Effectiveness, again

Effectiveness? There can be much discussion about this, but, essentially, let's just say that some 'thing' is effective if it works, or produces results, as expected (expectation management might be of interest here, see below -- prior posts in the category). If we take STEM (looking backward), we see a lot of evidence of effective approaches that are remarkably productive. Examples abound: the computer (even if it's within a PDA) being used to read this post, the system behind the blog's use of posts, the communications scheme (WWW, et al), and much more.

Example of effectiveness
Financial Times (08/07/2012)

We have all sorts of others. Take NASA's Curiosity Rover (and its older cousins) or SpaceX, for instance. We could spend hours discussing what is behind that. In this case, mathematics and computation stand out, though a lot of engineering has been involved, to boot (most of which apply advanced computational methods). There's medicine and its marvels to look at.

Business? Well, we can find glimmers here and there, if we discount the idiocy of some finance. But, the mis-application of advanced techniques have put us into deep dodo (see below, as this theme with continue to be described and analyzed so as to propose solutions).

In any case, from a foundation'l view, one has to ask about the effectiveness of mathematics. This has been done; the field is quasi-empiricism in mathematics. Its inception coincides with the wonders related to the establishment of the standard model in support of our understanding of physics, which work used several types of mathematical advances of the past 200 years. The list of accomplishments from applying the knowledge of physics, effectively, is huge (and, is generally known).

---

Publications related to the 'effectiveness' theme have been many, but the paper (1960) by Wigner is seminal: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Essentially, Eugene suggested that we've been lucky (paraphrase) and that we do not know why this success has come about.

Aside: Listening to some of the practitioners (okay, some are very smart), one can perceive lots of hubris (ah, we'll continue with this, to boot).

Of course, debate continues. The work of Norman Wildberger has some application here (though, this is my put, not the Professor's). He's saying that the current views, in some cases, are too complicated resulting in weaknesses that are insurmountable without some underlying change. Yet, people have been doing this difficult work for several generations now.

Aside: Of course, the populace has bifurcated into the numerant class (in this context, able to follow mathematics - or, paraphrasing von Neumann, able to get used to mathematics) and not. Yet, the importance of mathematics might suggest that it be amenable to all. We'll get back to that.

---

So, an operational question might be: why do we have to understand why the things work, if we can show that they work suitably for repetition and duplication? In other words, the magician's class will be with us ever more (think Poe). By the way, managers are not of that class, rather they expect 'magical' results from the work of others.

---

Now, before going further, let me relate one idea from seeing some videos (see below) by the Prof. He touts rational trigonometry. Okay, I've watched a couple of these (selected by the title's suggestiveness). For one thing, I'm wondering how we might compute with the 'rational' framework, somewhat like this. When doing solution derivation, transforms are the norm. I'll be looking to see how the Prof handles Fourier's work. But, let's take fuzzy logic. As with most abstract approaches, one has to take data related to real (as in being) things, fuzzify these, compute, then de-fuzzify to get results back into the proper domain (talking context, etc.). Now, with the rational approach, it may be better to do long chains of computation after converting to the rational representation. Naturally, one would have to deal with approximations, and such. Yet, during the computation, several troublesome problems would go away since the reals (number) would not be seen. Too, if one is doing things that require limits, or decisions about bounds, the rational approach ought to do this natively. Anyway, it's an interest of mine.

---

Here are three links to the Prof's work:

• Main page:  http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/
• Foundations videos:  http://www.youtube.com/watch? ...
• Wildtrig videos:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I started the foundations series at MF87 and got hooked. Then, I went back to the beginning. Later, I started the WildTrig series and started to bounce around. I will continue in that vein through the videos. He has additional lecture series: Linear Algebra, Algebraic Topology, Hyperbolic Geometry, and more.

The method that I'm going to follow is to watch and summarize (if motivated). In some cases, I might try to write about the topic before looking at his work just to see how close I can come to his work. Why? I've been at this (applying mathematics through computational systems) for decades (I'm actually quite a bit older than the Prof -- I've seen computation progress from the inside - like our buddy Al). The areas of focus included geometry in modern, advanced types of modelling that are stringent in their demands (that is, not the loosy-goosy approaches we find with gaming).

It's nice to see his focus on Geometry (Euclidean, okay?) which was thought of as a forgotten step-child for a very long time as people ran after topology and differential geometry (ought I say? abstractions following abstractions -- what's the term? abstract nonsense -- the Prof is right, getting a long way from 'reality' - as people try to either be like or to outdo our old friend, Albert). However, in practice, any engineering of products that has mass within the space of our planet (and beyond) makes heavy use of Geometry and Trigonometry.

---

In any case, there were splits between types of duties and responsibilities along a line that could have been troublesome but was never too much so (except, surprisingly, engineers unionized, in many cases). Good engineers, who could handle the mathematics, generally did not become managers (or politicians, for that matter). The really good ones got themselves into the golden handcuffs mode where they were essential, yet overlooked. Well, playing the political games was for the lower-echelon mind (anyway). And, the intellectual workers did magical things (as far as the business mind could see) and had to do so on demand (a source of irritation, to say the least). In fact, the smart companies coddled their good people (perhaps, some of the newer companies know about how to do this better).

But, as you see the nerd revenge coming about in computing (Google, FB, ...), there are still problems (take it from, me, a user, but one who knows what's beneath the skirt even if I'm not allowed to use my eyeballs). Hey, you young guys, you're becoming troublesome for other reasons (we'll get there).

---

So, the Prof's re-do of the foundations might play a role here. No doubt there will still be mental gymnastics required, yet, the underlying basis would be amenable to all (philosophical notion here that has merit in extending the standard model's effectiveness). I saw a lot of contrived efforts at trying to pull out something understandable in a general sense from dense stuff expressed in all sorts of technical media. One goal of this type of thing was to get expectations and progress measurements synchronized between disparate (by their very nature) views.

The Prof mentioned, in MF87, that a lot of the perceived weakness in 'pure' mathematics can be traced to the growing flim-flam (didn't want to use gobbledygook) which comes from an improper basis. In fact, he used smell and sense, many times. Of course, he's not talking naive commonsense, so much. But, intellect (thanks Prof Gardner) is more than we allow. And, we can learn from the Greeks even though the modern view likes to "dis" (take hip-hop, for example) those who went before (whereas, within the fabric - ah, yes, the book and Nova series -- they are there)

Myself, I've been pondering several things, such as, [how] we could get to a modern peripatetic method, even if it would be based upon a flat-world extension (thanks, Hilbert) that has more 'reality' than we appreciate (the earth may be round; the world is definitely flat)? Then, the whole notion of truth engines would use an improved model of human beingness, and the insights related to which would need some type of technical expression. The Prof might be on to something here. He did seem to stress intuition, etc.

Remarks:

08/08/2012 -- The Prof mentions several times his antipathy to thoughts about the infinite and how we may have conquered it (ala Cantor's work, et al). The Prof's approach, as he shows in several videos, can go toward the very large, and small, yet it would not be a convergence (another concept that he does not like). What would be a good term to use?

08/07/2012 -- Since writing this note, I have watched a few more videos. The Prof is thorough in his efforts. Found my first dissonance: MF77, on objects or expressions. Ah! I'll have to dig deeper to see his thoughts on computers. He doesn't like them to be used at crutches. Is he thinking that, perhaps, the computational system might be the realization of some mathematical truth (I can explain -- his focus on code sort of says not -- truth engines are the key, hence the blog). What all this has come to, that is the exposure the past few days to some original though, is that I now know that foundation'l work is being done. I need to pay more attention. Also, my area of work needs to be in meta-mathematics, in part.

