Workout today, Year End Goals

Lowering the squat weight is frustrating.
But, squatting w/o a belt, I had to do it.
Squatting beltless is weird at first. Beltless squats utilize the mid aps, whereas belted squats felt like they worked the outside abs a whole lot more.

My abs definitely feel like the weak link now that I've switched to squatting beltless.
Today's workout:

B Squat (w/o belt): 280 x 5s x 5r (SO F*CKING LIGHT! ARHGUHGUGUHG!)

Bench: 202.5 x 6s x 5r (felt good)

Standing Barbell Bicep Curl: 102.5 x 8s x 5r (felt real good, almost too easy)


By the end of the year I will:
-OH Press 200 lbs
-Curl 135 lbs
-Deadlift 500 lbs

(Great Bench, Weak Squat) 17 August 2010

Today's Workout:
B Squat(NO BELT): 315 x 3s x 5r

Bench: 200 x 6s x 5r

Cooldown: Swimming



This was the same weight I squatted last time, but felt tough.
Squatting w/o a belt is tough. You feel the bottom abs working more. Other abs working less. But, net effect, beltless is tougher.

Was very happy with bench. Originally planned on 197.5 x 3-5s x 5r.
Had to bump it up to 200 when I couldn't find my fractional plates.

couple workouts.

Haven't been good lately about entering workouts as I do them. So here they are.

11 August 2010.
(Squatting w/o belt)
BS 315 (no belt) x 3s x 5r
Bench 195 x 5s x 5r (felt easy and great)

12 August 2010
(Deadlift weight low bc I was doing double overhand, more grip training than true DL'ing)
Deadlift 285 x 5s x 5r
Bicep Curl 100 x 8s x 5r (Wanted to introduce a lot of volume, but without the light weight required for higher rep sets)

Minor Economic App of Program from last Post

(THIS EMAIL REFERS TO THE PROGRAM IN THE LAST BLOG POST)


Did you ever read about how some markets can't equalize that well?

For instance, farmers (in England, before massive subsidies) always produced too much or little since information wasn't that good and there were inherently unknowable factors? (weather, war, etc.)

In a program I just wrote I used really simple math, REALLY SIMPLE simple addition, but I think the premise could be used to illustrate the unknowable factors and the associated difficulties in market equalizing.

The program had the computer use random integers to try to find a sequence that added up to 6.
If the sum of the sequence went above 6, the computer got to remove the last integer, until the sum of the sequence was below 6.
If we are using little numbers to find the sequence, the little numbers could represent a world where every factor is a mostly knowable factor.
(For instance, Farmers know they'll need x seeds, y acres of land, z tractors, etc.) Consider arriving at "6" to be an equalization of the market.
In this scenario the computer executes and we get:

[1]
[1, 2]
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 3] (EXCESS 1)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 2] (EXCESS 2)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 3] (EXCESS 3)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 1] (FOUND IT!!!)

So, the computer went in excess 3 times, and then found the solution. Metaphorically, the market equalized.


Now, let's introduce some bigger, less knowable factors into the farmers wheat market.
War, drought, alien invasion, these are bigger factors then minor weather changes or minor increases in labor prices. So, they'll be represented by higher numbers. The minor factors are still there, but now they're accompanied by those aforementioned bigger factors.
So, instead of just minor factors represented by the integers [1,2,3], our new list will be [1,2,3,4,5] (4 and 5 representing the new huge factors).
Look how long it takes our market to equalize this time.

[2]
[2, 5]
[2]
[2, 5]
[2]
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 1] (FOUND IT!!!!!)


In a world of much less perfect information, markets did a HORRIBLE job of equalizing.

Shotgun Solution

(I'm not sure anyone has ever gotten as excited as I get about writing really simple and really bad code)


My favorite biology book, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World", has a great section that describes the thermostat as the seed of Artificial Intelligence.

In some very, very narrow sense the thermostat was, well, not self-aware, but at least capable of continually responding in pre-defined ways to a constantly changing environment.

I've written a very simple program that uses a thermostat style principle to "shotgun" a solution to a problem.
The computer is tasked with finding a sequence of integers that add up to 6. However, the integers must be chosen at random.
Randomly chosen integers might add up to 6, but even more likely is that the numbers will jump straight from 4 to 7, and the computer (since only positive numbers can be chosen), will now be unable to find a sequence of numbers that add up to 6.

This is where the thermostat principle comes in.

A thermostat would turn the heating off when the temp reached, or jumped above, the target temperature. And so my program, when it adds a number that raises it above the goal number, will delete the last added number so that it is once again below the goal number. (Just like the thermostat temporarily turns the heating off, my program temporarily turns the adding off).

Small numbers result in shorter sequences since the computer is less likely to exceed the target number.
Large numbers introduce more volatility.

Here's the sequence when the computer randomly chooses numbers from the list [1,2,3] in order to find a combination that adds up to 6.

[1]
[1, 2]
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 3] (EXCESS 1)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 2] (EXCESS 2)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 3] (EXCESS 3)
[1, 2, 2]
[1, 2, 2, 1] (FOUND IT!!!)

We can see that three times the total exceeded 6 and the computer "turned off" the adding and removed an integer(s) until the total was below 6 and hence, again possible to reach by adding a number.

If we introduce bigger numbers, changing the list of potential numbers from [1,2,3] to [1,2,3,4,5] we should have greater volatility. I'm using volatility here to mean more excesses and more self-corrections.

And, voila!

[2]
[2, 5]
[2]
[2, 5]
[2]
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 5] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 3] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 2] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 4] (EXCESS)
[2, 3]
[2, 3, 1] (FOUND IT!!!!!)

WAY MORE VOLATILE!

But the goal of finding a combination of numbers that add up to 6 was still reached.

The code for the program is below.

#Goal: To create a shot-gun solution/combination of finding \
# numbers that add up to 6.


import random

the_list = [1,2,3,4,5]



def implement_shotgun():
answer_combo = []
while sum(answer_combo) != 6:
if sum(answer_combo) < 6:
r = random.randrange(5)
answer_combo.append(the_list[r])
print answer_combo
if sum(answer_combo) > 6:
answer_combo = answer_combo[:-1]
print answer_combo

implement_shotgun()

lifting today

Good lifting session today.
Decided to squat without the belt for awhile.
Squatting without the belt gave my abs a HUGE workout, or at least a different workout than they're used to.


Today's workout:
B Squat (without belt): 315 x 3s x 5r
Bench: 195 x 5s x 5r

I wish . . .

I wish Kurt Vonnegut wasn't dead.

I wish I was smarter.

I wish I could see my grandmother again.

What do you wish for?