Sunday, March 23, 2014

SAT Solvers

SAT? No, not the scholastic test. Rather, this deals with Boolean satisfiability which is a hard problem. A comment of Moshe of ACM Communications motivated this post. He was at a workshop this year that looked at a couple of things. One was whether were new theoretical insights from practice of late. The other was a sampling of techniques that solves these types of problems, albeit by rule of thumb.

We earlier mentioned algorithms as having a firmer basis than heuristics. There are a lot of SAT approaches. Let's pause here for a couple of pointers: Understanding SAT solvers, Flow Control Analysis for SAT Solvers. We could find a lot more.

From his observing the state of the art at the workshop, Moshe says that the methods are mostly heuristic. We might say that there are two issues to consider. One is that the hardness of a problem relates to the difficulty of finding its solution in an effective (time, resource, money) manner. The other is that solutions, if found, can be verified quite easily (compared to the search).

What does this mean for truth engineering? Firstly, assessing truth is a hard problem, computationally. We know this. But, truth is hard in general, too. Efforts at determining truth need to be reasonably constrained, if possible.

So, it is nice that we see motivation to define and explore the efficacy of a solution approach. However, we must, too, remember that maintaining the truthful state is not a given. In some cases, the trouble related to maintenance may be even worse than the original determination.

Catch-22? Somewhat. But, not.

Remarks:   Modified: 03/23/2014

03/23/2014 --

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Codecademy, again

As we get technical, we'll have to look at coding, mathematics, and philosophy. For the first (coding), there is much to consider. The past week, I have looked at Codecademy's site, taken some of their lessons, and reacquainted myself with code (see first and second bullets, below). For the second (mathematics), I re-looked, yesterday, at a site dealing with mathematical physics. The site had posts about the authors recent finds (see third bullet, below).

For the last, see this Facebook (Philosophy matters) page, for now. I ran across this page while researching, after reading an article in Bloomsburg Businessweek about applying Heidegger to marketing of stuff. Well, truth will deal with business as much as with mathematics, science, and engineering. So, we will definitely be back to this.
- Coding -
On this past Monday, I was looking at the read counts and saw that the Codecademy, at last post was in the most-read mix. Note that it had been written in September of 2012. Rather than post a comment on Facebook, I went to Linkedin and did several. Why Linkedin? My profile there talks about my experience with code over the past several decades.

I have moved the comments from Linkedin to here; they follow:

02/24/2014 - I ran across in 2012. At the time, my interests were directed toward things other than code. If someone had asked me six years ago if that were possible (life without code - you see, I was buying into the code-based worldview - even though I knew that being was not subsumed therein), I would not have understood the question. Yes, one can live, nicely, without code, but ought we?. Then, today, I noticed that the post had been recently read, several times, so I looked again at the site. Hence this notice.

02/25/2014 - Started yesterday afternoon, off and on, going through Codecademy lessons. As of now, I have completed 48 of these. Which means coding up the example sufficiently to execute properly and to get by the watchdog that controls stepping to the next item. (see post Focus going forward

02/26/2014 - Well, it isn't that the honeymoon is over, yet the glitter is gone. Sloughed through all sorts of errors, today, that the environment kept throwing at me (being long-time at this type of thing, was able to alter the situation properly in order to accomplish what I wanted). Ah, I miss the Lisp machine. While thinking of the Lisp machine fun, I recalled Prof Lucio Arteaga who worked with me on issues related to topology, category theory, and more. (see post Acknowledgements)

As I was looking at Codecademy, I went through the process. The next bullet provides a snapshot of the activity. 
- ...
The image shows my profile at the Codecademy site. One steps through lessons for a language. Right now, it shows that I have completed HTML & CSS, jQuery, PHP, and YouTube API courses (hence, the badges). The first two were reviewed to catch up with what has been going on. As people talked when they bragged of going from static to dynamic pages, there is a lot of flexibility. And, one sees many sites related to things like buttons and such.

