International Journal of Nana Studies 1(4)

*
Proposed: A Fifth Law of Thermodynamics

Background

Nana has developed and proposed a new Law of Thermodynamics, the acronym for which is DENOLT (Double E's Negative- Oneth Law of Thermodynamics. This new law of physics, in its draft form, may be described as follows: The entropy of an isolated thermodynamic system decreases in direct proportion to the amount of time heat transfer occurs within the system.

Discussion

Initial development of DENOLT took place at a traditional American pancake house located in Champaign, Illinois, on 10 February 2008. The thermodynamic system described in the original embodiment of the theory consisted of natural gas from a conventional municipal gas main, a small source of heat to ignite the gas into a sustained flame, a steel restaurant cooking grill, a film of vegetable-based cooking oil, and diced Idaho russet potatoes.

Nana [poking at hard potato cubes within a "Farmer's Scramble"]: This is why we waited so long.
SM: What do you mean?
Nana [continuing to poke at the hard potato cubes]: They started with raw potatoes.
SM: They always start with raw potatoes.
Nana: No they don't.
SM: Are you saying that they grow potatoes already cooked?
Nana: No. But they had to cut them up.
SM: Do you mean that they can't cut up well cooked potatoes?
Nana: Oh, you know what I mean!

Analysis and Conclusion

Because cooked-in-the-dirt russet potatoes harvested from Idaho are demonstrated to become more heterogeneous the longer they are grilled at high temperature, the entropy of the system of which they are a part has been demonstrated to decrease in proportion to the amount of heat transferred. The proposed new thermodynamic law, DENOLT, assumes that said precooked-by-nature potatoes are cut up at some time between when they are harvested and when they are introduced to a hot grill.

Although DENOLT may currently be regarded only as a hypothesis, it is considered probable that research scientists and engineers will be able to test and replicate the initial results through controlled experiments at any traditional pancake house. Theoreticians may be expected to employ these data to codify and refine DENOLT as a scientific theory. Upon subsequent rigorous testing and observation by the scientific community worldwide, confirmation of DENOLT as the fifth confirmed Law of Thermodynamics should be expected within the century.

Afterword

"Double E" is an alias by which Nana is sometimes identified for purposes of confidentiality and protection of intellectual property.

Afterword II: Erratum

A commenter who should be able to grasp esoteric thermodynamic theory was confused by this account of the draft DENOLT. Part of the confusion may be attributed to the author's incomplete description of the cubed potato (CP) properties. The CPs were not cold, and their hardness was attributable to a state of rawness not explainable by the established Laws of Thermodynamics (Nana 2008a).

International Journal of Nana Studies 1(3)

Background and Objective

Nana employs routine conversational skills and auto-recursive reasoning techniques to tease out and share new facts about the world around her. The objective of this report is to investigate one recent example of the subject methodology and form a hypothesis concerning it.

Field Investigation

This form of nanoconversation begins with a question about a self-evident aspect of the surroundings. The example documented here occurred in a car driving south on Mattis Avenue, Champaign, Ill., after consuming half of a "Farmer's Scramble."

Nana: Is that a bookstore?
StuporMundi: Is what a bookstore?
Nana: That sign...
StuporMundi: What did the sign say?
Nana: "Books."
StuporMundi: [Laughter.]
Nana: [Nonverbal question mark, blending delight and confusion about the laughter.]
StuporMundi: No, Mom, it was a hardware store.
Nana: [Giggling.] Well, the sign wasn't attached to a building. It was just there.
StuporMundi: So you're asking if the sign was a bookstore?
Nana: No. I was wondering if the sign meant that they sell books in one of those buildings.

Discussion and Analysis

This form of nanoconversation [see erratum to Int'l Journ. Nan. Studies 1(1)] begins with a preliminary request for self-evident information. Typically, a non-obvious premise or motivation for the question is withheld from the initial query. Such unknown antecedents are sometimes drawn out by answering Nana's initial question in a hyper-literal or ironic manner; sometimes both approaches are required. Then, through little-understood cognitive processes, Nana re-synthesizes her original question to sound less ambiguous, but no less unnecessary. This form of nanoconversation can become highly iterative.

