Software issues

The year started with this topic in the news. It will continue to be important (as in, 'code as truth' - but, not exactly).

Recent articles in the ACM Communications are of interest.

• Certified software -- Zhong Shao -- Essentially, some things, including software, that can be proved, hold up through time. One might say that robustness of products, which are realizations (in essence, a physical manifestation), results from clever use of this fact. The trouble? Ah, so many things that we will cover, in time.
• QIP = PSPACE Breakthrough -- Scott Aaronson -- what is truth and how do we maintain it (computationally)? Well, as we've said before, it's a PTIME issue. Too, looks as if our cleverness will continue to be the main factor. In other words, we can solve the job problem with the proper perspective.

Best wishes for the New Year.

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).

05/28/2011 -- Uses for 'avatar' in our discussion? Ought we count the ways?

04/04/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

01/01/2011 -- We have four last posts of December under our belt.

01/01/2011 -- Notice in the QIP article, the use of entanglement. In a sense, we have a whole lot of faith in random processes that are applied against independent objects. Perhaps, too much and applied with wrong stress. We worry about biases and other correlations that might lurk, true. Yet, it's deeper than that. In truth, fat cats would worry about their excessive accumulations were they to know the reality. Could it be that quantum computing may help us find a basis for the proper modeling, even if issues of NP (and trust) are still there?

Modified 01/23/2015

is Math discovered?

Is math discovered or not?

Actually, this video caught my eye since it represents a new way to discuss matters. And, I was astounded at how well it does cover the issues. But, there are several points where the video ought to be stopped, to allow discussion. Perhaps, at some point, I'll get to that where comments point back to the particular second/frame in the video.

---

Now, to the question. It is both discovered and created, as we find with all human endeavors which are embedded in the natural systems. Think of it this way: this issue is very much analogous to the discrete/continuous debate. In fact (if there is a fact that can be claimed in regard to things like this), the question really is a continuum (we'll get back to that).

The problem has been trying to determine where the demarcation line ought to be placed (fuzzy existence) in specifying where we go from discovered to not. In an operational sense, many of the choices taken for people to do things work and, thereby, resolve the problem from that perspective.

Of course, some workarounds (math is full of these) have worked better than others. Yet, the underlying conditions that prompt the query and debate do not abate.

---

Aside: Here is a recent Common core op-ed. It applies (no, there is no digression here). In this op-ed, there is an implied criticism of fuzzy techniques (a system, if you would). So, this is another of those age-old bifurcations. The view expressed in the op-ed stresses, too much, numeric foundations which then lead to all sorts of mis-guided mathematical shenanigans (yes). That "demarcation line" mentioned above?  By necessity, it is fuzzy (in a metaphoric sense, okay?). That we have been overlaid with an insidious mesh that entraps, in part, is the responsibility (karmic) of bad math. That the advertising (marketing) ilk have spawn so rapidly, and, essentially, ruined the Internet is one of the direct results of those bad choices.

I love the emphasis on rules (very much inconsistent, in this op-ed). Learning to follow someone else's footsteps implies rules. Success in mathematics requires memory abilities as well as the other facilities, such as pattern recognition, etc. We cannot get rid of that.

Why don't we try to be peripatetic and teach via play (yes, as in acting out what those abstract notions are supposed to be representing - actually, we're talking a strong type of intuitionism (say what?)  that has not been tried, that I can see.). For one thing, it would meld with a whole lot of problems that we see related to trying to get some kids to keep still.

As long as we're on the subject, having mathematics based upon a less pure platform goes right along with this is/or (discovered/not) paradox. You see, it's AND (has always been). Along with the play attempt suggested above would be an almost flip-flop of the model (advised use). But, no one seems to have been allowed to try this, that I know of.

---

A larger ramification? When choices have a large sphere of influence, then more care is needed. Yet, everywhere we see cowboy (no offense to the real cattle persons) acting as if the world (despite the potential impacts on us) is their lab and little play thing. Care, in that sense? Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point where "care" is not part of the model (lots to discuss in this regard).

---

Beside pointing to the quasi-empirical (it's briefly alluded to in the video - extra points if you find this -- later, I'll put in the frame) issues, we'll weigh in, soon (PTIME, perhaps), with a novel approach, on the question in the title of the post.

---

In the meantime, see the recent renewal of faith.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/16/2015

09/21/2014 -- Very important subject. Watch the video.

