I had a couple of large bunches of silver beet and while I love silver beet I wanted to try something a bit different. I haven’t yet made much pastry so I thought I’d give it a try. I went looking for a quiche recipe and came across this Bacon and Leek Quiche recipe which I used as a basis.
So, first of all I made some pastry, using the food processor, and put it into the fridge for 30 minutes. Then I started on the filling. I put the silver beet on to cook, in salted water. I cut the silver beet into length of 10 – 15 cms. I know that there are people who slice it up small and maybe add it to a stir-fry, but I very much prefer it cooked by itself. Silver beet cooks very quickly so it is also very easy to cook it this way.
A little butter, some milk, cheese and eggs were called for and I used the proportions as in the recipe. However I should have read the recipe more closely – the butter was used to cook the leeks in the original recipe, so I should have melted it before adding to the milk cheese and eggs. Instead I blended the whole lot and it didn’t look too nice, sort of curdled. I reasoned that the cooking process would sort it out. I had no option, apart from ditching the lot!
I retrieved the pastry from the fridge and rolled it out and lined the dish with it. I put some paper in the dish and put some lentils in the paper, I then put the pastry on to cook blind for 10 minutes as instructed in the recipe. Well, it took a lot longer than that to cook, probably because I’d rolled it out a little thickly, I suspect. I’d say about 30 minutes before the pastry was lightly browned at the edges and not too soft in the middle. I’ve looked at various recipes for baking pastry blind since, and they vary tremendously. Some people recommend up to 30 minutes, and some say that it is not necessary to use lentils or beans while baking pastry blind.
So I took the lentils and paper out and filled the case with layers of silver beet and milk cheese and eggs mixture, topped it with some more cheese and put it back in the oven for the recommended 30 minutes. I was a little worried that the pastry edges would burn, but they didn’t and the quiche browned up nicely! Here it is, straight from the oven!
When I took it out of the dish it came out fine and didn’t break up, thank goodness.
Plato conceived the idea that each and every real physical object is an inferior representation of an idealised “Form”. Forms were supposed to be “more real” in some sense than the ordinary real world objects that the Form idealises. Wikipedia says this, in its article on the theory of Forms:
These Forms are the essences of various objects: they are that without which a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them.
There are several issues with this approach. For instance, when one looks at a table, one can count its legs. Many tables have four legs, while some may have more than four and some may have less than four. Some may rest on a pedestal and so have no legs at all.
So what is the essence of a table? It seems that there are many attributes of tables that are variable, like the number of legs, which is pretty shoddy for an ideal of an object. One could define a table by the uses to which it is put, but again the uses to which a table can be put are variable. We have writing tables, operating tables and pool tables. It seems that there is no attribute can be found which has a single value which makes a table a table.
For Plato the Form of a physical object is the richer of the the two. In the Analogy of the Cave, the real world objects were mere shadows of the Forms. However, it appears that the real world objects have to be richer than the ideals of the objects. This derives from the necessity of distinguishing one real object from another. This table here is different from that table there (in spacial location if in nothing else), and specific location is an attribute that the ideal cannot have.
Computer scientists have a solution to these issues, based around the concept of an “object”. An object is a container which may contain other objects, properties, or actions (called “methods” in the jargon) and which belongs to a class of objects. A table object for example may contain zero or several leg objects, it may contain the property of being wooden, and may contain the actions or methods of “lay”, “dine off”, “clear”, and so on.
Included objects can be considered parts of the object like the legs of the table. The properties are descriptive of the object, such as “wooden” or the property of “has four legs”. The actions or methods are things that you can do to the table, such as “dine off” it or “lay it for dinner”.
All objects belong to a class of objects and are called “instances” of the class. Each class is unique. There is only one class called “table” for example, and all table objects (instances of the class) derive or in other words are instantiated from it. A class is also a container and may bring properties and methods to the derived instance, so the table class may contain an action or method of “lay for dinner” and a property of “has four legs”.
So far so good. The Form equates to the class and the real world object to the instance object, so the computer science model aligns with Plato’s model. However the computer science model has a few more wrinkles which Plato’s model doesn’t.