Modified: 08/08/2012

Leverage and truth III

A recent post on 7oops7 was motivated by finding a blog related to finance. That the topic is leverage tells a lot. Two earlier posts on Truth Engineering looked at this method and how it has become a central idea (Leverage and truth, Leverage and truth II).

You see, leverage (other people's money, in short) can produce wild returns. At the same time, it can kill everyone. That gaming has been accepted at the core of finance is something to ponder and to argue about. Hopefully, a more true economy can emerge.

This reliance upon wild risks would not have even come about without advances in mathematics, modeling, and computation. All of these, and related themes, are what this blog is about. The above-mentioned blog struck a chord; for one thing, the blog author is retired and not in the game; for another, the roles played by that author were business focused.

See Remarks below for some info about the Truth Engineering motivation. This will be incorporated, at some point, back into the Mission and method. In the beginning of this blog, there was no 7oops7 or WhoseNoseKnows; these developed as a means to cover the necessary bases.

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.

11/02/2010 -- Two years later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

07/23/2009 -- After the bust and the rebound, toxic assets are still a problem due to tranche realities.

12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.

10/26/2008 -- Yes, things fell apart for several reasons: fiction, leverage, and more.

05/31/2008 -- Let's suppose that a blogging viewpoint can be based upon advanced educational efforts from 30+ years ago, where there was continuing education over the years in terms of specifics of modeling improvements and of the basis for mathematical advancements.

If we go back 30+ years, the 'gaming' metaphor was not so prominent, except in theory. Also, finance was the game of the few who were on the floor of the Street and at auxiliary sites, though this is not to imply that only a small set was involved.

Crashes were still possible, as history shows. However, things were different.

How different? Here is one example. In the beginning of the 401K times, companies had experts involved with the management of the assets. And, they predicted that the rewards of participation would be nice - not stating, of course, that there was a growing use of risky methods.

So, how was this handled? Well, it was in the mid-1990s when companies started to remove themselves from responsibility of handling these bucks and threw those in the plans to the wolves. So, one cannot argue that everyone ought not to know about their monies; yet, opening up a game that is not a level playing field has an impact just like we have seen evolve (growing inequity in wealth - wolves and sharks win).

Too, leverage was more verboten than not; evidently, it came back into a much greater play than was allowed after the big Crash. Betting with other people's money has always had some moral smell; how did it get to be thought of as a nice scent? By the way, that the higher-educational institutes (who are of superior membership) play the game is by no means any moral support.

Now, supposing the above-mentioned educational foci were economics and related modeling as well as the necessary mathematical frameworks. That experience, including PhD level work in Economics, involved computation (albeit, of that time) and culminated in a Master's. So that, right there, provides a comparative basis that will be explored.

Let's say the work since then of the blogger had an increasing focus on computation as it provides the basis for management decision, for science, and for engineering that operated on all platforms to within the past three years and that covered over 40 languages and related environments. As well, let's say that there was involvement in the whole notion related to artificial means for doing the above which is at the center of issues to explore.

Given the particular demands of the work, the drive over time would be oriented toward empirical prowess, with finance playing a minor role.

So, would not one with such a world view say "what the heck happened?" upon reviewing recent problems (tranching and trenching, for one) and would attempt a quick re-education especially in those realms that have been active since Chicago opened up the door to the over-the-counter madness.

So, what do we see? A scheme has emerged where brilliant moves that are lucky make oodles of money, while, at the same time, brilliant moves that are not so lucky (and this may be a factor of timing, for instance) kill the hopes of literally millions.

Considering the first, well, perhaps we ought to give those people a playpen where they can exalt in their big pockets. Considering the second, well, we cannot build the sustainable world (as we see with problems on every front) that we humans need with such techniques.

So, that brings us to the current situation where we see people making decisions that impact everyone yet they are mostly shots-in-the-dark, it would seem to some views.

That is, economics (and finance) are both dismal sciences, though some have tried to apply physical insights to these two.

But, guess what? Even the exalted realms of physics and engineering have their problems. The basis for these can be understood partly by knowing about quasi-empirical issues.

We'll be looking further at that. Too, we'll bounce around the ideas, hopefully retaining some coherence.

Modified: 04/03/2011

Apps and truth

The rage now is 'apps' which can be used to describe truth engineering further with the hopes of 'app'lying the concepts to firm up computation, as it is presented to the common folks.

Yes, this applies, as well, to the open issue of the rolling labs (autos, ...) upon which, and into which, we put ourselves daily; the idea would be to lessen the experimental aspect (we want existential).

...

Ah, where is the old DOD where any computation required e-m shielding plus special handling of OS, and resource, issues? Gone with the Internet which is open to mis-'app'lication.

...

Many talk algorithms when they discuss apps. What? Algorithms are strong; but, they have severe pre-conditions. Even if you had an infinite set of powerful algorithms, there is still the hard problem of matching the algorithm with the problem (assuming that the problem can be defined 'app'ropriately) and then even interpreting results.

Ontology and epistemology are a couple of important issues here.

Now, heuristics (rule of thumb, even if support by Bayesian, and other, methods) can be strong, too, if they are founded on learned frameworks. In fact, we probably have more use for these.

Unfortunately, a lot of the software behind 'apps' is ad hoc. We'll go more into that.

...

By the way, none of this stuff is as easy as the youngsters try to make it (ah, MS, how many failings are under your paradigmatic responsibility?).

CEO apps? Well, we could have computational voting (at some point - consider the DOD issues that relate to security and stability and truthfulness). People, some, will still need their hands held.

As said before, we have three problems that are not yet resolved: qualification, frame, and ramification. That is, we have to deal with pre-conditions, closure, and then use of any (and in almost all) computational events.

Some pushed data base (static view - behind the numeracy craze (consider: numeracy leads to hubris, hence we need quasi-empiricism; innumeracy is not idiocy (..., as the commercial says -- ..., priceless ... (as in, numberless))) which even if it has operational behavior does not get outside of the 'apps' problems. Then, behavior (which includes those things related to dynamical systems - of which we, of course, are the epitome) analysis comes along with a whole set of age-old problems.

Some modern techniques try to cut to the quick (thanks, Occam - or, are you sorry for all of this modern mis-use?). Such reductions, as these are wont to apply, to the sufficient can throw out the necessary.

That, folks, is probably the most basic cause for a lot of mis-apps and their dire consequences.

...

Two important concepts, to look at more closely, will that we need to have man-in-the-loop (woman, too), including borgs (yes) and that humans have the uniquely held talent for truth evaluation (computation has an in-laid bit of vertigo that is impossible (yep) to overcome). The latter is trainable; the former is much more than augmented reality.

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

07/25/2010 -- That some have been allowed to misuse the situational uncertainties associated with modern technology, and its use, needs to be discussed. The ca-pital-sino result (the basis that we see for daily gaming a near-zero reality) was, almost, inevitable. How to extricate ourselves reasonably to a more sound foundational framework is of prime importance.

07/02/2010 -- Stunned? Hubris or stupidity (or, are they the same?). Meaning what? Well, this is a simple little thing, of no real consequence. How many problems lurk amongst all of those computational elements that have been spread around the economic world? Who cares?

Modified: 01/23/2015

Caveat Emptor

Beware, essentially. A recent article in the ACM Communications, inadvertently, lays out the motivation behind Truth Engineering. We'll have to take advantage of that. Why?

It ought to become 'be aware' which is what is essential to life (sensors, feedbacks, etc.).

---

The article is under controlled access; see Fedaerated's comment and the editorial review.