11/03/2014 -- We'll be getting back to this, but some feel that progress comes from those who can see patterns in a new light or bring them to light. Almost like the Flynn effect, subsequent thinkers can see more clearly, especially if patterns are handled in a manner that persists. That is, patterns can be chimera-like as can any problem of the human mind (and, that is not in any way meant to criticize imaginative efforts -- nope, some patterns may only be accessible within the framework of fiction - sci fi, for instance). Now, to the crux, how one handles the issues of either/or is very much pattern'd and ought to be thought of that way. We'll go on, in time. Choosing on the side that does not relate well to reductionism is as amenable to reason as is the stance denier (remember, perception is very much dependent upon one's time and resources).

01/16/2015 -- Discussing this (or any part of the old Queen's accoutrements) and deciding which way to go would depend upon one's view of normative mathematics; this is a subject about which we intend to weigh in from the truth engineering (quasi-empiricism) frame work.

Institutional truths

Ah, big T or small t?

To be answered, in time. Remember, we have no deadline to attempt tackling PTIME.

---

So, who is more believable? Big endowments or not so?

---

This image is nice. And, it shows a nice place. Know where it is?

Well, it's in that northern region known for its crankiness and such. 'Pilgrim and Puritan'-ville. Many of the most loved, and cherished, ideals of the country came from that region. For instance, they never had plantation mindsets, though they did love their 'indentured' servants.

So, we're looking at a view of Cambridge, MA. In particular, it's the area around a particular institution, known as big H (in these circles).

---

Now, consider this image. Same place but overlaid with some comment.

Ah, now is it being in proximity of the Institution or its members that causes the IQ to rise?

The blogger used to think that about the D.C. area which was full of public servants. Then, it became contractor-ville and lost its appeal. Yes, too many politicos now who are, in fact, enthralled by the buck (salivate at the sight of one).

---

We have already considered a major role for the educational institution. The quandary comes from the fact that large amounts of moolah warps everything and reduces the ability of 'truth' to emerge. Yes, indeed.

---

Aside: By the way, in terms of region, Harvard is in the one that people fled from, in all directions that they could. Hence, we have Rhode Island and Connecticut and New Hampshire. Poor old Maine tried to escape but could not get away from the clutches of that Mass-ass place (don't get me wrong, love the place) until way into the 19th century. Methinks that there is a lot that Harvard has yet to explain nor can it explain it away.

---

We asked before, yes. In particular, this one.

Remarks:

11/04/2011 -- One could probably talk institutional untruths, to boot.

Modified: 11/04/2011

WDYTYA

WDYTYA is a TV series that dates from 2010 in the U.S. It originally aired on NBC; now, it's on TLC. In each show, some personality of note looks at their ancestry (very briefly). The story line then includes the details of their search among their tree plus particulars related to the part of the tree that they follow. 

Aside: In case you aren't familiar with topic, it might be apropos to put a few words about magnitude when you think of your ancestors. Go back far enough (see later on Cindy Crawford), and you will have a ton of people (of course, wags can argue about the diminished influence from each, and we'll respond to such like this: nonsense. Arguable? Yes. Later. -- Consider: when they were here on their two feet, their being was as great as you might think that your's is. Now, if you don't think much of yourself, that's another issue to discuss.). Two generations from you are the four grandparents. Then, each of these has parents. So, you are talking eight families at the 1st great-grandparents. Stopping there, for a second, consider that each of the four females represents a male line that culminated with her. So, at each node, the mother (these grandparents are referred to as greats beyond the 2nd generation) has a line that is n-1, rather than n (say what? yes, every line extends back to God-only-knows how far - that is, even undocumented people stand on the shoulders of their ancestral giants - it's the height of hubris to think that things written subsume more than a slim margin of the truth -- ah, at last, how this relates to the topic of the blog -- mainly, truth, in part, is based upon humans -- many attributes to be discussed.) 

---

When you think of people in the U.S. with "known" lineages to the first comers (say, those described in the Great Migration Project of the New England Historic Genealogical Society), by the time you count going back, you are talking thousands of families. Most do not have a filled tree, even under the best of circumstances. But, still, for those who do the work, some interesting things pop up. 

---

Aside: As we see with several seasons of personalities, their discoveries are like fleshing out American history and more. Too, one sees the pain and suffering that went along with events. In fact, that many survived very hard conditions shows the quality of their character (no implication ought to be found here about the Darwinian-associated -- we'll get to that, eventually). Too, though there ought to be some kudos for the views of the editors, one does get more than the sanitized perspective so loved by the historians (abstractionist leaners (yeah, computer types, especially) need to realize that truth is at the core -- yes, it's very smelly -- core? we'll get there). That is, the real person came out of the presentation -- kudos, indeed, to those who created these episodes). 

