatest moments of his life?

Useless Information

2009-01-30T09:21:00.002-05:00

Because I have no other way of generating content: Trivia returns!

This may only be for a week: it happened that I was in town on a Thursday, I decided to go, and after two hours of recycled and otherwise easy questions, I'm in no particular mood to go back. The current writing crew is, apparently, completely out of ideas, as there were rounds (plural) of questions that I've heard before. In fact, I'm pretty sure they repeated the final question (ordering Kevin Costner movies). Yes, I've been doing this thing for two-plus years, and you're bound to hear the same question once in a while, but it isn't like it's impossible to come up with a good trivia question, or at least a new one. Anyway, here's my miss, and a couple others I made up.

1. In what country was roulette invented?

2. During the Olympic Parade of Nations, which country almost always enters the venue first? Also, what is the exception to this rule?

3. We all know Johnny Depp's first film was A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Kevin Bacon was in the original Friday the 13th. But name the mega-stars whose early work includes these 80's horror films:

a) Leprechaun

b) Cutting Class

c) Return to Horror High

4. Who was the last member of the Whig party to be elected President of the United States?

Happy Almost-new Year

2009-01-13T19:24:00.001-05:00

Well, every year I get started on the posts later and later.

All in all, 2009 looks to be a banner year for the Preschool. I'm living in a new town (well, I'm sort of living in two towns right now), with a new person, and, with any luck, will soon have a new job. "Luck," of course, being the operative word. All this excitement is not without downsides, though. The new town meant giving up the old job. Chances are, the new job will be in yet another new town, which means the w might also get to experience the joy of a job search in what might be charitably termed a "tight" job market. And, most importantly, I'm rarely around for trivia night anymore, thus dealing a devastating blow to the major source of content around here. And, sadly, no replacement seems in the offing; the w did find an ad for trivia night at a local pub, but when we went there for a drink on Saturday, we found the place shuttered and "For Lease." Not a good sign.

There are content possibilities: No way am I detailing the academic job search, but I could always bring back the cooking segment. In the meantime, I'll fill space by looking at how I did on last year's resolutions.

Get the PhD. Well, oops. I'll have it in May, though, I swear.
Brown-bag it more. I was helped tremendously by the 12:20 class I taught in the fall, which kept me from even eating lunch most days.
Less red meat. Less butter. Less sugar. Definitely less red meat - it helps a lot that the w doesn't like it much - but I do like me some cookies.
Way less pizza. I was doing better on this the first half of the year. I can, however, count on one hand the times I hit Todaro's AYCE buffet.
Stop using sponges to clean the dishes, as they are, apparently, nothing more than slightly soapy bacteria farms. We do have scrub brushes in the kitchen now, and I try to use them for most things. Still, the sponge is terribly convenient for cleaning knives. I'm still working on this.
Reach 400 on the 1001 Movies You Must See list. I was well ahead of the pace through the summer, but then the getting-married and writing-the-dissertation bits got in the way, as did the seemingly interminable sequence of 1950s Japanese dramas in my Netflix queue. I ended the year having seen 104 movies on the list, giving me a total of 370. Of course, by now, the list has likely been updated, so who knows where I am.
Ride the bus more. I definitely pulled this one off, even if it occasionally involved driving halfway to campus, parking at the grocery store, and riding the bus from there. I usually went shopping on my way home.

A Post Few of My Readers Are Likely to Understand

2008-12-27T21:38:00.001-05:00

A graph G is strongly asteroidal if it contains three vertices a, b, c such that there is a path between any two of these vertices that

Does not contain the third vertex, nor any neighbor of the third vertex.
Does not contain two consecutive vertices that are adjacent to every neighbor of the third vertex.

This? Is my job.

Fun Fact: There's only one Stephentown on Earth

2008-12-15T23:56:00.002-05:00

Okay, so last week really was my last trivia night. Maybe. I'll have to spend some time in Clemson next semester, and the w is convinced I'll be arranging things so that I'm there on Thursday nights. We'll see. For now, savor the misses from last week's victory.

In what southeastern state might you find the towns of Frog Jump, Only, and Sweetlips?
In what southwestern state would you find the town of Ding Dong?
What freshwater mollusk produces red or pink pearls?
Which family of trees includes both the largest and fastest-growing living thing on earth?
What is the more common name of herpes zoster?

Where have all the tan M&M's gone?