Codecademy profile
as of 03/02/2014
To discuss: This is fine as it can be fun. However, as I knew then, and everyone ought to know now, re-write (and the logic thereof) is a difficult problem with open issues. How is it that we have allowed this type of mess to be cast upon the world at large?

The YouTube API course was interesting. Again, a couple of years ago, when Microsoft pushed people off the OfficeLive site (people had actually built their processes upon that MS offering), I did not think that MS was offering anything worth my time. So, I went to another provider. After looking at the "free" web site builders, I didn't find one that I liked. So, I hacked HTML using my early 2000 framework. Then, last year, I looked at Joomla, Concrete5, and others (see the site, as we will be changing that as an exercise). What I am considering now will be to use CSS mainly (so, thanks Codecademy).

Notice that I'm in the process of looking at Python (was my favorite language after Lisp), Ruby on Rails, and Web Projects (mainly to see what people have done). Perhaps, after that I might try to do a class myself. I have been taking notes along the way. Notice, above, that I said that the glitter had left.

Well, it can be tedious. You see, the courses have a watchdog that is not as intelligently designed as it ought to be. I have snaps of tricks that I had to do to get the thing to parse correctly in order to let me go on when I had things right, but the watchdog (course controller) could not see it. To wit, I have been hung on Ruby for several days not (32%) since the thing will not parse properly. I'll keep trying. If I get to 100% on everything else, I might have to contact the Codecademy folks.

I will list some of the problems that I saw: racing/hung condition when trying to parse, improper refresh of their data structure (to wit, list where you were supposed to enter the line number in a blank field - to get it to parse, I reversed a couple of the numbers), ..., not handling delimiters properly (to wit, introducing a space - not necessary, in this case - urged the parser along).   
Everyone ought to code something or other. Otherwise, we have the situation where wizards do the work and get too much freedom in the process. That is, people abdicate their responsibility.

Or, they get addicted to whatever the wizards provide (alluding to the recent gaming pull and more).

But, to be serious, the last post (Logic ... Reflections ...) mentioned discussions dealing with issues to which truth engineering needs (has) to pay attention. The main thing concerns the "fact" that our supposedly deterministic ways are not so. Computing (especially, the cloud) makes the problem even more of concern.

Now, even if everyone does not code, they ought to be concerned about maturity (and, by inverse, immaturity). This week I read about some of the software engineering practices of JPL. In this case, it was the Mars program. The test, in this case, was the one-time use during the mission. A whole lot of upfront analysis and testing was necessary. Where is there any time for this type of thing with agile playing around?

On the other hand, things seem to push out to the web in various states of incompleteness. Perhaps, the ease of a back-off (not done if the errors are minor, and the user can adapt) is the driver.

Or, is it that we do not want to know the real costs, or to pay, for better solutions that are necessary for sustainability (of more than stuffing big pockets)? 

Remarks:   Modified: 03/19/2014

03/03/2014 -- We need to relook at several things. Yes, like, bringing memes (and more) to the fore in the discussion. Mathematicians have their "ancestors," know about them (and their contributions), and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger (). I took it back to 1585 since that would be co-temporal with those who were involved with the Great Migration to New England. Too, note that the ancestor is an adviser or mentor or tutor. This brings to mind that a meme'tic look at descendancy would consider the influence of step-child-ness. I have found many of these relationships.

03/07/2014 -- Like a lot of things on the web, this site is free. Given that, some think that leaves no right to comment or criticize. But, along with the free (which really is a subtle way to entangle) comes a total one-sided deal where changes are pushed upon users without much (or no) notice. Conform to (watch out for) the big elephant turning over in the bed is adage. Of course, the whole notion of incompleteness as it applies to computing is not understood, or downright ignored, by those who know better. In fact. many of the new billionaires can exalt in proving that they're smarter by having more money (my counsel would be for them to not think their brilliance outshines some very poor people - truth engineering will deal with that subject). ... Now, finally, the beef deals with the watchdog (supposedly couched as training overseer) function is idiotic in some cases. One of note. The console shows a printout just like the lesson wants. However, the watchdog says that it looks like there was not output. This type of thing is hard to skirt around whereas parser types of things can be tweaked enough for them to be happy.  --- Late note, I found a way around the watchdog's errancy. Will report back on this later.