Conclusion

This method of nanoconversation, Way 3, shares certain characteristics with Pretzel Logic. However, instead of being a deliberately recursive method of logical fallacy invoked to emulate the exercise of reason, Way 3 is a self-perpetuating method through which Nana investigates the world around her but learns little from it. This method superficially resembles deductive logic, but continually returns to a refined restatement of the original query. The technique is referred to as Circular Interrogation. It borrows its name from the wind musician's technique of circular breathing.

International Journal of Nana Studies 1(2)

Background and Objective

Nana enjoys making conversation that employs special forms of logic of her own origin. The objective of this report is to examine nanoconversation Way 2, known as Pretzel Logic. This way of nanoconversation may not be dismissed as an artifact of Nana's inability to apply communal forms of reasoning to a simple set of facts, but it is better understood as a highly refined mode of social interaction where no obvious basis for such activity is in evidence.

Analysis

When employing Nanoconversation* Way 2, Nana begins with a statement festooned with more hooks than a Rapala jigging shad rap, any one of which may snag the living flesh of a person temporarily attracted by the glint of it. Then, once nanoconversation is initiated, Nana will use her free-range associative capabilities to advance the talk in any direction that simulates a logical interaction.

The following example is a typical application, wherein Nana comments upon an invitation to Sunday breakfast, telephoned to her on Saturday evening:

Nana: I almost broke my neck getting to the phone last night. I'd just gone to bed.
StuporMundi: Don't you have a phone in your bedroom?
Nana: No.
StuporMundi: Would you like me to put one in there for you?
Nana: No, I have another phone somewhere.
StuporMundi: Well, I can hook it up in your bedroom for you if you want.
Nana: No, it would always be in a place I couldn't get to it.

Discussion

As with other ways of nanoconversation, the central motivation for Pretzel Logic is to construct a controversy, a mystery, or another rhetorical framework designed to maximize interaction based on the minimal amount of substance. In the example above, the rhetorical framework was an implicit unjustified admonishment. The genius occurs when an attempt to correct the imaginary transgression (i.e., installing a telephone in a convenient bedtime location) is rebuffed with a logic that indicates no corrective measures are possible under conditions normally prevailing in the universe.

Conclusion

Nana enjoys maximal conversation with minimal intellectual or factual input. Nanoconversation Way 2, Pretzel Logic, enables Nana to insert drama into a mundane event, imply external blame or responsibility for said event, then rebuff offers of help or reparations with the sort of recursive reasoning that drove Hal 9000 into a fateful series of illegal operations.
_____________________________

*Erratum [Int'l Journ. Nan. Studies 1(1)]

In the subject issue of this journal, the term nanoconversation was incorrectly conflated completely with nanoconversation Way 1. That variety of nanoconversation is correctly identified as "smallest talk". The editor regrets the error, and this erratum has been posted as a late update to the subject issue of this journal.

International Journal of Nana Studies 1(1)

Background and Objective

Nana has several ways of "making conversation." The objective of this report is to examine Way 1.

Analysis and Discussion

Way 1 consists of the following steps:

1. Make a statement that is preposterous, ambiguous, or shocking.
2. Wait for other person's inevitable request for clarification or more information.
3. Pretend not to understand why any clarification is necessary, thereby prompting more needless preliminary conversation.
4. Eventually make the actual statement that was intended, which always turns out to be mundane and just barely warranting a reply.
5. Hope for further response from the other person, especially expressions of perplexity or frustration.

The following example is a typical application:

Nana (chipper voice): There was a murder here at our complex yesterday... right in our back yard.
StuporMundi: What do you mean in your "back yard"?!
N: What I can see right out my window.
SM: What?! You sound awfully cheery about...
N: Pigeon.
SM: What? It was a pigeon?
N: Yes.
SM: Then why would you say there was a murder...?
N: There was a murder. It looks like a hawk or something got it. There was a big pile of feathers....

Conclusion

Nana enjoys "making conversation," and will do so irrespective of whether there is anything to talk about. This general philosophy of making conversation is often referred to as "small talk." Way 1 is most useful when wanting to make conversation about subjects that are even too small for small talk.

Recommendation

It is recommended that Nana Conversational Methodology, Way 1, be referred to as "Nanoconversation."

Late update (2 January 2008): Erratum

In the above recommendation, the generic term nanoconversation was incorrectly conflated completely with Nanoconversation Way 1. This variety (i.e., way) of nanoconversation is correctly identified as "Smallest Talk". The keyword list for this posting has been amended to reflect the correct nomenclature. The editor sincerely regrets the error.