The article deals with why 'lemons' can be a problem with markets. Now, why are markets important? Essentially, with the newer age's progress (supposed -- to be discussed), the wisdom of crowds, and markets, are how we know the truth?

---

Is that not silly? To carry it further, the article, by Princeton people, was serious in describing how we cannot know many things. Such as the future. Well, risk handling looks at that. Or, such as, whether your buddy is trustworthy. Here, folks, the military paradigm has the advantage. And, it's related to group dynamics, partly. We ought to run some of the banking, similarly, under a bare bones (truthful) mechanism, thereby removing fat cats, et al.

---

Now, to the matter, we'll get back to lemons. We all hope that we're not dealing with such, but how do we know? Usually, family is a fall-back thing but not always. The military carries that forward, with the band of brothers. We can talk about all sorts of ways that humans have dealt with hypocrisy and deceit.

---

But, then come mathematics, which is the realm, usually, of the egg-heads, and its companion, computation. Early reactions, by the public, was that the computer knows all (hence, one of the attractions of Watson), even though there was the adage of garbage-in, garbage-out. You see, GIGO still assumed that 'logic' was right. See? Yet, we know chips fail, etc.

Ever think that the mathematics, itself, can be suspect? Evidently, Hawking does not, from what I can see. But, we'll save that for another time.

---

The referenced article laid out a rationale for describing how a buyer could be duped even with transparency and rational decisions. How? Complexity, in certain cases, prevents determining sleight of hand on the part of the seller.

---

Consider, folks, that this could even be unconscious on the part of the seller, though, in most cases, it's just the human trait to try 'to screw' someone.

---

These are computationally hard problems, but intuition can help. That is, the very thing that was thrown out by the egg-head mathematicians is the essential thing needed for truth assessment. Yes, indeed. Somehow, we've all been led to honor, worship, a particular brand of mathematics, probably due to its success in conquering the world. At the same time, has not the mess (oops on oops) grown to be worse?

---

Not proposing easy answers, as these are difficult issues. However, a new type of elitism has emerged with the mathematic/computation-ally expressed worlds (first, second, cyber, ...) that can be chilling to observe and downright ominous in its possible consequences. Some have ranted about this.

Unfortunately, the whole mechanism of out-housing (doing in the doers) is based upon this paradigm that exploits and spits out. Yet, as demonstrated by those who have ascended, there are heights to attain; however, and I say again, however, it will, in the end, turn out to be within the egalitarian scope loved so much by some of the boomers, in their youth.

And, crucial to the theme will be those things for which truth engineering was meant to offer a means for knowing, controlling, and ensuring sustainability across the board.

Remarks:

10/19/2013 -- Changes are pending.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/28/2011 -- We'll see 'avatars' galore.

Modified: 10/19/2013

Truth derivatives

The Newsday of New York had an interesting cartoon which was reproduced in USA Today (4/23/2010).

It struck a chord with the intent of this blog for several reasons. For one, a strict definition for 'truth engineering' has been hard to pin down. The related discourse would involve many topics, as we have seen. Some of the concepts, and reactions, that might come about seem to be motivated from a cynical framework.

But, that is not necessary, as the topic is legit and of concern for several reasons that we expect to address. For one, we need to deal with underdetermined situational dilemmas in a fashion that can be, at best, quasi-empirical. In a perfect world, we would all learn together. Unfortunately, what we find is that 'trust' has lost its value in our world.

Denial of belief systems notwithstanding, something similar is the operational position in any modern realm, especially those involving complex systems. Politicians, and others, exploit the the belief urge.

So, we ought to, for argument, turn around the little phrase and use 'derivation of truth' and discuss how it is one of the most important issues we face. How do we know this, and what can we do? Upon what first principles do we start? ... Ah, a supposedly endless set of questions might abound.

But, the lessons from Russell apply here. Even Grasso caught this. When computers come to the playground, dynamics change. Our noses cannot smell the crap, as easily, though I'll argue that we can have virtual counterparts of all the senses, including the 6th.

We'll be covering, in more depth, the need of a person-in-the-loop for most complicated schemes. Why? Vertigo of systems is one of the perpetual problems that has been ignored; it is, in a sense, one main source of systemic risk.

Thank you, Mr. Handelsman.

By the way, the finance folks use derivatives to denote that something comes from another. One might say that the 'derivative' deals with some abstract property which may be recursively far removed from anything real.

In short, it's a bastardization of mathematical notions, chiefly those which are at the core of differential topology. It would never have seen the light of day without computation. The 'abstract' nature gave it some credence; that there were functional uses allowed the advent to the point that we saw.

Some used these abstractions to build a house of cards. Even if the underlying entities, those things far removed from the derivative, were rock solid, this type of thing would have been problematic, eventually. Why? The underlying games are unstable.

Actually, it was lucky for us that greed, and other human traits, exacerbated the problem. Otherwise, we may have been further down a perdition-laden path with even worse consequences and much more pain. Wait! Some feel that this is exactly the situation that we currently face due to the lack of backbone to handle moral hazards.

Will we learn from this most recent financial debacle? Well, finance (as in the profs who think that financial engineering is something to pursue), you tell me.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.

11/04/2011 -- The government, and politicians, lie?

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

05/10/2010 -- Makes one wonder if 'beyond reproach' means anything anymore. Those in charge, for the most part, seem to be after their own glory and welfare. Who is really looking out for all of us? Oh? Just who is all of us? You see, those with the aptitude, many times, can be 'John Galts' and entrap and enslave many without any constraint. But, as we know, aptitude is not enough; there has to be ways and means. Trouble is the government, business, and computation provide such.

Ah. This country started a clock anew about 400 years ago (yes, those early comers had many dreams and, in many cases, were fleeing tyranny) but, for reasons worth looking at, we've essentially reproduced the same thing. Yes. We have 'royalty' and 'peerage' except that 'fiat' thing, called money, is the main consistency of power. Hence, all of this gaming and confusion.

Big Ben could help by remembering that anyone who takes a position involving public trust needs put their own financial affairs into some kind of independent trust such that any link between actions and personal gain is reduced. How can we do that? They have families to take care of. Good question. Big Ben talked that money isn't the main ingredient of 'happiness' this weekend. Yet, the 'funny' money is principally his to manipulate.

Something amiss here? Look, Big Ben, get to the real issue: we have to look at the philosophical (mainly, metaphysical) issues related to money. Are you prepared to address that?

Modified: 01/22/2013

Our basis

Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).

As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.

• Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).
• 7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.
  
• FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.
  

Each blog is to provide a different perspective on a matter so as to fill in a more thorough discussion. That is the hope.

Now, truth engineering gets to look at the fun stuff such as talk about what's mentioned in the Aside on the 'Our basis' post. Some may wonder if the topic can be expanded without resolving, or at least addressing, t-issues. No problem there. In the beginning, there may be more metaphor than fact, yet, so what, as science itself deals both top-down and bottom-up. One thing constant, and consistent, is quasi-empirical approaches of which Lakatos' method of thought experiment is part of the tool kit. Too, the whole dynamic behind the clouded web applies here; we'll see many types of experimentation available now. Analogous efforts, such as business intelligence, are just a little mole hill, so far.

Remarks

08/03/2011 -- The relationship to economics is important.

Modified: 08/03/2011

Baruch

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

Or, later known as Benedict. Spinoza, of course.

Why is he important? As we see neuroscience trying to explain ourselves to us, we can learn from all of the debates over the many years. And, Baruch had a lot to say that is worth considering. His time, by the way, parallels the first entry on this side of the pond that led to the US (to wit, real founders).