2008-12-03T12:07:00.004-05:00

Because I ran across this while I was cleaning out my bookbag: trivia returns!

1. What original Lifesavers flavor was nearly removed from the roll in 1999, after Nabisco announced that it was "not Y2K compliant?"

2. How many times did Marshal Mathers, a.k.a. Eminem, flunk the ninth grade?

3. What country's first nuclear weapons research facility is now a tourist attraction known as "Nuclear City?"

4. What film, starring Tupac Shakur and Janet Jackson, was banned from the Cineplex Odeon Universal City in Los Angeles, out of fears that it might cause trouble in the trendy City Walk complex nearby?

5. What part of the Britney Spears doll's anatomy do you push to get her to sing?

Tomorrow will likely be my last trivia night in this town. Goodness knows what direction this blog will take afterwards. Will I find a new trivia night in Winston-Salem? Start writing my own? Reprint all the Ken Jennings questions I miss? Stay tuned.

Been a Long, Lonely, Lonely, Lonely, Lonely, Lonely Time

2008-12-02T20:43:00.003-05:00

Okay, so, Fall Break has stretched into an extended hiatus, as wedding and honeymoon time have been supplanted by research time and job-application time and write-the-dissertation-already time. I have a brief moment of blogging time tonight, though, so I return with a question:

Curriculum Vita or Curriculum Vitae? Or does it matter? My understanding was that "Vitae" was plural, but still acceptable usage (similar to "criteria").

Se Habla Ingles!

2008-10-29T22:32:00.001-04:00

In case you haven't noticed, the Preschool has been on Fall Break. There was no trivia last week, and there probably won't be any this week. I am pleased to report, however, that on October 18, the f officially became the w. In the next few days, there will be a recap of our honeymoon in Mexico, or at least a recipe for fried bananas.

I thought it was Jimmy Durante!

2008-10-09T23:08:00.002-04:00

Trivia night got off to a rocky start, when I arrived to find that the rest of my team was absent. A couple of early misses had me thinking about leaving at halftime, but, ninety minutes and a couple of lucky guesses later, an improbable victory gave a much-needed infusion of cash to the Preschool's coffers.

The difficulty level of trivia has been a lot higher lately, but I feel like the ones I missed were actually pretty easy. Judge for yourself.

What singer was the subject of the Hello Gorgeous Museum in San Francisco, which gave out wigs and fake noses to visitors wishing to impersonate her?
What multi-faceted character did comic Don Rickles voice in the movie Toy Story?
What medical procedure, applied to humans, did the World Health Organization decry as "against human integrity and morality?"
What clothing line, a spin-off of Phat Farm, is designed for urban women?
Who was the first athlete to be named Sports Illustrated's Sportsman of the Year twice?
Final: What Steven Spielberg movie did Senator Tom Coburn bash NBC for airing, citing its "full-frontal nudity, violence, and profanity?"

Buckaroo Banzai is not the answer to any question

2008-10-05T22:11:00.003-04:00

We missed a lot of questions this week, and many of them were good questions. Unfortunately, I misplaced the question list somewhere between the bar and the car, and I can only remember one of our misses. Such is the risk of bar trivia. Happily, it turns out I did back up my extra trivia document after all, so I'll add a couple extras of my own.

1. What Grammy-winning singer made tabloid headlines in 1996 when it was reported (erroneously) that he had asked his wife for a divorce via fax?

2. Who is the only driver to complete the Indianapolis 500 and the Coca-Cola 600 on the same day?

3. What dubious achievement did the Philadelphia Phillies accomplish on July 15, 2008, against the St. Louis Cardinals?

4. Which amendment to the Constitution provided for separate election of the President and Vice-President?

You Enjoy Themselves

2008-10-01T22:37:00.001-04:00

Phish is touring.

You Shall Never Be Hungry Again!

2008-09-28T21:11:00.004-04:00

Fantastic week at trivia this week. Not because we won - we didn't - but because trivia was actually hard. At least, we thought it was hard. We have a veritable smorgasbord of missed questions for you, my trivia-hungry readers. Dig in!