Disclosure: I've enjoyed this series from the beginning (plus the Roots one of Prof. Gates). WDYTYA, essentially, started less than year after I first got into historic genealogy. On the first episode (Sarah Jessica Parker), I saw familiar names and really liked pointing out cousins. But, then, that gets old, as one finds all sorts of these relationships. Now, it might be fun to put numbers on it (oh, x-cousin, y-removed), but that gets stale, too. Another thing, early, was the show following ancestral links back across the pond. It was nice to see this under the guidance of experts who, supposedly, would not let things go astray (as, we have seen mischief all along with genealogy - ah, where is the ethics?). So, we saw people go back to gentrified folks (gentrified? think of these four classes - [...] (none ever granted or earned), (...] (forfeiture via rebellion or otherwise), [...) (favored, as have to start somewhere), (...) (blessed -how many of these?), and to others. Too, the subjects seem to not all go back to one area (as in, covering a lot of Europe and beyond, planned? serendipity?).

---

BTW, as the seasons progressed, the personality became more the researcher with helpers in the background. At the beginning, the experts were more prominent. So, we have the recent episode of Cindy Crawford as an example. She started with one of her grandparents and went backward to New England fairly quickly which then gets my interest. After some wandering there, she went back to England. 

Aside: I think that Lisa Kudrow has done a good job. In fact, this season has a coverage that is very nice. Say, the Civil War, War of 1812, WWII, and more. And, Christina Applegate's story was heartbreaking; she was brave to let the edit stand. 

---

Now, Cindy's episode left a bunch of questions about what happened over here. Take Connecticut. Some now celebrate the venture there. Well, it sounds like New Haven (purists - oh Lord, protect us from such) was not heaven on earth (but, then, earthly heaven would be more like Merry Mount -- sorry, comes from hearing Dr. Lucy Worsley talk about Charles II). Cindy's ancestor left his kids there (we didn't find out what happened to them all). 

Then, we hear that the guy supported Cromwell. Well, we all have found such in our trees. My beef with Cromwell, if I had one, would be his treatment of the Irish, but, in that regard, he joins a large set of evil doers. And, I have a lot more to read about all of this stuff. There were not many angels written about (hence, the reference to the undocumented above - except for the likes of Saint Margaret of Scotland, perhaps).

Later, Cindy learns that she is a Charlemagne descendant through her ancestor. After seeing her visit, I did go back to read about where he was buried and a little more.

Aside: One thing that struck me were the remarks by the white-haired guy (I've seen him somewhere) in regard to why everyone goes ga-ga about Charlie. I've wondered, as he did not have influence in that area now seen as Britain, or eastern Europe, or a number of other places. The guy said that Charlie (his descendants are Charlie's minors) was the father of Europe. Perhaps so, as they split up his realm for (some of) his grandsons. Also, we're talking western Europe; history tells us that the resulting littler domains kept quarreling. Probably we would find some relation from this to those cousins bickering during the War of the Roses. BTW, in terms of the classes above, Charlie's ancestry is of the [...) variety. Who can really go back further sufficiently to not raise serious criticism - meaning, by other than wags? 

---

There are many ways for truth engineering to be interested in the past, including genealogy and memes. All here manifest some feat of survival over unknown amounts of time. Some have leaned toward genetic analysis, yet that turns out to not be the silver bullet that one might think. Are we missing something? Essentially, yes. But, we'll get there in our own time (as said, perhaps, other than PTIME).

Remarks:

05/28/2015 -- White-haired guy? RCA of NEHGS, of course.

12/31/2013 -- A popular post.

09/02/2013 -- Given the way the western world works, entry of the class of (...] might have happened due to no issue or only female issue (sorry, ladies). I like the forfeiture part (have run across it multiple times enough to start a sandbox). Ireland? Poor dears were run over countless times. Does that make them all saints? ... By the way, being a favorite does not always pan out (poor Despenser - carved up as Isabella cavorted).

Modified: 05/28/2015

Myth of the monolithic

Venturing on T-issues, somewhat, let's lay out a few concepts, to be handled further later (the usual punt). In certain discussions (say, Hitch), the use of 'monolithic' comes (or can come) about. But, the term projects (embeds) itself geometrically. As in, some structural affair that is part of our getup comes to fore (we're only human after all -- also, think Brouwer).