03/19/2014 -- Update, on Fedaerated.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Logic, Probability, Reflection, and more

The items in the subject of the post came from a meeting that was reported by John Baez. There are a couple of things to note, briefly.

Firstly, John Baez has reported his "This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics" since the early 1990s. And, he kept his format consistent until a couple of years ago. His last post under the old site was on April 11, 2012. I was not a regular reader, but I did appreciate the site (used it as an example of how one could have deep content on the web without the frills) enough to visit it often.

The Week's Finds posts have been subsumed under a blog that was started in 2010, called Azimuth. If one reviews some of the posts, one can get the sense that graphics are a big help to good presentation. And, improvements in handling graphics are remarkable.

Secondly, as we see with the subject of the post, the meeting dealt with issues related artificial intelligence which has become (will continue to be) integral to advanced methods. John reports that the two main themes were Scientific Induction in Mathematics and Lob's Theorem (Cartoon Guide).

Of interest, too, is that the place of the meeting was called the Singularity Institute (see singularity). It now has the name of Machine Intelligence Research Institute. We have used the term in another context and will continue that discussion.

Remarks:   Modified: 03/23/2014

03/23/2014 -- SAT solvers as an example of large class of heuristics.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Professor Lucio Arteaga

My efforts have mostly been singular in nature, following the mode of the autodidact. There are lots of reasons for this which do pertain to the origins of truth engineering. So, expect that theme (in a sense, mentor-less) to be addressed from time to time.

However, all along, I have run into people who were influential in the sense of penetrating the awareness because of their talents and, thereby, of making contributions. You see, the autodidact's role, and how that ought to work, is an open-ended issue.

Aside: Some seem to see money, and accumulations thereof, as a true measure of value and success. That little bit of reality was mentioned earlier in this blog (see, Richer is smarter). Of late, one might consider that there might be something there (to wit, the new m(b)illionaires, ala MS, Google, FB, etc.). Is there no end to how much some can rake in (well, note, please, that people are borrowing to leverage, again -- chimera is more than a mere fantasy/delusion)? ... The truth is that money does not own truth. We know that money means power (many times), so our task is to speak truth to money (power), always (how?, as the warped minds of money do not know how to listen or to think properly).


So, back to acknowledgements. The first will be to recognize the influence of Professor Emeritus Lucio Arteaga with whom I worked at Boeing after he retired from the Mathematics Department of Wichita State University (Shockers). His influence was very much mathematical, in a peripatetic sense (to be explained). Our discussions occurred over several years and dealt with foundations, topology, and issues of advanced computing.

Lucio (Math Genealogy 14698) obtained his PhD at the University of Saskatchewan in 1964; the title of his dissertation was Theory of Functions and Integral Transformations. His advisor was Andrew P. Guinand (Math Genealogy 14696) who was a pupil of Edward Charles Titchmarsh who goes back through Hardy to Cayley. That is a nice pedigree.

Lucio's contribution, and counsel, was timely and much valued. He helped me to attain a more full appreciation for the breadth and depth of mathematics. I appreciate that I received books from his mathematical library.

