Monday, February 24, 2014

Professor Lucio Arteaga

For the pedigree, see below, Remarks for 03/03/2014.


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: 04/01/2017

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:
08/07/2014 (edited 04/01/2017) -- Georges Metanonski's autodidact start: My universities (formerly, two chapters, now off-line - My Universities 1, My Universities 2). The query of importance about the autodidact's role in society is this: does such learning bring into play insights that are not attainable under the regimen of the institutional environment?

01/15/2014 -- There are many models that are of concern to my work. Of these, an important one deals with things that manifest themselves in human affairs, say markets. Oh yes, if the tone of all of this sounds strange to you, or grates, then, please, note the normative stance. Know it all? Nope.

08/18/2015 -- Lucio, as an Encourager, on Quora.

03/06/2016 -- Dr. Lucio Arteaga died on May 22, 2015 in Lenexa, KS. This morning, while doing some work in Combinatorics, I was thinking of Lucio's strong conceptual foundation. We will have to get back to that theme.

Focus going forward

Context: See Tru'eng anewfocus going forwardmathematics.


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: 01/05/2015

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.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

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 --