Cooking lessons 1

A few months ago I was walking through London with a friend of mine. For the sake of the argument let’s call him something implausible like Michael. In the course of conversation two things came up. Firstly, that he was very low on money. Secondly, that he wanted to go to McDonalds because he could get a meal’s worth of food for only five pounds there.

Needless to say I objected rather strongly to this statement. Both to the notion that one can acquire food at McDonalds and to the notion that five pounds for a meal is good value. And so it arised that I would be teaching Michael how to cook.

Michael has now returned from the barbarian lands which he calls home, and so the lessons are to begin. Because it will allow others to benefit from them, and because I’m a total show off, I’ll be doing it via a series of blog posts.

Today is shopping day, and I’m suggesting a list of bare minimals he’ll want to stock before we do this. Spices will come later, as I refuse to instruct anyone to buy spices at a supermarket.

Cooking implements and general kitchen stuff

He actually has most of these, but I’m including it for completeness. Some of these aren’t essential, and one can always improvise, but it’s irritating to have to do so.

  • Cutting board
  • Sharp knife
  • Frying pan
  • Pot (Having two pots is ideal, but not neccesary)
  • Wooden spoon
  • Cooking spatula.
  • Large sandwich bags
  • Cheese grater
  • Aluminium foil

Cooking essentials

These are the ingredients which I feel it would be useful to always have to hand.

  • Sunflower oil. This can be as cheap as you can find.
  • Garlic puree
  • “Very lazy chillies”
  • Table salt
  • A couple packs of green, brown and red lentils respectively
  • A couple bottles of tomato passata.
  • White rice. Preferably basmati.
  • Stock cubes. Something of midrange quality is likely fine.
  • Bag of cheap white onions.
  • Bag of potatoes
  • Marmite
  • Soy sauce
  • Sugar, preferably brown

Not all of these are things I would use. I’ve replaced some of my ingredients with equivalent shortcuts.

Short term stuff

Things which I’d recommend picking up in the short term. This is definitely not a required list, but will give rise to some nice easy starting meals.

  • Eggs
  • Carrots
  • Cucumber
  • Fresh fish from the fish counter – if you buy whole fish rather than steak you can find some quite reasonably priced examples.

Other stuff

I like to have the following around, but it’s totally nonessential.

  • Balsamic vinegar
  • Sesame oil
  • Miso (if you get the fish I recommend picking up some of this)
  • Sweet chilli sauce
This entry was posted in Food and tagged , , on by .

Stone duality rocks

I’m sorry for the title. Please don’t hurt me. I have a condition.

Stone duality is a result that says (in a certain sense) that Boolean algebras are the same as zero-dimensional compact Hausdorff spaces. (It’s not an equivalence of categories as I had previously claimed, as the resulting functor is contravariant, but it is an equivalence of categories if you replace one of them with their dual).

I’ll assume you know a little bit of topology (enough to decipher ‘compact Hausdorff’ anyway), but I’ll give a quick refresher on Boolean algebras.

One way to define them is purely ring theoretic. A Boolean algebra is a ring with 1 such that for every x we have x^2 = x.

These have various nice properties. In particular every element of a Boolean algebra is its own additive inverse, as 4x = 4x^2 = (2x)^2 = 2x, so 2x = 0. Also, multiplication is commutative as x + y = (x + y)^2 = x^2 + xy + yx + y^2 = x + xy + yx + y. So xy + yx = 0 and thus by the previous observation xy = yx.

Two important notes: Firstly, the only Boolean algebra which is a field is {0, 1} with the obvious operations. Secondly, the homomorphic images of Boolean algebras are Boolean algebras. So if B is a Boolean algebra and I is a maximal ideal then B/I is a field, and so {0, 1}. Thus for any x in B we have either x in I or 1 + x is in I.

The classic example of a Boolean algebra is P(X) for some set X, with the symmetric difference as + and intersection as multiplication. 0 is the empty set and 1 is X. In the finite case, every Boolean algebra is isomorphic to one of these. In the infinite case, something more interesting happens.

But first, a note. We can turn any Boolean algebra into a lattice (a partially ordered set in which every finite set has a sup and inf, or equivalently a certain type of algebraic structure) of a very special kind:

Define x <= y if xy = x. Then x^2 = x, so x <= x, if x <= y and y <= x then xy = x and yx = y then x = y because the algebra is commutative. If x <= y and y <= z then xz = (xy)z = x(yz) = xy = x. So, it's a partial order. Note that 1 is the largest element of the order and 0 is the smallest. I’m going to claim the rest of the details to check without proof: sup{x, y} = x + y + xy
inf{x, y} = xy

We write sup{x, y} = x / y and inf{x, y} = x / y

These two operations are associative, commutative and idempotent. Further they distribute over eachother.