I recently saw a reference to a 2003 book on FB which sent me back to my youth (Henry and George) due to its theme being related to Baruch's thoughts. Antonio Damasio, the author, uses our friend (see Stanford's summary of Spinoza's on the physical world) as the basis for arguing the importance of emotions to our cognitive workings. And, that leads right to truth engineering and to the issues related to computation (we'll get there).

---

Aside: Emotions? Well, we have a lot to discuss there. Let's just say that these are involved with mechanisms (operational sense, okay? in terms, too, of the neuropeptidergic'al consciousness (is that all there is?)) that cannot be mechanized (which computation is, folk). What, even with biologically based computers?

Aside: We saw a similar view in the last IJCAI (International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence) arguing that biased minds make better inferences (see video on Homo heuristicus). You have to realize that this might seem quite intuitive, yet reasoning (as in applied logics of several sorts) does receive most attention. The Zen awaits further definition.

Aside: That the mathematical framework, so perniciously overlaying ourselves, is right at the core of the current financial mess (still being unwound, folks). A big problem remains with respect to ensuring payments (by that, insure is not in any way meant to imply the gaming by the likes of AIG - or even some pieces of Buffet's organizations - many of the strategies involved stink to high heaven) in the future.

---

We've danced around some necessary points by categorizing them as t-issues and punting them down the road (isn't this what we've done with the national debt?). It might be interesting to re-look at the topic with Baruch's glasses (as in, truth and the senses).

Now, some might complain that thoughts from 400 years ago are not of interest. These arguments have been timelessly debated, not converging, apparently, to anything that would build consensus. As well, the modern world has been very much rewarding of the operational stances. Namely, these are those that do not care with the net effect of turmoils, trampling of the spirit, and much more as a guaranteed fact of life. Perhaps, this might be true for some.

For me, it's nice to run across thoughtful recognition of the musing of earlier thinkers in the context of the up-to-date work that, essentially, is spiraling us toward knowing more and more about less and less in this age of specialization. Too, to have a balanced view like Baruch's brought forward can have several effects; one of these would be an improved overarching worldview. How? We'll get to that.

Finally, a Baruch thought, via SEoP: For measure, both of spatial extent and temporal duration, is a mere aid to the imagination, and not a means of intellectually understanding.

Remarks:

07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil? The key notion is quasi-empicisism and its being ignored.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion.

Modified: 01/06/2015

48 hours of freedom

Just came back from a period of being unplugged (as in, no use of electronic means to talk to the cloud-based chimera - yes, as if things there are more real than what we exist amongst - but, we'll have to go on about that, almost ad infinitum, in order to characterize the issues) for 48 hours.

Now, there are many things to discuss about this. Why was it done? Many other queries come to mind.

Aside: There was one little nibble, but it was on a public computer. I had to go to espn.com to see what the heck happened to the Jawhawks. Did being on the island relax Self too much? On the same day, the 'Cats took Duke's prominence apart (wasn't long after another such lesson was administered - ah, I digress - tis madness, indeed). But, that little thing was only a brief look at a couple of pages.

This unplugging wasn't the first such event. Some claim that one ought to do such on a regular basis. Who agrees?

But, let's tell a story.

About a decade or so ago, those who went around with their noses to a little device were manager types. Okay? I never saw, at the time, any technical person do such. But, then, those who I knew were dealing with more intricate matters. So, the manage types had to be e'mailed-in (and whatever else those early things did) to their peers in order to keep workers at bay and exploited. Also, what panache they exhibited (ah, we were all to kiss the feet or other).

Were they not so grand in their devotion to their job and so commanding in their presence (as in, aura of importance)? However, at the time, too, I never thought much of this activity on the part of these types as it was a good thing, too. How? You see, many bosses would not touch a keyboard. It was beneath them; in fact, many had furniture in their offices that hid such things from visitors. Remember, footprints and profiles were massive in those days.

So, if some little device got them to thinking would that not be a good thing? Wait, turns out to not be true. As, giving tools to managers has resulted in all sorts of perfidy (most of which is mis-action directed against lowly employees who only are trying to feed themselves and their families -- too, globalization's bane would not have been so harsh without the advances in computation - including networks).

Since that time, all sorts of things have come about: social media, interactive gaming, and more. Now, those who have their noses to devices are hooked (yes, we can even talk Google's glasses, augmented reality, and more) many times. Too, that cognitive processing which relates to interfacing with these things is directly opposite that which is truly smart (ah, let the little beasties based upon our manipulation of e-m phenomena rule the roost?). But, we'll go on about that more later.

---

In short, that whole overlay (easily characterized) is diminishing the grandness of reality (or attempting to; it cannot suppress being - another thing/concept supposed inimical to the modern viewpoint). But, how can that be explained? Give us time, as these things are only a decade or so old. That which really needs attention goes way back (it's in our genes and memes).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/23/2015

12/04/2013 -- 3rd try. If, at first, you don't succeed, ... (one side-effect of getting away? losing touch with the processes). Truth via computation will become increasingly important, yet, truth discernment via our traditional (age-old) means will not be replaced. Our computational prowess can be an assistant (perhaps, at times, a source) to our intuition. It will be interesting to see how the two interplay (yes, very much asserting the existence of intuition'al facilities far beyond what we might have considered - all sorts of decisions the past 10s of years have caused a divergence (chasm) that looks to be beyond span) in the future. We've seen a tremendous amount of change the past 10 years, perhaps, by another 10, the issues will be more clear (for one, that computational constraints apply as much to mathematical systems as they do to those of a logical nature).  

12/17/2013 -- History of the devices, the start - Blackberry.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

CMS, again

CMS? Yes, one has to state the context within which the acronym (assuming that is such) needs to be interpreted. So, we're talking computing but there are, at least, two ways to view this. Both important.

Earlier, we started down the content management track since Microsoft decided to remove OfficeLive users from their happy ways. In fact, some had built business processes (okay, wrong choice on their part) upon the OfficeLive stuff. These people had to scramble to find a replacement resource.

For us, OfficeLive offered nice templates and a good front end to building a website. Did I mention that it was free? So, OfficeLive going away forced me to have to get technical.

Aside: I've put together fairly productive sets of software systems on a good laptop using free software. And, the functionality rivaled what a company would pay for. And, "code" (as in what drives computation and decision making) was my focus for decades. As some have argued, it was the reality. However, prior to the content management study, I had consciously refrained from doing code. So, what could have been more interesting that code? Lots of things. Mathematics is definitely, is one doesn't go down the applied path beyond things that can be done on paper (don't laugh, we used to do algorithm testing by hand in the early days). Modeling of all sorts will always be of interest. Why? Map-territory issues will require us to revolve the virtual and the real (foregoing, for the moment, the differences between these two). One reality will the sensors (almost like QE, sensors now and forever). Wait! Google glass having a potential use beyond mere gadgetry? ... How about History? For instance, there has been a lot of effort put into historic genealogical work (say, NEHGS). There is the History that we read about in books. Then, there's the existential affair of people and details and more. What about Memes in this context? Dawkins, perhaps, tongue-in-cheek proposed the concept to handle the messy things that don't fit well into theory. But, you know what? All this fits and starts with computation, networking, and more? To me it looks like a recapitulation with all sorts of ontological underpinnings.

So, after the initial look (early 2012), I realized that I needed to get up to speed. But, I had neither the time or the interest (see comments on WordPress, Drupal, Joomla). I set up a little bit of pages using these three but was not happy with the results that I would get without a serious attempt at learning how they worked. So, what did I do? I went back to what I knew (static HTML - after all, I was doing markup prior to HTML; too, I had many website in place from the Mosaic days onward). The main problem with HTML was finding a WYSIWYG editor as I didn't want to pay for Front Page or any other commercial tool. Guess what? Sea Monkey's little Composer is nice (not perfect, by far). So, this Site is the basis for all comparisons (OfficeLive's little thing, that worked for years, disappeared).

