|
Is there some inbreeding going on in “Portrait of Carl”? -Laura, Brookline, MA
|
| Portrait of Carl |
In answering this question, it is helpful to use a diagram. In our diagram, any First
Generation Cog (for our purposes: any cog whose parents are not shown in the family tree) will be assigned a letter.
We will assume First Generation Cogs are not related to any cog that is already a member of the family tree. Furthermore,
we will also assume that each letter of the English alphabet may only be used once as a representation of a First Generation
Cog (easy enough, considering our family tree has significantly less than twenty-six First Generation Cogs). Every cog
that is not a First Generation Cog “inherits” (or is represented by) the letters of both its parents. For instance,
a cog begat of F and U will be called FU; a cog begat of SO and MF will be called SOMF; and a cog begat of LMNO and P will
be called LMNOP. Although we know most cogs have numbers rather than names, for the purposes of this question, a “name”
will refer to the sequence of letters representing a given cog.
|
| figure i |
All known ancestors of each cog are made immediately available to us simply by reading the
cog’s name. This means any common ancestry will be exposed in any two given cogs’ names. Let us now
turn our attention toward figure i. It is plain to see that KL and MN have no
common ancestors. Likewise, if they were to spawn KLMN, then KLMN would not be inbred. However, it is easy to
discern that KLMN and MNOP do have common ancestors: M and N. KLMN and
MNOP are first cousins; they share a common set of grandparents. Correspondingly, we can see that if they were to spawn
KLMNMNOP, then KLMNMNOP would be inbred. Therefore we are able to see that any cog with multiple occurrences of any
letter in its name is the product of inbreeding. Now, turning
our attention to figure ii, we can see that there are no cogs with multiple occurrences
of the same letter in their names. This proves that there are no inbred cogs in Portrait
of Carl.
|
| figure ii |
It is important to note that it would have been impossible for the family to procreate past
the third generation sans inbreeding were it not for the introduction of the First
Generation Cogs G and H.
Read more of Professor William F. Cogswell's thoughts on PORTRAIT OF CARL by clicking here.
|
|
Do Cogs play baseball, read poetry, think on their feet?
Are they Red Sox fans? Do they say Yankees suck, vote for Obama? -Ro of
Ca
|
| Blue Cog Speaks |
Well, first of all, Mr. Ro of Ca, I would like to thank you for your inquiry. I understand
that you have already spoken with my pupil (and – in his opinion, I’m sure – colleague), Mike, regarding
this matter. I would like to expand on a few things. The answers will not follow the same order as the questions.
It would be safe to assume that most, if not all, cogs read poetry. In fact, I
have done a case study on one such poetry-reading cog myself. As a rule, cogs are well-read in most areas. If
a question ever arises as to whether or not a cog is familiar with a given area of study, lean toward the former.
This would hold true to both baseball and the Red Sox. I would presume that cogs
are cognizant of both the sport and organization, however, they would know baseball and the Red Sox in the same way that you
may know, perhaps, the Roman games and the gladiators. I would hesitate to speculate that they are Red Sox fans just as I
would hesitate to speculate that you are a fan of any particular gladiator.
|
| The Shakespeare of Cogs |
As I understand it, for the most part only Red Sox fans chant, “Yankees suck.”
Since I doubt that the cogs would count themselves among the “Red Sox Nation,” it follows that they would not
be inclined to chant, “Yankees suck.” Furthermore, cogs are limited in their ability to communicate, in
all but a few cases, to the utterance of, “;” (One exception to the rule, of course, is the so-called Shakespeare
of Cogs who so notably recites, “Semi-colon.”) Drawing on the familiar analogy, cogs are as likely to play baseball as you are to engage in a chariot
race. It is feasible, however unlikely.
The matter of voting for Obama
would fall into a similar category. They do not know of Obama as you or I may know him, but rather as a character in
a history book, there to be praised or condemned with the assistance of the charitable hand of hindsight. They cannot
know for sure whether or not they would have voted for him, but only of what they would “like to think” they would
have done.
Finally, in response to your query of whether cogs think on their
feet, I would again like to emphasize that thinking is a cog’s strong suit. They seem to easily make intangible
connections that are much more difficult for human beings.
This concludes
my response to your questions. I hope it was even the slightest bit enlightening.
|