Finally we have that for every x there is a unique y such that x / y = 1 and x / y = 0. (Specifically y = 1 + x). We write this x^c. Further, De Morgan’s laws hold in that (x / y)^c = x^c / y^c and (x / y)^c = x^c / y^c. Further x <= y iff y^c <= x^c. The first part is just saying that this forms a lattice. The second part is saying that this is a distributive lattice, and the third is that it is complemented. In the power set case we have that / is union and <= is subset containment as one might expect. Given any complemeted distributive lattice we can get a Boolean algebra structure back out of it, by taking x + y = (x / y^c) / (y / x^c), the symmetric difference. So, Boolean algebras are the same thing as complemented distributive lattices. This is nice, but it’s not the main point here. It does however give us one useful way of recharacterising things. Theorem: I <= B is an ideal of B iff it contains 0, is closed under / and whenever y in I and x <= y we have x in I. I’ll leave this as an exercise, but it’s not hard. But applying the complement operator to it gives us a dual definition: F <= B is a filter iff it contains 1, is closed under / and whenever y in I and y <= x we have x in I. Filters turn out to be a very useful equivalent way of looking at ideals. Boolean algebras come up an awful lot in their own right. A lot of natural things in logic and set theory can be interpreted as Boolean algebras, and there are rich classes of examples of them. Most often they come up as lattices rather than algebras, but because these two are the same thing we can cheerfully switch between them as we wish. The major example (which will lead us to Stone duality) is the following: Let X be a topological space and let A be the set of clopen subsets of X. Then A is closed under union, intersection and complement and so forms a Boolean subalgebra of P(X). We call this the clopen algebra of X. In general this may not tell us an awful lot about X, but in the case where X is zero-dimensional (there is a basis of clopen sets) it will. Stone duality is going to say the following: 1) For every boolean algebra B there is a topological space which we will call the Stone space of B such that B is isomorphic to its clopen algebra. 2) Given a zero dimensional compact hausdorff space X, X is homeomorphic to the Stone space of its clopen algebra.
So for every zero dimensional compact Hausdorff space there is a unique Boolean algebra, and vice versa. Further, both constructions are (contravariant) functorial.

I’m not going to prove this, but I will explain how it works and why it gives a zero dimensional compact Hausdorff space.

The Stone space of B, S(B) is the set of all homomorphisms from B into {0, 1}, given the subspace topology from {0, 1}^B. Equivalently it’s the Zariski topology on the set of maximal ideals of B. This is compact because it’s a closed subspace, and zero-dimensional and hausdorff because {0, 1}^B is, and both properties are preserved under restriction. The fact that it’s functorial is obvious.

Sketch proof of why X is homeomorphic to the Stone space of its clopen set. Let x in X. Then { U in clop : x in U } is an ultrafilter on clop(X), so gives rise to a maximal ideal and so a homomorphism into {0, 1}. You can check this is a homeomorphism.

The fact that it’s a contravariant functor actually makes it more interesting, not less.

Here’s why:

The stone space of P(N) is the set of all maximal ideals of P(N). By complementing we may equivalently regard it as the set of all maximal filters on P(N). i.e. the set of all ultrafilters, which form the Stone-Cech compactification of N, beta N. It’s an easy check to see that this gives the right topology as well. The Stone Cech compactification is a very major area of study in topology, and the Stone duality gives some very powerful tools for studying it.

Of more interest is the remainder, beta N N. Now, under Stone duality this is not a subalgebra of P(N) but a quotient of it. Specifically it is the quotient P(N) / Fin, where Fin is the ideal of finite subsets of P(N).

This Boolean algebra has some nice properties. Firstly, it is atomless. An atom in a Boolean algebra is an element a such that x <= a implies that x = a or x = 0. P(N) has lots of atoms (all the singletons), but we've quotiented out by the ideal generated by the atoms (this doesn't always succeed in getting rid of atoms, as it can introduce new ones, but in this case it does). A Boolean algebra being atomless is equivalent to its Stone space having no isolated points. Most importantly, it has something called the strong countable seperation property. If A, B are countable subsets of P(N)/Fin such that for any finite F, G with F <= A, G <= B we have sup F < inf G then there is an interpolating element x. i.e. one such that for a in A, b in B we have a < x < b. This is incredibly useful, because it lets us prove the following: Let A, B be Boolean algebras such that B has the strong countable seperation property. Let C <= A a countable subalgebra. Let f : C -> B be an embedding, a in A and define C’ to be the algebra generated by C and a. Then we can extend f to an embedding f’ : C’ -> B.

