Counting - the end.

In my fruit dish there are four apples.  What does that mean?  How do I know?  When we're little we count on our fingers - it's no coincidence that we count in tens, because that's as far as you can go before you run out of fingers and have to start again.  So we learn that if we stick our thumb up, that's called "one" and if we have a set of things which we can put in exact one-to-one correspondence (i.e. none left over) with our thumb, then that set is also called one.  Add our first finger and we now have a set called "two" and any set which can be put in exact one-to-one correspondence with that is also called two.  And so on...  So I know I've got four apples because I can put them in exact one-to-one correspondence with my thumb, first finger, middle finger and ring finger and I know that set is called four.  Of course as we grow up we stop depending on our fingers - we can visualise the numbers - at least the relatively small ones, but the principle remains.  So this series of posts has sort of come full circle - we started out by seeing that "set theory" as it's called can enable you to count without really counting, and we end up by realising that counting is in fact a structured form of set theory.  And that, I think, is enough!

For or against?

A very weird situation has arisen in Grantham, the birthplace of Lady Thatcher.  It has always been a bone of contention that the town has no proper memorial to her. So now there is a proposal being put before the council to have a statue of her erected in the town centre.  So why weird?  Because it is the Labour members of the council who are supporting the idea of the statue and the Conservatives who are opposing it.  Everybody seems to be accusing everybody else of party political posturing and electioneering, but like I say - weird.

R.I.P.

This for my late wife - Kenny Ball.  She in her youth was very much into British Trad Jazz and I know she would wish me to mark the passing of one of her heroes.

Having a laff?

Heard of the Laffer Curve - no, neither had I until the other day.  I was reading an article which suggested that cutting taxes could in fact raise revenue.The premise is that, if you set income tax rates at 0% you will clearly raise no revenue, but equally if you set the rate at 100% you will raise no revenue, because nobody will bother to work.  So the idea is that as you move from 0% to 100% revenue will grow until you reach the point where people consider it's not worth doing any extra work, or maybe even getting a job at all, at which point revenue will start to fall and go on falling.  And that's the Laffer Curve.  Of course, what nobody really knows is where that tipping point is, and indeed it may not be a precise point - it may vary as circumstances vary.  This is what was behind the Government's decision to cut the top income tax rate from 50% to 45% - they reckon it will in fact increase the amount of tax they get, and it will be interesting to see if they are right.

Book post

(see post of 18/11/06)

Ken McClure - The Lazarus Strain - 7.5
Alfie Robins - Reprisal - 6
Andrea Frazer - Death of an Old Git - 7.5
Khaled Hosseini - The Kite Runner - 8
D W Buffa - Star Witness - 6
Edie Claire - Never Buried - 7
Robert Goddard - Fault Line - 8.5
Michael Connelly - The Fifth Witness - 7
J. Robert Kennedy - The Protocol - 8
Chris Pavone - The Expats - 7.5

And the winner is...?

So what are we to make of last week's by-election?  Good for the LibDems, brilliant for UKIP, disastrous for the Tories and average for Labour seems to be the perceived wisdom.  But is it that simple?  Firstly, this was a by-election, and by-elections are traditionally used by the electorate primarily to punish the government of the day, and for all this is a coalition, it is widely seen as a Tory government.  Secondly, this is a LibDem stronghold - they run the local council and are generally well thought of. Whatever their situation nationally, it was always unlikely that their vote here would collapse. Thirdly, Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader has said, quite correctly, that their success was in great part down to the fact that they were prepared to talk about issues that the other parties wanted to avoid.  But it is of course easy to talk about things when you know there is no reasonable prospect of you having to do anything about them in the foreseeable future.  And finally Labour knew from day one that they had no chance, and so really didn't put much effort onto it.  So in a way, this was just one of a relatively small number of foreseeable outcomes, and I don't think anyone should draw any major conclusions from it.

Say cheese...

Employment tribunals are a rich source of "you couldn't make it up" stories.  Here's one - a (male) teacher at a girls' school was dismissed for taking photographs of the girls while on a school trip abroad.  There is no suggestion that the photos were indecent, or in any way inappropriate.  His offence appears to be that he took them using his own camera rather than the school camera.  The school, it seems, wish to retain control of photographs taken of its pupils, this in the name of 'privacy of personal data'.  I suppose you could make a case for that when the pupils are on school premises, but when they're out in the open as it were, they are fair game for anyone with a camera, so to try and forbid anyone - teacher or bystander - from photographing them seems pretty pointless, and to use it as grounds for dismissal somewhat unbelievable.

So that's why the bags take such a long time to come through?

Ignorance is bliss, goes the saying, and indeed there are times when you find something out which perhaps you would rather not have known about.  So, a somewhat worrying story that incoming luggage at Birmingham airport is routinely being searched by Customs before being put on the carousel - that is, without the knowledge or presence of the owner.  What is perhaps most worrying is that this is it seems perfectly legal - HMRC appear to have wider and more draconian powers than even the police.  And although this came to light at Birmingham, I'm sure it's happening at other airports as well.  So if you're carrying anything you would not wish to lose, it's best kept in your hand luggage!

A pint and some pork scratchings please

Couple of recent stories about pubs, which are and have been having a tough time of it for some years now with an awful lot of them disappearing.  So firstly, apparently a lifeline for some pubs is proving to be the pub quiz - it seems that not only are these popular, but they result in increased sales of food and drink.  The second story makes the point that many of today's successful pop groups and bands started out playing in small pubs - apparently known as the "toilet circuit" because in many cases their dressing room was in fact the toilet - and suggesting that the fact there are now fewer of them will make it harder for aspiring pop musicians to get a foot in the door. As a one-time pub pianist, I can empathise with that.

Read on, read on...

Headlines and opening sentences (often printed in bold and sometimes called the "lead") of newspaper articles are frequently as far as many readers bother to go, and this can cause problems when the paper uses them to simplify complex issues - people can get the wrong end of the stick.  This arose the other day when in a conversation among friends and family someone criticised the Government for the so-called "bedroom tax".  It wasn't fair, they said, that just because you had spare bedrooms, you would have to pay for them.  And of course nothing could be further from the truth.  What is proposed is that if you are in receipt of housing benefit - in other words part of your rent is being paid by me and the other taxpayers - and you have a spare bedroom or spare bedrooms, your benefit will be cut.  So you won't actually have to pay anything, it's just that the amount you receive from us taxpayers will be less.