---

Wait! What's another meaning of CMS? Configuration management. In both cases, the "s" is for system.

---

So, of late, I've realized that I let the ball drop. Too, requirements were looming that would force me to either code something (not that I couldn't, but, again time and energy are limited). So, I had to get back to the garden (I had already learned that youtube has more than nice music videos - it is nice to see things from decades ago, ah), so to speak. I had been watching classes for awhile. No structure, just following interest. One wonderful video of a mathematics class at Stanford sold me on the approach of video. As you know, all of the schools have quality items there: Harvard, MIT, etc.

So, I looked for a WordPress video. Fortunately, there was one that you could have a site up on one-hour. That video set the standard, one hour. There's no real content to the the site that I built as I followed the video. But, it's there. And, I can make comparisons with other approaches.

Not seeing what I wanted in WordPress, I went to Drupal. First off, I couldn't find a video that claimed setting up a site in one hour (Mind you, part of the time is getting the site's name, etc. I was already set up with that.). But, I made an attempt. My reaction was that it was for coders. Everywhere, it looked like I was going to have to do HTML.

So, I looked for Joomla videos. There was a one-hour site claim, using Joomla 3. I had 2.5 installed and installed the newer version. So, I followed the video religiously. Where the guy had images or text, I just made things up. Here is the first result (here is the video - again, there were highly detailed subjects being covered in other videos which I'll get back to -- the requirement was to get something running).

After the first pass, I decided to build a site that I need to maintain. To do this, I followed the video, again, but at a faster clip. Here is the result. As I tried to add new things, I've gone back to the video (have not read a line of documentation yet -- I used to read part of the book (when learning some new language) and then jump in -- or, in class, I would follow for awhile and then just explore).

By the way, part of the decision comes from seeing who is using what. Harvard and Sprint are using Joomla. I'm familiar with both sites. I know that I need to dig deeper in Joomla. Case in point: as modules have side-effects, one has to worry about order and such; these types of nuances are what an expert knows how to handle. For me? I've resolved several of these. Actually, I like the development environment (say, compared to the older ways of using a C++ or other language in a developer's workbench) and the underlying control/interpret scheme.

Aside: Last year, I sort of recoiled from the heavy database use in these approaches. That explains, in part, the fallback to HTML and files. Now, I'm getting a little more comfortable, but I'm also ready to argue the points (we'll get there, truth engineering) of configuration. You see, the package pushes talk content. Configuration control support is there. Perhaps, it's covered in the book. We'll see. However, as I've seen with all of this free stuff. You have updates and upgrades always coming at you. How things interplay must be taken seriously if you're in an environment with continual use. Who drive requirements for these things? Is it too much a gadgetry (feature) focus?

After playing with Joomla, I knew that I had to look at other approaches which are several. Concrete5 sort of jumped out. It's a front end for developers, one video said. Here is my little bit (didn't even use a video, as it seemed intuitive). I'll have to spend some time with this. And, also I'll need to look at others, to be complete.

In the meantime, I'll maintain the current site (static HTML -- blogging all the while), use Joomla as the future, and try to get the Concrete5 example to be like the Joomla. After things become more second nature, then a total redesign might be in order. Right now, I just cut stuff from the static view to the database. Perhaps, thinking about web design issues might be apropos.

Remarks:

01/21/2019 -- If you look at Content Management or CMS at this blog and the one for the Thomas Gardner Society, Inc. (CMS or Configuration), you will see lots of posts. We have a new site where we prove our work: TGSoc.org. Its role is portal but, for now, we introduce changes there, first. See the Discussion page with a link to our devlog. Based upon the direction I hear that Google is going, working this approach for our portal is right on. So, technical will be visible rather than not.

06/20/2016 -- Concrete5 example removed. Broken link in one library (at the ISP) mentioned by http://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/php/.

05/31/2016 -- Continuation of the theme.

08/02/2014 -- Bit the bullet and updated the site (looks, behavior) using HTML/CSS. Of course, things are still pending, such as membership functions, business, ... We'll get there.

10/19/2013 -- Too many interesting things to get involved in. Is coding for the young? That is, not that the older mind cannot do it; rather, it's fairly mundane compared to other things. To be discussed. Perhaps, winters onset will push the mind toward the computational.

09/04/2013 -- While poking around more, I'm more inclined to think that the database, as a central feature, is not the great leap forward that some might think. Unless, using such is wedded with structural approaches (to be defined - unless someone can point to an existing discussion). Took a break for awhile, but did an edit in Joomla and in Concrete5, today. The latter keeps the HTML visibly present. So, that might lead one to think that it's coding, perhaps.

07/14/2013 -- I meant to mention other uses of CMS. Wiki has several that are computer related. We can't forget the Navy's CMS-2. Too, software configuration systems were known by CMS. But, there are many non-computer usages, such as Change Management System (related to process management).

07/13/2013 -- Ah, yes. design. Here is someone touting the powers of WordPress.

Modified: 01/21/2019

Mind over matter?

Is that not a big-T issue?

The Atlantic, last month, had an article on a recent Turing test. Until of late, this challenge seemed to favor the human. However, computation has really evolved. Note that the article mentions human computers. You see, it was not so long ago that scores of people did the hard work of solving problems that now take less time than a blink of the eye by computer.

Are we thereby smarter?

To boot, the main issues are still avoided, in the debate, due to many reasons We'll get to that, eventually. But, to be shown, mind precedes matter. Yep.

The real kick? The emerging prowess of things cyber (at least, the cloud, but more) will be the basis for the demonstration.

And, truth engineering will be at the core. How? Again, we'll get to that.

Remarks:

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

03/28/2011 -- See on March madness.

03/24/2011 -- In part, rant: It's obvious that some have talents and some have insights (not mutually exclusive). The former can show us marvels like a golden touch. Is that what we're seeing with Warren Buffett? Or, is it the latter? Or a combination? Whatever it is, my argument is this: lasting business success (or any type of success) does not come about from solely playing luck - that is, the whole gaming-metaphoric jargon that business has descended to (yes, advisedly used) is very much degrading to human dignity (and, no apologies necessary to Las Vegas or other realms of legalized pocket takings). Nor does success come from unconscionable exploitation of others (which, by the way, we see with many types of globalization - the new colonialism). Now, what does that might mean? Well, all of mankind want to pull themselves out of the hole. Guess what? The best-and-brightest (yes, Harvard, to boot, probably in more cases than some would allow us to know) want to preserve their status of walking over others, of using the resources of others (after all, slavery, in many forms, is there, folks -- corporate serfdom, included), of being fed without due effort (yes, as in management, in many case), and a whole lot more. Don't worry, we'll continue to discuss this. Our ancestors did not come over here (the majority, I would venture) to carry forward the whole notion of aristocratic butts to kiss, etc. So, some have remarkable insights and talents. Some less so. Are the latter any less human? Do the former deserve to trample the rights of the latter? Of course, do the latter, by design, need to pilfer from the former? But, where to start in understanding the mess that we're in? Middle out, of course. Some type of national, even international, service is imperative to set the ground for each generation (cohort) to relate peaceably, fruitfully, et al, on this limited planet of ours. And, computation will be an enabling beast (that term used since we see many bad side-effects of the social media, plus a whole cohort of zombies seems to have emerged causing dire straits for themselves and those unlucky enough to be around them, and, like Made-off showed, the supposed wizards of the ether (e-m) can demonstrate an endless means in monkeying with the works (that are ours, collectively)). Does it need to be so? Well, we can try to back off from the gaming viewpoints (except where apropos), even if we do have to deal with uncertainty. We're not saying that we ought not express likelihood and such. Rather, the whole notion of multiple expansions (yes) could help temper those of the type who said a mere three years ago: oh, we have risk in check, never again a downside. Idiots that they were. The suffering continues, despite the chimera.