(The proofs of both of these are a bit technical and a pain to write up in ascii, so I don’t intend to include them here. The proofs for all of this will get written up properly at some later date).

Now, this lets us prove Cool Things.

Theorem:

Let A, B be Boolean algebras such that |A| = aleph_1 and B has the strong countable seperation property. Then A embeds into B.

Proof:

You can probably do this via Zorn, but I find transfinite induction more natural here.

Enumerate A as {a_t : t < aleph_1}. We'll define a sequence of subalgebras A_t and embeddings f_t : A_t -> B such that if t < s then A_t <= A_s and f_s restricted to A_t is f_t, and Union A_t = A. Then the patching of these functions to A will give an embedding of A into B. But doing this is easy. We take A_t to be the algebra generated by Union_{s < t} A_s union {a_t}. We have an embedding from the union of the previous subalgebras, so the extension lemma gives us an embedding of A_t. We pick one such embedding and call it f_t, continuing the induction. QED In particular this works with B = P(N)/Fin This probably doesn’t sound especially exciting at first glance. But lets plug it into Stone duality and see what we get: Let X be a zero dimensional compact Hausdorff space of weight <= aleph_1 (the weight of a topological space is the smallest cardinality of a basis), then X is a continuous image of beta N N. Ok, this is still interesting. But zero dimensional spaces are a bit special – there are certainly interesting examples of them, but a lot of the spaces which we want to study aren’t zero dimensional. Fortunately, there’s a useful theorem of point set topology we can apply. Every compact Hausdorff space of weight k embeds as a subspace of [0, 1]^k, as a consequence of Urysohn’s lemma. Recall that [0, 1] is a continuous image of {0, 1}^aleph_0. Hence [0, 1]^k is a continuous image of {0, 1}^k. Thus any compact Hausdorff space of weight k is a continuous image of a closed subspace of {0, 1}^k, and so the continuous image of a zero dimensional compact hausdorff space of weight k. Ok, now it’s interesting. We’ve suddenly got a huge wealth of continuous maps from beta N N. This is Paracivenko’s first theorem: Every compact Hausdorff space of weight <= aleph_1 is the continuous image of beta N N. It gets better. We can use almost exactly the same proof to give something which will (combined with the continuum hypothesis) give a very powerful result: Theorem: Let A, B be Boolean algebras with the strong countable seperation property and |A| = |B| = aleph_1. Then A and B are isomorphic. Proof: The place where we use the continuum hypothesis is in the very statement of the theorem. |P(N)/Fin| = 2^aleph_0 = aleph_1 by CH. We need to adapt the previous argument. We’ll use a trick called a back and forth argument. We’ll define increasing sequences A_t, B_t countable subalgebras of A and B. with Union A_t = A, Union B_t = B. Further there will be embeddings as follows: f_t : A_t -> B_t
g_t : B_t -> A_{t+}

Such that g_t f_t = id and f_{t+} g_t = id.

Then these will paste together to give maps f : A -> B, g : B -> A which are homomorphisms and mutual inverses, proving the result.

Now that we’ve got this setup, it’s really just a case of applying the countable extension lemma.

Suppose we’ve done this for for s < t. Let C be the union of g_s(B_s) over s < t. Then this is a countable Boolean subalgebra, and we have an embedding of it h : C -> B given by the inverses of the g_s being patched together. By the construction we have Union_{s < t} A_s <= C, and h|_{A_s} = f_s. Now, extend this map h to the algebra generated by C and a_t. Call this algebra A_t and the extension f_t : A_t -> B.

Now, we have that the image of f_t contains B_s for s < t. Define B_t to be the algebra generated by the image of f_t and b_t and g_t : B_t -> A to be an extension of the inverse of f_t to this algebra.

The induction continues.

Phew. I think I mangled that explanation slightly. Hopefully the idea that I’m trying to convey is reasonably clear.

Anyway, the point is that under the assumption of the continuum hypothesis this becomes “P(N)/Fin is the unique Boolean algebra of cardinality aleph_1 with the strong countable seperation property.”

This is nice, because it’s a simple short characterisation of something important. Having these will very often give you interesting or useful results.