Remarks:   Modified: 03/03/2014

02/25/2014 -- According to the Mathematics Genealogy Project, Lucio has the following in his tree (not in any order), as ancestors: Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, George Howard Darwin (son of Charles). Some of his uncles and cousins are: James Clerk Maxwell, Alfred Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Saul Kripke, George Gabriel Stokes, Sir Francis Galton,

02/26/2014 -- Mentioning Lucio made me recall the circumstance of our first encounter. I had, right before that time, the good fortune of getting exposure to the Lisp machines. I was both developing on, and administering, several of these, of different ilks: Xerox, Symbolics, LMI. The domains were varied, from classic IT problems to applied mathematics and engineering. At the time, the interface was graphical (think later Windows, and pre-Mac - hence, the attitude toward the cute, little Mac - too, my first touch of C++ was in the mid-80s with it being compared to the Lisp machine environment); the framework was frame-based (early approach to objects); the technology appealed (if someone could afford the price). Some configurations (LMI) had dual processors where one had both Lisp and a Unix system (Motorola chip, if I remember correctly) on the same bus.Later, Texas Instruments provided both a Lisp machine and a LMI card that could be inserted into the later Macintosh. Software was abundant (we can list these). Many modern systems were prototyped in this environment (say, computational mathematics). In particular, I was using KEE (out of Stanford's E-MYCIN). One day, I had the opportunity to demonstrate what I was doing to Lucio who immediately saw the mathematical implications. Of course, Lisp came out of a paper by John McCarthy. In short, Lucio became involved; later, the techniques evolved such that they were still effective for a decade and a half (still are, given what I see embedded in advanced approaches). Too, his interest, and established qualifications, provided me a SOUNDing (pun intended) board (lots of things to discuss, in that regard). ... ToBeContinued.

03/03/2014 -- Mathematicians have ancestors, know about it, and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger ().

Focus going forward

Truth is not an easy thing for us to process, yet it's at the core (several senses) of life which we see flow around us. Nature is the prime example, always there. And, it's a big subject.

We, from certain viewpoints, are in, and of, Nature (hint: I'm using big "N" just as we see capital "E" used for Evolution - the use of the big "E" says what?). And, we learn more about this all the time. Debatable extensions can be made to our knowledge (some say, it's the other way around) that address the us that is beyond Nature. Yet, as the operationalist view says, who cares?

That head-in-sand attitude is counter-productive which we intend to show. In essence, what we are heading toward is an explanation of how we need to switch our "limit" thinking in order to allow a more full experience and illumination. The following list points to focus areas.
- Incompleteness - This is, in part, the motivation for establishing, better, the basis for going forward. That is, we need to get back to looking at what "limits" abound (via undecidability, computablility, etc.). Alon Amit describes what is behind Kurt's theorems. In particular, note the four properties of interest: Effectiveness, Consistency, Completeness, Richness. He stresses that the theorems work without any meta-mathematical assistance. True; it's great to have his post as a source for further discussion. Yet, we will address a need for "meta" views as we consider t-issues. ... As an aside, Quora looks like it would be an interesting place to hang out.   
- Codecademy - This site will be used to explore "code" and its existential meanings within the context of the emerging overlays (cloud, etc.). Plus, there will be other focal points related to our interchanges with our artificial partners. However, codecadmy will always be known as the first one that I encountered. ... Not interested in collecting points or showing prowess (so, ignore those, in my case, as I play around on the site). 
- The sites of ajswtlk and ThomasGardnerSociety are content sites. In one thing, we'll take the content  management thing a little further. Too, though, we will use the ajswtlk site for matters specific to truth engineering and code. TGS, on the other hand, can serve as an example of the broader picture (persistent information and its maintenance - too, historic genealogy as study of our progress - memes, et al.).   
- Blogging: see Ajswtlk. Too, redo the survey of progress in this area by others. For instance, Klout's approach makes me think of how there might be a "truth" assessment (to be discussed). 

In terms of computing, most are users. We tried early to get end-user computing. Some, now, call this domain-specific, yet, there is the larger picture. JS (thanks, Sun) brought forth one enabling bit; the whole thing has mushroomed (many different approaches about - just read on Node).

As I look at the long history of computing, things keep getting re-wrote, time and time again. Everyone thinks that their stuff is better (human nature). At some point, though, we will need to have the notion of "proven" brought to bear. And, strength will deal with truth more than not (for a long time, Made-off seemed strong).