03/15/2011-- As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint. Paul brings in the 't issues' quite well.

03/13/2011 -- Let's put it this way. Everyone who is successful knows that they have powers behind their good fortune. That is, we can see those who are lucky. But, if that were the only factor, success would not persist. Now, what exactly are those 'powers' that are support gainful efforts. We'll look at those. And, we also have not changed from the position that 'wealth' is NOT the best of measures. That is, some of the successful (too many to name) are plagues upon the earth and it citizens. If we're going to deal with truth, we'll, by necessity, have to look at these issues, to boot.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Capitalism and truth

Who screwed up this wonderful concept of Adam's? Well, it'll be part of the discussion. Why? There is a truth-engineering way to sustain an economy that is going to be necessary for 'savers' who are those who, for various reasons, cannot continue the game.

Today, the Feb threw money in the 'morally hazardous' game again, with lame arguments. The Dow had been unsettled (like choppy waters all day) but took a leap at the news. Who was behind this rise? Those who believed that the economy would be better. Ah, so many questions?

Well, after reaching a peak, in short order, there was a fall. Now, the only explanation of who was selling off cannot point back to those originally bought into the climb. Most probably, that class was still buying.

No, there was profit taking from another class or two (or more).

You see, this scenario dreamt about by Adam Smith has descended into a computationally based mayhem which has lost its mathematical, political, and spiritual basis and upon which there cannot be a sustained economy. The corpses of the system litter the landscape.

There has to be brought back to fore the ideals of the American dream (with globally appropriate extensions, of course), that allows mature management of money. The gamesters need to be relegated to a sand box, albeit of very large scope.

Remarks:

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

08/18/2009 -- As promised, FEDaerated is here.

07/31/2009 -- Let's see, 5,000 got over $1M for services rendered. Well, that's probably a sign of being a best-and-brightest, at least to certain eyes; it's called rolling-in-the-dough.

Now, this can be used to illustrate how the game it to fill the pockets of a small set to an exorbitant amount. Does the game need to be that way? Hell no. We'll look at that some more.

06/20/2009 -- Yes, rent can go to labor (new look at capitalism), and finance can have a higher calling.

01/26/09 -- One question is will anything be learned. Some of the bail out money went to Merrill Lynch who was taken over by Bank of America and who paid out $4B (yes, billion) in bonuses. We need to re-look at finance and its use, in depth.

09/30/08 -- Well, things do get curiouser through time. Now, a major bailout is underway, but the bases of the problem are ignored.

05/31/08 -- More types of gaming problems become more evident every day. The trouble is that the economy runs on; we experiment on the fly. Does the Fed learn?

02/01/08 -- The players, now, are not like the 1930s, Ben. Though the human element may be playing a large factor (as it will continue to), there is a growing presence of 'virtual' (we ought to get a better characterizing word) via computation that essentially enabled the silliness that has evolved since the 70s (of last century). The analysis here is not being Luddite driven; rather, economics needs to step up to its roles related to quasi-empirical; gaming theory, notwithstanding everyone's debt to Nash, is not the basis for the future (..., more on this in time, ...).

There used to be a concept called 'saver' that was touted as important. If those types exist (and they do), there ought to be some long-term return that could be defined, preserved, and managed (for argument, let's just use 4%).

Later, there was the concept called 'spender' who was the new basis for the economy. Of course, they got rewarded with huge anti-returns (18% and up). From whence came the means to manage the accumulated 'spending' for this class? Essentially debt, many times with little chance that the 'spender' could repay (indentured servant, indeed).

How could this be? Does it not sound stupid to the reasonable mind?

Well, you see, there is the 'player' who has always been there defining the game, raking in the dough, and keeping things muddy enough for unbounded gains.

Starting in the 1980s, there have come about better ways to support this gaming-scheme of the 'player' with computation creating an environment compared to which the web's supposedly wild-west, dangerous reputation pales.

New York's Street is the new Las Vegas (oh, is there still the purported mob affiliation?).

For some reason, the Fed seems to be on the side of the 'player' and not the 'spender.' Actually, the 'spender' has been loaded with so much debt that its inter-generational effects are going to be more problematic than we allow.

You see, it probably could be guaranteed that the 'saver' and the 'spender' share several attributes. For one, both dealt with real things concerning what we might eat, wear, or use.

Is it probably as likely that the 'player' set includes many (the majority?) who do not know where their feet are? Is this an economic model about which to be proud?

The true capitalist would be turning over in his grave about now.

Modified: 11/04/2010

Truth, fiction, and finance

Fiction is a respected genre of literature, yet we use the word, sometimes pejoratively, to characterize non-truthness.

Finance deals with money. That some parts of finance approach fiction is troublesome (see Business Week, Jan7, about the Bear flu), yet some might actually want that as a means to line their pocket (and we cannot just blame Ponzi). Finance, unlike building a plane, has a problem in that evaluations deal with nothing real (thanks to decisions in the 20th century). Therefore, expertise, opinion, and other human traits are the main devices. Yet, some types of 'empirical' effort are possible and essential, such as verifying that a borrower has a good potential for repaying.

Engineers, at least, can go up against nature and the real world with their ideas. Yet, finance has been adopting scientists in its modeling; one wonders if these new players, who were supposedly well-grounded, have let froth grow between their ears; but, hey, who cares if you're making millions?

A WSJ article (1/10/08, David Wessel, "How to Unbreak the Banks") touches on this subject which is near and dear to truth engineering. In fact, Wessel addresses computer modeling and risk analysis as two major culprits. Wessel also points a finger at the Basel agreements as they leave too much leeway in leveraging (techniques for the few to bilk the many) among other things.

Truth engineering sees it as a generational issue, cultural rather than biological. That is, the advent of the computer's ubiquity and usefulness has turned things topsy-turvy (Chaitin) and brought to fore the importance of those concepts first approached by Wigner and others under the umbrella of quasi-empirical issues. Yet, we have major operational differences through time with generations; the younger only have their limited experience to control their enthusiastic use of new stuff; the older haven't kept pace with changes (not true in general, as the writer of this blog is of the generation now approaching comparatively advanced age).

So, such statements, by the WSJ, denoting insight into the bases of some problems are encouraging.

We can use issues related to both finance and engineering to understand and to apply truth engineering.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/19/2011 -- We have to get back to the basics.

11/04/2010 -- Big Ben is still putting us at risk and trashing the savers.

10/11/2009 -- Discussion has gone over to FED-aerated. Note the 10/11/2009 Remarks about the Business Week article on India's progress' inhibitors. 'Near zero' recognizes that some always suffer more than others, especially in win-win situations, as the whole notion of characterization minimizes visceral reactions by diminishing the real in favor of the abstracted (ah, the modern world, you say?).

05/27/2009 -- That we have topsy-turvy needs to be addressed more fully in both an epistemologic and an operational sense.

12/18/2008 -- Leveraging, in and of itself, is not bad.

10/21/2008 -- Yes, it's time to re-look at this theme.

10/20/08 -- It got even worse throughout the year, from Ben's blink, through spitting in the face of savers, to bailouts (what?) of those touting capitalism.