1. Who won ESPN's award for "Wide Receiver of the '80s?"
2. What was the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture?
3. What was the title of Alexandra Ripley's much-anticipated sequel to Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind?
4. What superstar lamely told Madonna that her show was "neat," during the documentary Truth or Dare?
5. Which hip-hop heroes collaborated with heavy metal band Anthrax to remake the hit "Bring the Noise?"
6. What fast food chain has begun selling Brazil nut chocolate chip cookies, in an effort to benefit rainforest communities?
7. What self-described "Architect of Rock and Roll" helped cut the ribbon at the opening ceremonies of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

Note - we actually missed eight questions, but I am unable to verify the answer to the eighth, or even to find a reference to the incident the question is about. So, out it goes.

Where'd you go?

2008-09-24T20:34:00.003-04:00

Three reasons for last week's lack of posts:

1. My laptop died, thus depriving me of my usual entry to the Internets.
2. We missed zero questions at trivia. I could have taken some from the stash I save for just such an occasion, but those were on my laptop, in a folder I don't usually back up - see reason #1.
3. Heroes premiere + no TiVo = no more watching OTH on Mondays.

I hereby promise to miss trivia questions this week.

Trivia: Still More Fun Than Studying

2008-09-14T21:42:00.005-04:00

This week did not go nearly as well for us as last week. But, as usual, our loss is your gain, because more misses for us is more questions for you. I know there's a subset of my tiny tiny readership that will have no trouble with the halftime question...

1. What does the "W" stand for on a WAP phone?
2. Who was the first African-American to grace the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue?
3. Halftime: Name the last seven films to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.
4. In what year was the original Playstation released?
5. Which Peanuts character was dressed in clothes designed by over three hundred fashion designers in a 1990 retrospective at the Louvre?
Final:
6. Which English-speaking nation stopped minting one- and two-cent coins in 1991, when the cost to produce them exceeded their value?

Is "Oedipal" the word I'm looking for here?

2008-09-08T20:28:00.004-04:00

Okay, so going into episode two, let's recap where everyone is:
Lucas is married... to Brooke! No wait, it's Peyton! Um, it's Lindsey? No, it's a dream sequence, and he's in the airport, waiting for... Peyton, which is exactly what we expected all along. They're in Vegas, getting married, or maybe they're not, I'm not entirely sure, because I spent a lot of the episode watching on mute because I was on the phone with the f.
Dan is not dead after he was hit by a car... but he's in the hospital. No, wait, he's in a room made up to look like a hospital room, and his fake nurse is - wait for it - Fran, the Nutjob Nanny! This is her elaborate revenge scheme to get Jamie back. I get the feeling that this week, she will make Dan re-write his last book so that her favorite character doesn't die.
Nathan's back hurts.
Haley is doing something.
Skills is sleeping with Nathan's mom. Yeah.
Mouth is leaving for Omaha, and wants Millie to go with him. Millie decides to go, but changes her mind, because Brooke is going to war with her mom for control of the company. How exciting! Brooke, ever the martyr, tells Millie to go, and the show's two "unattractive" people ride off into the sunset. Even more exciting, Brooke is attacked by a masked man as she locks up the store for the night. Is it an Oedipal plot? Find out in two minutes!

You Can Do What You Want to Do

2008-09-07T10:36:00.004-04:00

I'm disappointed in the difficulty level of the trivia lately. It's one thing when a team gets a ridiculously high score for the week; any given set of questions could be right in one team's wheelhouse. But, and I know I've harped on this before, when the top three teams are within two points of a perfect score, that's just no leeway for teams to get anything outside their areas of expertise.
Anyway, on to a story of our only miss: Each round, we're given the categories for each question in advance. This, in theory, helps us decide how many points to bid on the first two questions. To pass the time between questions, our team usually tries to come up with possible questions for the later categories. On occasion, we have been able to come up with the exact question - last week, I correctly predicted that the Just Shoot Me question would ask for the name of the magazine (sadly, this clairvoyance did not help us correctly answer the question). On rarer occasions, the category is so obvious that we have come up with the correct answer without a question. Tonight, the category was "backup dancers," and we figured the answer simply had to be K-Fed. When it wasn't, we were so stuck that we were unable to come up with anything. So that's question one, question two is the only other question we really had to think about, and then there's two I made up. Please to enjoy.

1. What future superstar was a backup dancer in Janet Jackson's video for "That's the Way Love Goes?"
2. What rap star suavely blamed his teammates after he was cut from a tryout for the Toronto Raptors?
3. What is the oldest continuously used auto raceway in the U.S.?
4. In Calvin and Hobbes, what are Calvin's parents' names?