---

Ah, earlier, we ventured upon 'symmetry' as necessary for these discussions, as it is an essential property. If there is anything monolithic, it's that we, as humans, span something that is polar at its extremes (to be defined), yet integrated when seen in its own being. And people just exult themselves on finding what they think is the 'highest' peak.

Aside: little ants running around Creations Mystery (hint here is that I'll give Krauss the benefit of the doubt (and will get back to this) -- the only issue that he needs to consider is the self-referential nature of what he is doing and its basis -- okay? Lawrence -- those thinking of computability are chasing part of the problem) and trying to collect all of their little truths into the large Truth (never to be). The peaks? Even having the thought of 'highest' will prevent one from attaining the state.

--

So, why this? Well, it has to do with trying to understand that against which Hitch railed? Of course, we have all of those silly humans playing their games, putting on their ritualistic garments and messing up our stage (yes, the world is linear and Hilbert). But, it's their right to do so. Again, being human, there are social norms which keep peace in the large.

Actually, either/or would argue for a basic respect for other's thinking, as long as they're not trampling on the rights (ah so, what are those? -- unfortunately, that is an unsettled question in modern America) of others (get it?). If the thing were done correctly, would not my rights then be protected if I'm looking out for my neighbor and he/she is looking out for me -- the bro-hood thing approximated in the military context? We do not need the 'big brother' (who assessed that he is adult enough for the responsibility?).

---

Now, it must be said that this line of reasoning is not suggesting that there is not Something behind that which Krauss labels as Mystery (his capitalization). It is just that the Something is more than we can comprehend -- we've known that for many 1000s of years, folks.

Just what is the problem? Power! People poking their nose, for a myriad of motivations. It's way more than the glass-house. As I've said with CEOs, we clean their damn diapers (yes, Jamie, you, too). That is, they crap on the world; we're supposed to think that the crap is the best smelling thing. Wait! Sorry, fell off the wagon here, for a moment.

In other words, idiotic, childish (all sorts of characterizations) behavior on the part of supposed adult humans (Hitch was right to rail against this -- clergy? you guys are the biggest pokers -- unfortunately, that use of 'poke' has more connotations now than we ever thought possible).

---

So, I'll retract the sarcastic remark about rituals. Dress up all you want; don't try to get me pulled into the thing, though, okay [me, in this case, substitutes for 'we' in order to prevent notions of royal selves -- rephrased, don't try to gather into your fold those who have their own fold - you see, flock (as in, those of a fold) fracases are the problem]?

---

So, finally, we'll have to rephrase a whole bunch of stuff in order to get out of the knee-jerk mode. Science has tried to use mathematics for this. It is not sufficient. First of all, there is the computer issue. Secondly, it's not as 'intuitive' (not knocking Luitzen) as we might like (as von Neumann said, we don't understand it, we just get used to it -- ah, so! ... equational yada yada).

How long will it take? There are certain steps that will be necessary (I'll be bold enough -- audacious -- to attempt an itemization -- at some point) that will be more clear when the basis is better known (meaning that there is a lack now? ...).

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.

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily (as in, no monolith - lose that idea). The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing. 

07/23/2012 -- Didn't mention one aspect of the new thrust, yesterday. Essentially, I'll be pulling, from 45 years ago, some work into modern jargon as the work's focus is apropos to the discussions.

07/22/2012 -- Now looking at applied mathematics, from several senses. Some of it will be computationally oriented. Yet, we have to know what is behind the use. Do you not see? So, we'll have to look at why particular decisions have been made over the past century or so. Prof Osgood looks at that briefly within the context that he is covering. Another domain would deal with our basic problems of cosmology and quanta (large juxtaposition there, however the thinking is the same -- of course, same boundaries that are inherited by being humanly constrained). So, let's put out one notion, to be discussed. The whole thing of the 'monolith' seems to revolve around a deeply held idea that there is some overall, universal, frame of reference. After all, we use the earth to base some types of relativistic calculations. Unconsciously, we do the same thing with ourselves (yes, hubris abounds is about the only fact that we can see at the moment) as we push our cosmological, and other, knowledge far beyond any type of reasonable basis.