Disclosure: We like that apps have grown, without bounds, it seems. But, the larger pictures comes into play here, to boot.

Remarks:   Modified: 03/03/2014

02/25/2014 -- Starting on 02/23/2014, in the evening, I have spent some time (now and then, as I could spend some uninterrupted minutes) doing lessons at Codecademy. As of now, I have completed 48 of these (HTML, jQuery, APIs). What completion means is coding up the example sufficiently to run and to get by the evaluation that allows the next step.

Let's say this. It has been a nice review session. Too, getting back to code, a truism comes to fore (some say that there are two intelligent types - detailed and intuitive -- ignoring Gardner's seven, for now). Detailed is what we see with engineers, programmers, and such. In fact, handling details in that manner deals a lot with deep stuff (far beyond what we see with Watson). Intuitive? Management (a big bucket, for now - but, it deals with things that only humans know, for now - it is arguable that this will continue to be of the essence).

Actually, we need to exercise both. However, I did mention tedium before. Sometimes, interfacing with the machine is rewarding. Most of the time, it stinks (but, doing code is a good opportunity to practice patience, focus, carefulness, ...). Now, can the machine ever match intuition (not talking in the Turing sense, rather int he sense where we need to look at being)? ... Anyway, playing with the lessons was real nice in that things interpreted immediately, once expressed properly. ... There are other things that I want to peek into, but Ruby on Rails is next.

02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.

02/28/2014 -- Edited bullet on blogging. Added in reference to Klout, seen in Bloomberg's Businessweek.

03/03/2014 -- We need to relook at several things. Yes, like, bringing memes (and more) to the fore in the discussion. Mathematicians have their "ancestors," know about them (and their contributions), and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree: Galileo Galilei (1585), Vincenzo Viviana (1642) Isaac Barrow (1652), Isaac Newton (1668), Roger Cotes (1706), Robert Smith (1715), Walter Taylor (1723), Steven Whisson (1742), Thomas Postlethwaite (1756), Thomas Jones (1782), Adam Sedgwick (1811), William Hopkins (1830), Arthur Cayley (1864), Andrew Russell Forsyth (1881),  Edmund Taylor Whittaker (1895), G.H. Hardy (), Edward Charles Titchmarsh (), Andrew P. Guinand (), Lucio Arteaga (1964), the blogger (). I took it back to 1585 since that would be co-temporal with those who were involved with the Great Migration to New England. Too, note that the ancestor is an adviser or mentor or tutor. This brings to mind that a meme'tic look at descendancy would consider the influence of step-child-ness. I have found many of these relationships.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Beatles and Dylan

The Beatles? Search for the string anywhere now (Google, et al), and you'll see that many (all sorts) are reminiscing about where they were in 1964 when the guys first appeared on American TV (via Ed Sullivan). Some, including the WSJ, have gone so far as to rate (and recall) songs and LPs that were produced by the group over the less than decade of their time together.

Too, the WSJ told us why the fans screamed (I, for one, never knew why).


So, why are The Beatles being associated truth engineering? Good question. Let's look at that, in a brief manner.


Prior to Dylan's and the fab four's entry into the public's (albeit the younger set's) awareness, there were many things going on. Vietnam, and its issues, was mostly just coming about, say, around the time before 1964. But, civil rights and free speech were starting to become generally known.

The time, and its energies, ought to be (is usually) associated with the boomers, as they were finishing up high school about then (the first wave's leading edge, let's say). That is, the boomers were on the verge of the adulthood during a time of "dramatic social change."

And, except for their associates who were only a few years old, the boomers considered the rest (mostly over 30) were not to be trusted.

Trust? That is a crucial part of truth. In fact, where can trust be placed now-a-days?


The Beatles started innocently enough, though the female fans screamed. For instance, what is more "PG" than I want to hold your hand. Their sound was clean and crisp, somewhat like the Beach Boys had provided. Summer fun, if you would.