Now, hit it with Stone duality…

The question is, what does the statement ‘has the strong countable seperation property’ become under Stone duality?

It turns to be something slightly awkward:

Definition: X is a Paracivenko space if it is a compact zero dimensional Hausdorff space with no isolated points, such that every pair of disjoint F_sigma sets have disjoint closures and every non-empty G_delta set has empty interior.

Theorem: B has the strong countable seperation property iff its Stone space is Paracivenko.

I’m not going to prove this.

So, our uniqueness result becomes: beta N N is the unique Paracivenko space of weight aleph_1.

This is actually extremely useful, because there are a wealth of Paracivenko spaces of weight aleph_1 (under CH), and this theorem tells us they’re all homeomorphic – so by studying one, we study all of them.

For example, (beta N N)^2 is Paracivenko, so is homeomorphic to beta N.

Seems trivial? It’s not. You can’t prove this result under ZFC.

This gives rise to some very rich theory in modern set theoretic topology – the study of beta N under the continuum hypothesis is extremely nice, and this leads on to a lot of interesting topological and combinatorial results…

…which I know almost nothing about. So I’m going to stop here.

This entry was posted in Numbers are hard on by .

Sweet carrots and chickpeas

About a week ago when it was one of my nights to cook for the family I was talking with Boy. The proposed dinner plan was a chestnut and sweet potato curry, and I asked him if he’d be ok with that. He said yes, which I was pleasantly surprised by. Then he said something else.

“It doesn’t really matter what you put in a curry anyway.”

Excuse me?

“Well, once you’ve put the onion and curry powder and stuff in it all tastes the same.”

I can’t remember what I actually said in reply to this, but I suspect it wasn’t more coherent than vague sputtering noises.

Later when eating the curry he observed “See what I mean? You can hardly taste the sweet potato or chestnut.”

On the one hand, he was wrong. The curry was basically chunks of sweet potato and a spicy chestnut sauce. The chestnut was subtle, sure, but chestnut sauces are always mild. On the other hand, he did have a point. My spice selection has become a bit lacking in variety recently. So I’ve been meaning to experiment with more interesting combinations.

Today’s recipe was a case of that. I was hungry and didn’t have any convenient food (and didn’t want eggs, as I had far too many of them yesterday), so I decided to cook something. Here’s how it went.

What I used:

Two largish carrots
Two small onions
Can of kala chana (brown chickpeas)
Handful of raisins
2 tbsp sunflower oil
About 3cm cinnamon
1/2 tsp cardamon seeds
4 cloves
2 dried red chillis
1/2 tbsp coarse salt

What I did:

First of all I dry fried all the spices and then ground them in the mortar and pestle. The grumbling about this can be taken as read.

I’d had quite a lot of success with the shredding implement on the food processor yesterday when making the latkes, so rather than fussing around with chopping things I just peeled the carrots and onions and shoved them through it. Instant well chopped carrot and onion for almost no work. I think I could very easily grow to like this attachment…

So, I heated the oil in the pan, added the carrots and onions and fried for a few minutes. Then I added the spices and continued frying it until the carrots had softened somewhat.

At this point I decided it would be a crime not to have raisins with the carrots, so I took a handful of them and added them in and continued frying, adding the kala chana a few minutes later. Fried it for another five minutes or so then took it off the heat and covered it for another five while I heated up the pita bread to eat it with.

Conclusion

Very nice. The combination of sweet and spicy worked very well as usual, and it augmented the flavour of the carrot wonderfully. Also, with the food processor to do most of the work, this was incredibly easy. The spice could possibly have done with being slightly milder. I think when I make it again I’ll only use one chilli.

This entry was posted in Food and tagged , , , on by .

Latkes

I was bored.

I don’t just mean the sort of boredom that arises from not being very interested in what you are doing, I mean the sort of soul crushing mind numbing boredom that rises up from the deep, saps you of all your energy and causes you to reach the point where anything you might do to prevent the boredom just seems like too much work.

As you can imagine, this sort of boredom is a problem. I get it a lot, and being currently unemployed (which will change soon, hurrah! I just need to decide which offer to accept.) while all my friends are gainfully employed in jobs or PhDs, I’m particularly prone to it at the moment. There are plenty of things I could be doing, but if I get into a slump then they all seem like too much effort.

This time however, a solution arose. Lunchtime.

My stomach grumbled. “David”, it said “I hunger. You should feed me.”

“I don’t know. That sounds like a lot of work.

“Yeah, it is. But if you don’t feed me then I’ll be forced to escape from your body and go on a rampage. Millions will die to sate my hunger, and it will be all your fault.”