Or, you could watch the RNC

2008-09-01T19:31:00.004-04:00

We're just over an hour from the premiere of One Tree Hill, and when we last saw the gang, Lucas was sitting in the airport with two tickets to Vegas, proposing to his phone. We also saw Brooke, Peyton, and Lindsey on their respective phones. Who is on the receiving end of the proposal? Well, if it's Brooke, that would just be weird. As for Lindsey, she just got done telling Lucas that, when she told him she was seeing someone else - thus causing him to flip out and assault a high-schooler, possibly costing him his coaching job - she was lying. "Hey, sorry I f%$@ed with your mind and screwed up your life" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would lead to a proposal. Seriously, if it's Lindsey, this is going to be a short season of recaps.
Also to be answered: Will Mouth really quit his job and move to Omaha? Will Millie the Absurdly Gorgeous Frumpy Girl go with him? Is Dan finally dead? Will everything this season be Nathan's fault? Will Skills have a meaningful plot line? Tune in tonight and see!

It's all right, 'cause there's no Saved By The Bell!

2008-09-01T15:51:00.003-04:00

This week was "90's sitcom trivia," and, despite having watched a great deal of television in that decade, I learned just how much I don't know about 90's sitcoms. For example, I did not know that JAG, Melrose Place, Dawson's Creek, and Beverly Hills, 90210 were sitcoms. I'm on the record as being against "theme nights," and the inability of the organizers to stay inside their announced themes is one reason. Having to type "On [show], [question]" over and over is another.

1. On The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, what is Will's father's occupation?
2. And where did Will and Carlton attend college?
3. On Full House, what was Jesse's original last name?
4. On Everybody Loves Raymond, what unusual quirk does Raymond's brother Robert have when he eats?
5. What is the name of the magazine where the cast of Just Shoot Me works?
Final:
6. On Seinfeld, what food caused Jerry to end his fourteen-year non-vomit streak?

Like the Ken Jennings Trivia Email, only easier. And not in email form.

2008-08-22T14:30:00.004-04:00

The trivia team got the term off to a solid start, cruising to an easy victory at an easy trivia night. We only missed two questions (well, more, because we could only name six of the eight events that Michael Phelps won last week), so I picked out two extras.

1. Whose last words were reported as "I love you, Jesus," by a nun, and, "I can't breathe," by a doctor?
2. Which newspaper first received the tip that led to the man who admitted to killing Bill Cosby's son?
3. Which U.S. presidential candidate said, "The Internet is a great way to get on the 'Net?"
Final:
4. What international event prompted USA Today's first weekend edition, in 1996?

60 is the new 55

2008-08-13T22:53:00.001-04:00

I'd like to take this opportunity to assure my mother that I did, indeed, send her a card for her birthday, and to thank her for making this all possible.

Back To School

2008-08-08T13:06:00.003-04:00

School is back in session, and with it, new trivia. We only missed three this week, but missing three questions was enough to keep us out of the money. Especially galling was the fact that we probably would have gotten the first question if we had heard it correctly - it wasn't a question about the Pharaohs.

1. In what ancient Egyptian city did the Pharos reside?
2. What is the average lifespan of a human red blood cell?
3. Which automaker purchased Land Rover (at the time, the last major British-owned car company) in 1994?

Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better

2008-07-23T13:23:00.003-04:00

Including get in a fight at a basketball game, apparently.
The truly brilliant part of this? Bill Laimbeer and Rick Mahorn as the voices of reason.

Summertime, and the Livin's Lazy

2008-07-23T10:06:00.003-04:00

We're on Summer Break again at the Preschool, so I'm spacing things out. We didn't go to trivia last week, and probably won't go next week, so this will have to tide you over for a while.

1. What product's advertising first used the catchphrase "Good to the Last Drop," in 1907?
2. Who was the first Playboy centerfold, in 1953?
3. What is the name of Smokey the Bear's mate?
4. What organization's motto is "Blood and Fire?"
5. How many days did the 1968 march from Selma to Montgomery take?
6. Which country is the world's largest producer of soybeans?
7. What breed of dog was Winston Churchill's favorite dog, Rufus?
Final:
8. How many grooves are on the edge of a quarter?

Link it up!