Yet, being Brit, the four guys had a whole new world to offer, beyond the self-indulgent scene found with the southern California hype. Actually, one could argue that the BBs were cleaned-up beats (surf bums, et al -- a healthy type of counterculture).

And, the Beatles got a lot of air time so that their songs became associated in ordinary events of people's lives. That is one way to measure their effect. Remember, we are talking long before the MP3 players and playlists. People didn't switch stations when the Beatles came on. Too, the guys kept the songs rolling out, almost hit after hit.

Why were they so popular? Well, we know that they were good musically. They had voices that were easy to listen to. And, they shared the lead in singing. So, their output was pleasant to the ear and soul; people could pick their favorite singer. Too, though, they did have a message: love, and relationships, was a frequent topic; life - work, help, Taxman, ... and, when I'm 64.

Too, they looked at many aspects of human life; say: I'm a loser; Fool on the hill; Nowhere man. There were many songs of this ilk.

But, a whole lot of their songs were cheerful, even bouncy. Rubber Soul, the album, has a bunch of tunes that can set the feet moving. The cheerful list is just too long. In fact, even the more somber tunes had an ending that wasn't morbid.

How many wore out their LPs through listening to the fab four?


Now by 1965, things were at a crux as you had the boomers off to, or already at, college and spreading their wings. Anyone recall those things related to in loco parentis? The boomers carried that out. One could point to many current situations that rose to prominence in the public's mind during the times of the boomers.

Getting back to the Beatles, when they were getting many into their movie, Help, and when Rubber Soul was getting air, a song came on the radio for which there was no precedence. For one thing, the singer was not much of one. Too, the song went on for a long time, longer than any had before. It played over 6 minutes. The public ate it up. Of course, we're talking Dylan's tune: Like a rolling stone. A message within a song became the norm.

Of course, to that time, Dylan's recordings were all related to something of note. But, his Rolling Stone tune got him the general attention of the boomers. His work had an influence on the Beatles. We have heard about some of this. But, Revolver was the turning point. Some of the later work pushed the boundaries more than others, as we did see some reflective works later: Let it be.


Then, The Beatles were no more. Much has been written about the breakup. The four continued with their musical work. But, the world was without their bright star.

Of course, the whole flower power movement had already been rolling itself up. The counterculture did not cease. In fact, the hippies have been emulated world-wide. Some U.S. States have, of late, legitimized herbaceous products that were so popular in the time of the fab four.


So, truth engineering? The main theme would be that music is a crucial part of truth. Actually, tone has all sorts of uses. What musical artists provide are tones that are associated in interesting ways using various means. When this is coupled with lyrics (language and truth is a very important subject), we have power.

Note classical music's (including opera's) continuing attraction each generation.

The Beatles dealt with the popular mind, in terms that were new, probably since they had a very large audience (boomers) and their talents kept their productivity up. But, just as the culture fractured, how could not the Beatles? Dylan was singular; and, he did adapt over the years (not that he knows how nor does anyone else - the fact of that ought to say something about truth and the difficulties in trying to establish such).

No doubt, there have been many studies about the phenomenon, called The Beatles, over the years. We have seen many artists come about who are about as popular (nameless, for now - popular meaning that they got a cohesive grab on the younger set - who are not as large the boomers).

Yet, the fab four's success was different due to the times. The breakup was over 40 years ago. How many boomers do not listen to their work, now? I am pre-boomer, myself, but I remember Ed's show. Too, I had their tunes playing via youtube as I was writing this post. Some have strong Proust-like memories associated with them.

Music and memory? They associate very well. Music and thought? I've often wondered as I see people going about shielded with their own playlist'd worldview (Try to get one of them to relate to something real? Generally, what you get is way less than 1/2 a person. It's not as bad as the text'd space draw, though.).