“Hmm. Well, that would be bad, yes. But I’m still not sure…”

My brain chimed in. “Yes. You should cook something. I’m bored out of your mind here. Cook something new and write it up for ‘Playing with your food’. That way you’ll have an hour or two of entertainment, and your three readers will get something to amuse them as well.”

“Alright, alright. You’ve convinced me.”

When your body parts conspire against you there’s really nothing to do but to go along with their wishes.

Unfortunately I was still uninspired. This needed to be remedied if I were to effectively produce a new meal. So, Robin, to the blogmobile!

My method of finding new cooking blogs to peruse was very simple. I wandered over to Food, in the main… and clicked on every link on the right hand side of the page.

Eventually I settled on this. I’ve heard about latkes before and I keep thinking “Hmm, I should try to make those.” but never get around to it. Well, the time for procrastination was over. Latkes it is.

Purely by chance, somewhere in between deciding on this and cooking it I thought I’d check my weight (I haven’t in months) and noted that I’d somehow managed to drop down to about my desired ideal weight with no conscious effort on my part. Right after christmas and new years.

How much oil was in that recipe again?

Anyway, time for some cooking.

What I used

About 7 small to medium potatoes, peeled
Three small white onions
1/2 tbsp of salt
Two eggs
1/2 a cup of flour
1/2 a cup of sunflower oil
1/2 tsp baking soda

What I did

As you will probably have noticed if you’ve followed the above link, there’s not really an awful lot of resemblance between my ingredients and Debbie’s ingredients. They’re the same sort of things, but the quantities are only tangentially related. This is in part due to my usual tendency to adapt, in part because I peel potatoes on autopilot and peeled far more potatoes than I actually needed before I knew it, and mostly because the recipe was all the way upstairs and it would be so much work to go up and check it.

I used the grateresque attachment for the food processor and got a large pile of shredded potato. As directed I put it into a metal colander and squeezed as much of the juice out as I could, but it was still quite damp. It was at this point I decided to employ low cunning to complete the task and sprinkled the salt over it, mixed it up thoroughly and went to do the onions. These I decided that rather than shredding I would do with the normal processor blades, turning them into more of an onion puree.

As an idle observation, if you run the grater attachment to the food processor and just drop a potato on top of it then it bounces about in an amusing manner. I can’t help but imagine the little potato pleading for its life as it avoids the spinning blades.

But maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, I’d decided to mix the Latkes in the kenwood. Why? Because I’m lazy, that’s why. And it’s the same amount of washing up, so why not? I transferred the onion to the kenwood bowl and returned my attention to the potato. The salt had done its work quite admirably and I was able to squeeze a lot more liquid out of it. Having done so I transferred it to the kenwood as well.

I then added the eggs, flour and baking soda and mixed it all up. It produced a batter with a texture fairly similar to my normal pancake mix, which was encouraging.

I then poured the oil into a nonstick pan and heated it. At this point I looked at the pan, slightly disbelieving. Buddha on a pogo stick that’s a lot of oil… I know I have recipes which use almost that much oil, but that’s in a large curry. The sole purpose of this oil is for frying things in. This somehow makes it more alarming.

Anyway, I used a heaped spoonfull of batter for each latke. The pan fit about four of them, and there was enough batter to make eight. I fried them for five minutes on each side until they were a darkish brown.

Towards the point where I wanted to flip the first batch I noticed that the best spatula was currently in a pile of washing up leftover from my brother cooking bacon and egg earlier (the irony amused me briefly). I quickly washed it up and moved to flip the latkes.

Point of reference? Putting a wet spatula into very hot oil isn’t a great idea. Ouch.

Anyway, latkes duly flipped, they cooked for another five minutes and then I transferred them to a plate and put the next batch on.

Conclusion

I was already pretty sure these would be good. They smelled wonderful.

Good lord. They tasted even better. These are really really good.

I’d made far more than I was going to be able to eat, so I rushed upstairs to get the Boy. (‘The Boy’ is my affectionate name for my brother).

“Boy”, says I, “Would you like to try something indescribably delicious?”

The Boy is skeptical. I cook strange and unnatural things, with vegetables and hardly any dead animal to speak of. However upon my description of what a latke is (“It’s basically a pancake made out of shredded potato and onion”) he is convinced to give it a go.

The Boy agrees. They’re really very good. He’s rather full from having had the aforementioned bacon and egg, so he only has one, but I make up for this by having three (and another one halfway through writing this post). The rest will keep to be reheated in the oven later.