03/14/08 -- Lots of water under the bridge, yet the financial games continue. A whole lot of industry and resources have gone into the infrastructure for finance. That these would inflate the gaming aspect is natural consequence.

01/18/08 --- We'll need to look again at three ways to evaluate in more detail. These are market (which goes beyond the gaming that we have seen), model (a necessity, though wizards of mathematics and computation can be problematic without the quasi-empirical framework), and myth (that is, myth may be a function along the belief axis).

01/17/08 --- Some call for more openness, yet effort is required to know.

01/16/08 --- Stories from yesterday relate to this theme. Many argue that the market (whatever that is) is not zero-sum. That's saying that the system is open. To what? Shenanigans?

Granted the advances in handling abstractions (the gift of the 19th century) and the ubiquity and power of the computer (the gift of the 20th century) have opened the door. To date, the old human traits (gifts of nature, etc.) have come to fore, namely greed and others.

If there is a market, and if it is built upon mathematics and computation, then the 'value' ought to have a broader basis than we see with pocket lining, one upmanship (unless, of course, we allow gaming in a controlled fashion), etc.

Modified: 05/25/2011

Hint, heuristic, algorithm

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

We were wallowing in the muck (it's an election year, so give us a break) wondering what could pull us out of the morass (we do need to get our tops up and spinning). Well, those with oodles of bucks, unless they are extremely careless (read: stupid), find it easier to remove themselves (not exactly, but that's a big T 'truth' issue) from the mess (they leave the crap to others). And, big bucks now are wandering after 'apps' which are oriented, for the most part, toward personal devices (mobile ubiquity).

Aside: Most don't enjoy that opportunity. Someone used baseball to characterize those with large pockets, in the following sense. They categorized the person's success by their starting position. Ellison, of the relational thing, was from the batter's box. Some start from first base. Others already had a home run at birth. You know, most are not even in the ball park. Z of FB was on one of the bases.

So, big bucks HOPE to make more by chasing after dreams (illusions -- as in, chimera). There may be technical aspects to the process that brings things forth, yet one would think that appealing features are more the focus than outright computational prowess. Calling something an algorithm does not make it so (below).

Sidebar: another issues that we'll discuss: A. 3 years with Vista and no BSOD -- only 2 weeks with this newer thing - Windows 7 - and I already have one; B. using the recent version of a program from a famous company, I kept seeing the thing go back to the initial screen. Well, it turns out that this is the default error mode (more friendly than the BSOD?), but it does the unwind without leaving any hint (see below) of what was wrong. It's like going back to square one and starting over (ever heard of Sisyphus?). But, getting a top to spin is not trivial. C. ...

---

So, let's look at this by using the three concepts from the subject line. They can be thought to have a progressive association somewhat like the following describes.

• hint -- We can view this several ways but consider a math problem. Many times, there may be a hint about how to approach a solution. One could say that a hint is sufficient to the wise. Unfortunately, computers are not wise and need explicit instructions. That, folks, is both the boon and the bane. It's the former since we can (try to) know what went into some computation (only under certain restrictive assumptions dealing with things like side-effects, black-boxes, etc.). Another way to think of a hint is that it lays down markers, within a landscape, whose presence helps keep things moving toward an end. Let's face it. Smart folks do not like to follow explicit instructions more than once (why then do we put people into the position where they are, for the most part, automatons? --- stupid, from several sides). You know what? We cannot give a hint to a computer in the same way that we can smart folks (forget the so-called smart devices - dumb-ass'd things, people). Except, if a person is in-the-loop during a computational event of complicated nature, the person can nudge the system away from divergent tendencies (yes, we'll expand at large about this being one way out of the quagmire -- suggesting, of course, human talents not yet developed).  
• heuristic - We could say rule-of-thumb, but it's to mean more than that limiting view. A heuristic view can be fairly powerful approaching, somewhat, the 'nudge' mentioned in the prior bullet. Why don't we hear people talking this, rather than the loud pronouncements about their algorithms? If anything, any decision logic would need to be heuristically based (using real data and analysis thereof) in a real world situation. Developments after Hilbert's question about a program to do all mathematics (Mathematica, and its ilk, notwithstanding) suggest such. 
• algorithm -- There is no agreed-upon definition. But, one strong notion is that an algorithm has (ought to have) more rigor behind it than not. Now, looking at the various characterizations (thanks to Wikipedia editors) can be interesting. Knuth's view probably best fits my experience. Namely, we have this: finiteness, definiteness, input, output, effectiveness. Let's look at those. Finiteness. Some argue that we have this by the vary nature of our domains. Not so. I've seen too many things loop (everyday, operators get lost, for various reasons on the web, which requires redo). Combinations of non-finite spaces can look extremely large from certain viewpoints. Definiteness. Unless there are explicit user requirements, there'll always be a problem here. Convergence, through interest and use, may be the modus operandi, yet it approximates only. Input: thankfully, menu interfaces inhibit problem emergence. But, just a few days ago, someone was trying to show off his new device. And, he started his dialog as if a 'smart' person was on the other side of his Shannon experience. Hah! The thing barf'd. I've seen this too many times, folks. Output: Crap, just look at mangled messages out of supposed smart fixup and fat fingering. It's almost epochal. I've seen too much effort by people to demonstrate that their smart device is such. We dumb ourselves down, folks, in order for this to happen (many, many ways). Effectiveness: As measured by what? Showing off to others? I'll be impressed when we see some type of verification process in places (no, not just testing). However, this is a hard thing to do. 

---

Reminder. See my remarks about Mr. Jobs' little demos from the earlier days. My thought still stands, despite IBM's success on Jeopardy. 

Aside: Don't get me wrong. I love that the software frameworks have evolved immensely. It's nice to open the covers and see the progressive build upon what one hopes is a sound foundation. But, it took oodles of time, effort, and caring work to get here. How do we try to show the extreme tedium, and angst, that has been the case from the beginning? You know what happened, folks? The tide was turned so that computation can be faulty without any user kickback except for not buying. Or complaining? And, the vendor saying: sorry. HOW many millions (billions) of dollars of work has been lost through errors that might be of an egregious type if we could get under the kimono to know for sure? Well, losses are not finite for several reasons (cannot be counted, or accounted for, and the secondary effects are not measurable). 

---

Oh, who with money (yeah, venture people, you) is even interested in the longer term problems? 

Remarks:

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

01/05/2015 -- See header.

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

02/25/2014 -- Put in a context link, up top.

07/20/2013 -- So, today, found out that a new handle for algorithms is algos. Okay.

06/14/2013 -- Moshe's editorial at the Communications of the ACM discusses algorithms. Comments, and subsequent letters responding, to Moshe's thoughts indicate the wide range of opinion in the matter.

05/02/2013 -- This has been a popular post (second most popular), of late. Perhaps, it's the growing awareness of the ever-increasing gap between what we think that we know and what we actually know. Well, the theme of the blog is to look at these types of problems. Perhaps, we can bring something forward from the past (such as, we not learning Anselm's message). I mentioned it somewhere (I'll track it down), but the motivation for this post was in part hearing young guys brag about their algorithms in a public place (of course, weekend situation, so some latitude is allowed). That concept is bandied about these days without people giving the notion its proper respect.

10/05/2012 -- Related posts: Zen of computing (in part), Avoiding oops.

10/05/2012 -- IJCAI has a newer flavor. It, at one time, had a theoretic thrust, mainly. Need to re-acquaint myself with the conference (attended 1987 Milan, Italy 1991 Sydney, Australia 1993 Chambery, France 1995 Montreal, Canada). This talk from IJCAI-2011 relates to the theme of this post: Homo heuristicus.