So, remember that I mentioned Dylan, too. We can use him and the fab four to do some analysis. I will have to look, first, to see if there has been earlier work done of the sort that I'm considering. Just as Bob, when they were interviewing him to see from whence his inspiration, could not put his finger on it (did not even think of it - must be nice to have such talent), I don't think that Paul or Ringo could tell us of their insight. Has anyone asked as they did with Bob?

Remarks:   Modified: 02/19/2014

02/19/2014 -- 

Wednesday, January 15, 2014


As we said in an earlier post, Big Daddy Data, everyone is hot after analytics. These are framed computationally, you all know, bringing out little gremlins from the tracings that we leave of ourselves. Okay?

Much ado about nothing, to boot. The commercial analytics are the clearest way to perdition, people.


So, the other day, in a conversation, on a Sunday, so that gives me the right to be philosophical (actually, I don't need any permission, motivation, or whatever - it's always there), a conversant makes note that it's interesting how I can relate "analytics" (of course, IT milieu) to philosophy. Now, in the guy's favor, I was broaching upon the topic of truth engineering.

Say what? I thought. Then, I said, you know, philosophy was into analysis way before the latest craze which is the result of oodles of years of work by many people all culminating now with idiots misusing knowledge (say it isn't so - MBAs are the worst of the bunch).


Earlier, I wrote about algorithms in the context of apps (a big load of stuff to weed through and potentially a big source of errancy - in terms of opening one self up to manipulation). The term is used loosely now. Of course, if it's in the analytics framework, it does have a mathematical basis.

But, and it's a big butt, tell me analytic'ers, what say you about the quasi-empirical (to be discussed) issues? Well, that will be one focus henceforth. Firstly, bring up the topic in this discussion so that there is recognition of its reality. Then, look at the issues and at how they're important to our computational future.

Lord knows that the term was used continuously since the beginning here (44 of 200 posts) and in other blogs (FED-aerated - 25 of 211, 7oops7 - 38 of 248). Mind you, it was my oversight to not go into it further, just as I assumed too much about near-zero's recognition (still need to address that in depth). At least, these topics are sufficiently complicated to keep me busy for awhile.

Remarks:   Modified: 02/10/2014

01/16/2014 -- The recent Communications of the ACM had several stories on big data. Their claim is that the loads of data collected within the past five years or so is a sufficient set to make claims. Well, actually, the idea is to generate predictions, thereby getting a slap on the back from science. However, all sorts of things come to mind which I'll get into. First of all, that parallel universe of data that comes along with internet trafficking and just plain use tells us what? No matter its size, and the duration in which it is collected, the stuff, by no means, describes a person except for some small aspect of themselves. It does not subsume the being. And, even if someone is wrapped by the collection and analysis of this secondary data, it's not real. But, more on this. ... And, mathematics does come into play, misused (ah, the worldview of the MBAs gone mad).

01/16/2014 -- After starting the above example, complications started to lurk that we could ignore for awhile, but, at some point, these would have to be addressed. Say, after a few items were sold by the one who had them first (arbitrary boundary situation, here), those who bought would look at how they could, perhaps, make more than illusory money by selling at a higher price. The value determination then would become some type of functional problem bringing in difficulties that have been long the domain of the mathematicians (the ultimate abstraction'ists, somewhat, but, analytics would be involved). While looking at pedagogic material that would be of interest, I ran across this web site (Intuitive guide to exponential functions). I have not read this yet, but the fact of the amount of comments that have ensued, plus those who commented, got attention. Too, John von Neumann said that we don't understand mathematics (higher-order types); no, we get used to it. However, there must be an intuitive aspect if we are going to appeal to truth and people's place in its determination. So, that usage resonated with my thinking. Too, though, we have a class'ist split that is happening under our noses. In one sense, it relates to numeracy. But, the more insidious part deals with overlays (computationally enhanced) becoming more real than the reality itself (we'll get into that ad infinitum).

02/10/2014 -- Put a comment at this post: of-g-o-d-and-god-concepts.html We said that we would raise meta issues (as in, big T), at some point. It's been two years since we had the first of a sibling collection depart.