So, a definite success. They do generate a lot of washing up, and they do stink up the house, but they taste amazing.

The only thing I would do differently in future is make sure that they really were a quite dark brown. Some of them were slightly undercooked and, while still nice, they were a bit to soft inside and lacked the crispness of the really well cooked ones.

This entry was posted in Food and tagged , , , , , on by .

Spicy pumpkin and bean stew

I still haven’t learned my lesson with pumpkins and how much water they give off when you cook them. Eventually I’ll figure it out, but until them I appear to be doomed to have watery pumpkin dishes. In the end it didn’t turn out too badly. It was just a bit more of a soup than I’d intended it to be…

Anyway, on to the recipe. I’m afraid this is another one I didn’t measure very carefully.

What I used

Lots of cinnamon (about 5cm)
Two dried red chillis
About half a tbsp of coarse sea salt
1/4 cup sunflower oil
Three small white onions
Lots of chopped pumpkin (maybe a bit under a kilo?)
Two cans of red kidney beans

What I did

First of all I had a pumpkin to dismember. As I’ve probably mentioned, my mother grows an awful lot of pumpkins. This is great, but when we have a large number of them we don’t manage to sell it means that there’s an awful lot of pumpkin to process.

This is normally a massive chore, but I for christmas I was given some extremely nice knives. All three of which tout themselves as the “World’s sharpest knife”, supplied by the rather dubiously named Twin Towers Trading (I can’t view their site because a) They’re idiots who don’t know how to correctly design a site and b) I don’t have flash installed). Sounds like it’s the lead up to a massive joke and/or disaster, doesn’t it?

It actually didn’t. These turned out to be really good. The serrated carving knife in particular is scarily effective and cuts through the pumpkin almost effortlessly.

Good lord. I sound like an advert. But seriously, it’s true. These things are great.

So, summary version for those of you whose eyes glazed over: One large pumpkin rendered into conveniently sized chunks. A lot of time spent, but relatively little effort. Most of it was bagged for later use or turned into soup, but the aforementioned about a kilo went into making this dinner.

Next, the spices. I dry fried the cinnamon and chillis (having broken them up suitably) and then powdered them in a mortar and pestle with the salt. Yes, this is exactly as much work as you think it is. I really need to get a spice grinder. (I suspect I’ve complained about this before, but blogger is currently down so I can’t actually check. Also on to do list: Make local copies of my blog posts)

Towards the end of this my mother pointed out that the food processor had a mini attachment that would work well for spices. I looked skeptical, but was fed up so decided to give it a try. It worked about as well as I expected. Worse yet, it managed to not screw up in an entertaining fashion which I could relate to my enthralled audience. It just didn’t do anything to them. At this point I declared the spices to be good enough.

Anyway, I now had a food processor that was going to need washing up anyway, and after two long and involved tasks I didn’t really feel like chopping onions, so I just shoved them in the processor.

Now, obvious things ensued. Heat oil, add the onions, fry for about 5 minutes. Yawn. Add the powdered spice mix, fry for another five minutes. Taste the fried onion to make sure I’m not about to poison people (I wasn’t. Mmm… cinnamon and chilli).

More standard obviousness continues. I added the pumpkin and fried for another five minutes. Added the beans and fried for another five minutes.

Hmm. At this point the recipe book says ‘bring to the boil then reduce heat and simmer’. Errr… what? There’s no water in this recipe. I double checked it and confirmed. No water. This presents me with a dilemma: Am I supposed to boil the pumpkin? How do I do that? Wikipedia lists the boiling point of carbon at about 4000k, and my oven barely reaches half that temperature!

Instead I resort to covering it and sticking it in the hot oven to see what would happen. After about 5-10 minutes I was somewhat skeptical about whether or not it was really doing anything, so I added boiling water to half cover the pumpkin and put it back in. This did indeed cook it, but of course once the pumpkin started cooking it began giving off its own water, ending up with what was really closer to a pumpkin soup. After about twenty minutes I uncovered it and put it back for another 15 in an attempt to reduce it a bit. This rather failed, but never mind.

Conclusion

This was really nice. I should have used less water of course (probably about half a cup of boiling water to start it off with steaming is enough), but the taste was great. The cinnamon was my own addition, and I consider it to be a total success – this would have been boring without it.

So, if you have prechopped pumpkin (and I’m going to for ages now) and a sane way of grinding spices then this is a low work recipe which tastes great. Definitely a winner.

This entry was posted in Food and tagged on by .