Modified: 01/23/2015

Mathematics I

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

Introductions:

Our collective friend, Hitchens, said many things that we ought to think about now and then. And, based upon the websites that are quoting Hitchens, there are many who are doing just that. One of his quotes actually made it to the TED (deals with current, and future, technological issues) site.

In short (paraphrased), assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. When I first saw that quote being reported in some web page from some source (actually, Google brings up several sites - but, my first awareness was several years ago), I felt that I would have responded to him, something like this (had I the quick wit under the spotlight and were in his presence): like axioms? You see, Hitchens was many times pushed beyond the point where he said that he didn't know. Yes, he said "didn't know" many times; but, either given his inherent talent at showmanship or mere frustration at putting idiots in a bottle or whatever other motive, Hitchens would go off on his erudition-showing response (sometimes, these were rants - however, well considered and stated).

---

Aside: Some attribute the quote to Richard Dawkins who made a similar statement. Wikipedia points to what is known as Hitchens' Razor with references. And, it's really a re-phrasing of an age-old slogan.

---

A constructive look:

Hitchens did not deal with mathematics, but he did respect results that were founded upon such. You see, that would be most of modern scientific models ("most" is arguable; however, we're talking 2000 plus and the fact that about every discipline has mathematized its knowledge base - many times to a large degree -- I ask, what discipline with any modicum of a quantitative does not use advanced statistical methods?). So, who of the modern domains has not used mathematics?

It turns out that there may be many who are not so learned (not meant pejoratively). As, this revolves around a central issue related to numeracy, or lack thereof, that has insidious implications for the future. We'll get back to that. Expect though, for me to show that numeracy limits us, many ways (not arguing against the great ideas founded upon numbers and the computational -- rather, consider, can our artifacts subsume Being?).

The basics:

We'll first have to deal with what exactly is this thing called "mathematics?" We can start with a few little pointers here and branch out. Please note, this approach is pseudo-constructive (albeit, not to the level of Bourbaki - yet, effective in its own way, as we will show).

Pythagoras

1. An encyclopedia is a good place to start: Wolfram's MathWorld comes to mind. I have watched this grow (and, even, to a small extent, contributed). As well, the Wikipedia view is phenomenal (actually, what I love about Wiki is that I can look at something (that is well-sourced, usually) without running down myriads papers and books). By studying this type of material, one could get a fairly good idea of what mathematics is, though several issues, such as motivation, would not be as apparent as could be. As Plato thought, arithmetic can be one of the starting points for mathematical education. Geometry, and its use in our world, is the next step. 
2. We can also take a behavioral view and say this: mathematics is what mathematicians do (this little thing out of St. Andrews is wonderful - please look at the Mathematician of the day page). If we cared to study all that has been done, then we might have some idea of what this field encompasses. But, much of mathematics is mental (and, we don't normally expect people to read minds). One may see symbols and numbers, yet, their use is not always intuitively obvious. On the other hand, we can see what has been labelled under the concept, even if future perturbations, and extensions, would not be seen using this descriptive approach. However, there is one little thing that lurks: is mathematics more than what people do (next bullet)?  
3. Ah, metaphysics coming in? Let's keep it simple, as we could discuss, for a long time, what might be called the differences between big "M" (Mathematics) and little "m" (mathematics). How can we circumvent that? You see, if you look at MathWorld (or what Mathematica does), you'll see all sorts of operative marvels (basis of STEM) with results that astound (our technological age) when looked at closely. Yet, just ask yourself if the reality behind whatever is being expressed (or computed or manipulated) by our artifact (assuming small m, okay?) is equivalent to what we understand via our use of the artifact? Another way to think of it is to consider the map-territory problem. First, extend "map" to encompass the sum total of our prowess with mathematics. The territory? Yes, we would really like to know (but it's not the former). In short, we tend to get these two merged (map-territory) as there seems to be no real way to do the differentiation (ability to note differences) many times (as in, that particular action is underdetermined - note, please, the poster is very much aware of proof-theoretic powers - yet, the poster sees the importance of being aware of quasi-empiricism and its issues).   
4. Is mathematics that which can be built from axioms and proofs? We all know that mathematics involves theorems. Some of these are applicable to our lives; others are beyond the comprehension of most (if you listen to von Neumann, he would say beyond the comprehension of any - see first quote). Now, there are many ways to argue proof methods, but logic is involved. Then, that brings in knowledge and how we know. Also, we need to consider Russell's and Whitehead's efforts to put a firm basis under logic. It took hundreds of pages to get to proving (by terse equations) simple addition which we can teach early on to the human mind. Too, Russell, and later work, brought in computablilty issues which may or may not be problematic to the future of automation (ah, letting the cat out of the bag - the web is laden, heavily with pseudo-mathematical pursuits what need our scrutiny).           

Now, that listing is not trivial. But, the list does include the important things and has a progression that we'll be looking at in depth (basis for truth engineering's necessity and operational look).

1. What? We know that we have mathematics and its use; such is abundantly evident. Much work in mathematics has been done over the years. The web has allowed an acceleration of means to get access to information about mathematics and provides a common platform for discussion and use. Marvelous techniques exist. The trend seems to be toward automation of some of these. The truth, folks, is that higher-order computation (as in advanced mathematics) requires, generally, human involvement in two, and perhaps more, areas. One is input (see the qualification problem as an example -- numeric processes have oodles of decision states prior to execution - in other words, setting up a solution attempt is a creative task). Then, we have output issues dealing with more than interpretation. For instance, ramification is important. 
2. Who? We see people doing mathematics. Only some of those are involved with computation. But, certain classes of problems are computationally oriented and will continue to be so as technological progress improves computational artifacts and methods (of a very wide variety). That there is motivation to learn and do mathematics seems obvious, too. We have not seen a decline in the interest. More later. 
3. Where? As we use mathematics, the larger picture does not go away. But, we'll defer all of that til later. 
4. How? As, there is controversy about hubris and its appearance. It's almost impossible to know this up-front. In retrospect, we see it, or think that we do, many times. Unfortunately, right now, we have the finance community running off after multitudes of seemingly smart approaches; we need to push some type of sand box (or, at least, now, some notion thereof) into the awareness of these, folks; this we would like to demonstrate.

---

As stated at the start, there was some nod to Hitchens in this post albeit we are dealing with mathematics. The content here takes a broad view and tries to identify the major pieces. Getting into all of the nuances will be on-going, albeit the looks will be more broad than deep (for awhile, at least - at some point, we'll have to take on a few of the more important points in a technical manner).  

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/23/2015 -- Software? Well, we are talking more than apps (latest craze). We are dealing with fundamental questions which, then, gives rise to normative issues in mathematics (and, by extension, to the computational).

01/05/2015 -- Added context line at top. We're at a renew point.

03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded.

08/06/2013 -- Investigative journalism likes its Five Ws. That is fine for their topical views. To get technical, we have to add in, at least, an H (How?). Too, we need to change the order, according to various factors: domain, focal area, and more.

So, the order of the above list is "What?, Who?, Where?, How?."  There are other orders. For instance, "How?" have could come before "Where?" in the list. That, though, would have changed the emphasis (recall, truth engineering is the overarching theme).

We're ignoring Why? (why not?) and When? (ah, history of mathematics -- the future, too?).

08/05/2013 -- In this interview, Hitchens uses "horribly un-reflective" (around 12:00) in response to his Iraq stance's outcome (turmoil amongst those who wondered where he was coming from?) and whether he had, or not, tempered the position that he taken at the time. So he admitted to being reflective, which we would all have known anyway. As said above, lots of his positions were forced by reacting to idiots and their attempts to master him.

Modified: 06/25/2015