Firstly, when the object is instantiated in the computer science model, the new object doesn’t have to incorporate the properties and actions or methods of the class that it is modelled on. For example, if the new table is used for writing letters, then it doesn’t need the action or method of “lay for dinner” so it can omit it. On the other hand it may benefit from a “clear space” action or method! It would probably carry over a “has four legs” property if the class supplies it. The instantiation process is very flexible! Class properties and actions or methods can be included in the instance or new properties and actions or methods can be created, if required.
Secondly, each and every object can implement one or more classes. This is a fancy way of saying that it can pick and choose properties and actions or methods from one or more classes. In other words a table object may be made of wood, hence, to use the jargon, it inherits from the class of “wooden objects” the action or method “polish”. We can polish a wooden object, and we can eat off a table object, so we can do both off a wooden table.
The point of all this is to address some of the deficiencies of Plato’s theory of Forms. Plato’s idea was that any table object derived from an archetypal table Form, which was not a real world object but still existed in some sense. The idealised Form was considered “purer” and was the essence of a table, comprising only those attributes shared by all tables. The difficulty here is finding any attributes that every table has, and which no “non-table” has. Using the extended Platonian scheme, if you extract all the properties and actions or methods that are not common to all tables, it seem that you might be left is an empty Form.
That may seem to be a disadvantage of this approach, but it is a strength. What sort of object do you get if you have an object which contains two box objects and a plank object? If you add the action or method of “eat off” you have a “dining table object” possibly with a property of “make-shift”.
So, under this extended Platonian scheme, what actually makes a table object a table object and not some other type of object? That’s actually a lot harder question than the question of what is a table object. Evidently it is a more subjective question as people will disagree what constitutes a table.
I entered a photo into a competition on a local news website. Although it was a small competition and I didn’t win I was pleased to see my picture on the website. It’s the seventh picture in the gallery.
I found a recipe on the “Strands of my life” blog for Jamie Olivers’ 30 minute Cauliflower Macaroni Cheese and I decided to make a variation of it without the Macaroni. I didn’t try to do it in 30 minutes.
(Note: the recipe is lifted from his book, to which there is a link on the blog. Of course, you don’t have to buy the book to use the recipe, so the ethics of posting a recipe from a book might be a bit dodgy. On the other hand, the blog entry does act as an advertisement for the book.)
Anyway, I did as the recipe suggests and put the bacon into the dish that I was going to use and put the dish in the oven, then started the cauliflower cooking. I actually needed to cut the cauliflower a little smaller than the recipe suggests as I was only cooking a small amount of cauliflower so used a smaller pan.
I grated the cheese, mixed it with the crème fraîche and some garlic powder. As the recipe directs, I took the dish with the bacon from the oven and processed the bacon with the bread and some rosemary leaves. I had expected the bacon to be crunchy, bit it was still soft, but I pressed on. The recipe calls for a little olive oil, which I added and which serves to cause the topping to crisp up nicely.
At this stage the cauliflower was cooked and I strained it, keeping the liquor as directed. Then it was just a matter of putting it together. The cauliflower went into the dish that the bacon had been cooking in. There was a fair bit of juice from the bacon in the dish, then in went some of the liquor from cooking the cauliflower, then the cheese/crème fraîche mixture. The mixture was a little too liquid, though the recipe calls for it to be “loose”, so next time I will add a little of the liquor first, then more after I see what it looks like.
Finally I covered the top with the bacon, breadcrumb and oil topping and cooked it as directed by the recipe. It came out of the oven like this. It could have been a little crisper on top.
Here’s a picture of it on a plate. The mince was cooked the other day!
I started off by cooking the Hoki fillets in a little milk with a few herbs. (Did I mention that I’d thawed it first?) I used “Tuscan seasoning” by MasterFoods, which the label says contains salt, sugar, garlic, pepper, rosemary and parsley. The fish was cooked in about 15 minutes (at 180 degrees C) to the point where it flaked when poked with a fork.
Meanwhile I chopped some fresh parsley from the garden and added it to the mashed potato and stirred in two eggs. The mixture looked a little stiff so I added some of the liquid that the fish was cooked in. That was a mistake! I added too much and it went sloppy. Oh well. I added the cooked fish and put dollops of the mixture on a baking tray and cooked it at 200 degrees C for 20 minutes. “Dollops” is the right word. It was far too sloppy to form proper fish cakes.