2008-07-10T09:09:00.002-04:00

Today is Wine Library TV's 499th episode, and host Gary Vay...Ner...Chuk promises that this episode will "rock your face off." Tomorrow will be a "live" (they're taping it live, but it's happening today) broadcast from their 500th episode celebration in San Francisco.
Vaynerchuk's almost-daily podcast discusses wines from around the globe. Most days there's a theme - only 100% Petit Verdot, wines from Oklahoma (go find that one in the archives, it's worth it), even a two-buck-Chuck tasting. He tastes a few wines every show, and gives tasting notes and a score for each wine, but he stresses that these things - the score, in particular - are just his feelings about a wine, and that you need to trust your own palate. That, I think, is the reason for the popularity of the show - Vaynerchuk brings in varietals and regions that most casual wine drinkers have never heard of, and urges you to expand your tasting experience, because there's a lot of good wine out there, at all different price points, and it's a shame to always spend $12 on Yellow Tail just because you already know what it tastes like*.
Anyway, check out today's show, either at the link above, or by grabbing the podcast at the iTunes Store.

A Not-Necessarily-Musical Question

2008-07-06T23:33:00.003-04:00

Pretend, for the moment, that you are a musical artist. Someone compares your work - at this point, you are free to imagine whether it is the song you just sang, your latest album, your entire ouvre - with someone else's work. Are you upset that someone has just suggested your work is derivative, or do you welcome the comparison to other artists? Discuss.

I'm thinking of a number between 20 and 50. What is it?

2008-07-06T20:11:00.003-04:00

There actually was trivia this week, and it was actually good, except for what is now disturbing trend of "guess a number" final questions. It's one thing to ask about some obscure fact - that's trivia, after all - but I really feel like there should be some way to come up with an educated guess when you don't know the answer to a question, and in this case, I just don't see how one could reason out the answer.
Anywho:

1. What is Scarlett O'Hara's actual first name?
2. In which state was the Confederate flag first designed and flown?
3. What legendary baseball player was born in Mobile, Alabama, in 1934?
4. What university counts the greatest number of U.S. Presidents among its alumni?
5. How many laps in the Daytona 500?
Final:
6. How many restrooms are in the White House?

It doesn't pay to be a Gentile at trivia night

2008-06-30T12:04:00.003-04:00

Thursday trivia was no fun - we didn't miss anything that made an interesting trivia question, and the final was another "guess a number and we'll tell you if you're close" question - so you get Saturday trivia, which I continue to insist is better anyway. There is a significant probability that there will not be trivia this week, in which case, I'll just make something up.

1. In which EU nation is the primary National Language spoken fluently by less than 10% of the population?
2. What is the only stadium to host consecutive Super Bowls?
3. Street lingo: What is "Adam's Ale?"
4. What are the capitals of a) Somalia b) Australia?
5. A Jewish boy has his Bar Mitzvah at 13. At what age does a girl have her Bat Mitzvah?
6. In the iconic photo, how many soldiers are raising the American flag at Iwo Jima?
7. What African nation is home to the militia known as the Janjaweed?

Back in the saddle again

2008-06-20T12:41:00.002-04:00

The nasty throat/chest virus seems to be gone, so I was back at trivia this week. Things looked bad when we started blowing our five-pointers in the middle rounds, but then we wound up winning the thing at the end, by being the only team to correctly guess how many tons of jellybeans the White House purchased during the Reagan Administration. Seriously, I can't stand that type of question. They said to get within two, so we figured it couldn't be very high, but unless you happen to have just read 101 Completely Random Facts about Ronald Reagan, there's no further reasoning that can get you any closer to the correct answer; the question might just as well have been, "I'm thinking of a number between 2 and 30, what is it?"

The rest of our misses:
1. What television personality claimed that he was fired as a local weatherman after joking that a storm had hail stones "the size of canned hams?"
2. What is the name of Felix the Cat's girlfriend?
3. What was the name of Melissa Etheridge's first album after announcing her homosexuality?
4. Which country had a record turnout of 315 million voters during its 1991 elections?
5. Who wore a suit, instead of his standard military fatigues, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations?

Why there was no trivia this week

2008-06-16T12:42:00.002-04:00

I have spent the last week waylaid by a virus, which started in my throat, moved to my chest once I started taking prednisone for the throat, then moved back into my throat once I ran out of prednisone and started taking cough syrup. Today, I feel well enough to move around, and can even talk for several minutes without straining my voice. But, obviously, I had to skip both Thursday and Saturday trivia this week. Maybe I'll get to alternate content (I do have a nice onion spaghetti recipe I could share), maybe not.