07/08/2012 -- Watching Prof Osgood's lectures, up to 15, which is half-way, and will continue to the end (at a faster pace, hopefully). Why is this important? These types of mapping (classically, most date from the period of expansion in the late 18th/early 19th century) move 'something' from space to space in order to help resolve calculation (in the classic sense of computing to a result that is usable). In the case of this class, Fourier Transforms, the approach's deal with the core of how we know. That is, signals (either from nature or from our interpretation - as in sensor/lense/filter, etc. -- okay?) are processed until noise is diminished. Now to the crux:

• Prof Osgood uses distributions to proof theorems at a fairly high-level. Of course, this looks powerful, magical, and is useful. 
• The ease comes from carefully defining what is necessary (or, I might add, essential). Yet, residue (to be discussed further) must be there at various places. Are these not of significance (pun intended)? 
• Part of the magic deals with quasi-empirical concerns about which we will always pay attention. That is, from whence the fact that mathematics can (and does, in many, cases) work? 

06/26/2012 -- T-issues will be addressed from time to time. In the meantime, one person to read about is Elijah who continues to have much appeal to this day. Too, going back to the lecture series that is much more interesting than those Ben did earlier this year, we see a demarcation early in Lecture 11, after Prof Osgood clears up some issue about the Central Limit Theorem's proof (using techniques discussed in the lectures), where the Prof talks about things talked about so far (problems solved) were correct, but not of use. Why? Mainly, there are issues related to special techniques (mostly ad-hoc) and to redoing foundational views. And, we're talking, in this case, about something that is 200+ years old, has had a lot of attention by smart people over all of this time, and deals with things that are, at least, amenable to analysis. Too, the synthesis involved doesn't make grand assumptions. Now, similar types of methods have been applied all across the wide horizon of advanced cognition (as in science and more) and practice, yet, how firm can we call the basis? Not as developed as we would like to believe (when we can believe politicians, perhaps, that'll be the day). Not enough for all of the wool-pulling that I've seen. But, we'll continue in the effort to make this plain as is the sun in the sky at noon (on a clear day).

06/21/2012 -- Yesterday's remark mentioned some difference between the processing of the language of mathematics and a natural language. We talk about God (and much more) in the latter. One thing different is the 'functional' nature of mathematics (wait, let me explain, before PTIME, I hope). Yet, people's reactions to words can be approximated in that same manner (note, some type of limit required). We'll get to it. As an aside, the universities are offering their courses on line. Example: Prof Osgood's look at Fourier's work. Notice, please, that there are 300K reads for Lecture 1. Lecture 2 has 100K while Lecture 30 has reduced to 10K. But, look at Lectures 28 and 29 with only 6K reads (some people jumped to the end, methinks). As the Prof says, these things are hard and take a lot of work. Mathematicians? They do their own work. Politicians (kings, et al)? Others do their work for them.

06/21/2012 -- Listened to a math professor, by video yesterday, talk (in the context of a fairly complicated application area -- which is used quite a lot) about his having to qualify statements as he talked about things as it seems to be an interminable activity. Why? Any statement (provable, type) needs to be explicit. Yet (my put, here), that it's processed through human cognition brings in the implicit (you see, that's the key). The use of 'monolith' denotes physical being (oh, you will tell me that applying 'Monolithic' to God does not say something about Being, with some notion of physicality -- let me remind you of a major conflict over the past 1200+ years on just this subject -- hopefully, I won't have to be specific here -- oh yes, I will, at some point). Now, if the statements are processed by a system (as in, code), we still don't get our arms around the whole thing (hence, all of the holes in the cloud-ish types of things).

06/20/2012 -- Also, hidden beneath the above is the fact that several human traits are going to become more important, and better used, than we've seen before. In fact, part of the knee-jerk is recoiling from these since they are universally found, not just given to the 'gifted' (that class, who throughout our history (and even before the recorded type) have used their talents to 'lord' it over others and to, basically, run the world as they have seen fit). All this leads me to start to think of STEM (what it might mean, in the several senses).

06/20/2012 -- Now, after all of that, why pick the monolith? Well, more reasons than that it played a role in 2001 (yes, the movie, old stuff). But, true, 'monolithic' would be only one attribute. Would not all attributes be encompassed by the Unknowable? Oh? You ask about the negative ones? By symmetry, we would have a way to view anything 'negative' in another light. Actually, since we're dealing with Being (define as you will, but know that in doing so, you're trying to limit that beyond limit), we have to be careful with words. And, it's already been said that mathematics doesn't carry us any further; it, too, is language based, in part. After all, those who interpret systems do so in a manner not dissimilar to reading. Just because there may be more density in the approach (as in, what meaning may be in a simple symbol) does not change that fact. But, another aspect comes to fore. Computing. And, it is a fact, now, that systems can be processed artificially, almost ad infinitum given sufficient energy. Therein is another problem (nod to Turing).

Modified: 06/25/2015