I then made a roux. A “roux” is a fancy name for a 50-50 fat/flour mix which is cooked for a while. It is made into a white sauce (Béchamel) by slowly adding milk and cooking it (stirring all the time) until it is the desired consistency. I used the liquor that the fish was cooked in.
Here’s the “fish cakes”. I didn’t brush them with milk or egg, so they are a little palid. They are cooked though.
This is what it looked like on my plate.
Well, they tasted OK, but could have looked better! I’ve had enough runner beans for a while, but thankfully they seem to be taking a rest at the moment. Only one or two beans today.
I think I mentioned how to cook sausages in the oven the Jamie Oliver way before. Maybe not. Anyway the way to do it is to cook them on a wire rack. I didn’t have a suitable one so I made do with a roasting pan and the rack from another roasting pan that has long gone.
It didn’t quite fit but it worked. In summary Jamie’s method is to cook the sausages on 180 degrees C for 20 minutes, turning once.
The mash was no problem. I boiled the potatoes, drained them and mashed them with a little low fat milk and olive margarine. Of course, you could use full cream milk and butter if you wish!
The onion gravy was a new venture for me, but there are plenty of recipes on the Internet. I referred to this one. The basic idea is to cook the onions on a low heat, then add stock and then thicken as required. You have to watch the onions carefully, even on a low heat to ensure that they don’t caramelise. Of course a little colour doesn’t hurt. I put too much thickening in and the result was paler than I’d prefer, but it still tasted good. I used flour and water, so I had to cook the gravy a bit. If you use cornflower it isn’t necessary, according to the Internet anyway. I’ve not tried it.
On and off over the years I’ve been thinking about the concept of understanding, most particularly in the field of mathematics. When one encounters a new branch of mathematics, one is (conceptually) presented with the definitions, axioms and theorems in the field. Of course, one doesn’t necessarily understand them at first. However, after delving into the field, studying the axioms and definitions, and following through the proofs one soon gets the general feel for the field.
I might for instance read a ‘popular’ book about mathematics and read about ‘hyperreal numbers‘. By a ‘popular’ book, about maths, science or practically anything else, I mean a book which provides a non-rigorous introduction to a field, intended to give a feeling for it. If a reader of such a book requires an in-depth treatment of the subject, the reader would no doubt have to spend a long period studying the necessary maths to even start to address the topic. Such a ‘popular’ book could not possibly give one an understanding of ‘hyperreal numbers‘ of course. It’s more of a geography lesson, in that it would provide an understanding of where the topic fits in to the topography of mathematics, just as one might read about Greece, but one would not understand from the guide book what Greece is really like. For that one must go there.
So you need to study something in maths to understand it. When do you know that you have understood it? I believe that there are at least three stages or signs that you understand it.
In the first stage, you have studied the axioms or the basis for the field of mathematics that you are trying to understand and you have seen and understood a few of the proofs of theorems in the field and you can reproduce them if asked. You have arrived in Greece, you are getting to grips with the money, you know how to purchase something in a cafe or restaurant, to extend the analogy.
In the second stage, you understand the ‘why’ of the proofs, you start to get a feel for the way that proofs are put together in the field and what can be achieved in the field. The concepts are sinking in. In Greece, you know how to find the best bars and restaurants where the Greeks drink and eat, you know what to order from the menus, and you are picking up a smattering of the language.
In the third and final stage, you are using the mathematics in the field with confidence, either to develop your own ideas in the field or in further study. When you look back at the difficulties you used to have in the field you are astonished that it took so long for the concepts to sink in. They seem obvious now. In the Greece analogy, you speak the language fluently, you have married a Greek person and you have lived in Greece for years. You mock the foreign tourists, and also you realise that there is more to Greece than your particular corner of it.
So, my point is that to understand something you need to immerse yourself in the topic. I don’t mean to say that you won’t have “Eureka Moments“, but even Archimedes had to immerse himself in his topic of study to come up with his Principle!