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

Have you heard?

Or, here's something to think about during the busy holiday travel season. I first saw the youtube link in a comment by Sven (off topic, but of merit) to a flightblogger post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0 from Al Jazeera.

Why is this under truth engineering? Well, after listening to the video, taking a moment to gulp about the possibilities, then starting to assimilate the information, and beginning to phrase questions about the video and its contents, what is a better example to use for trying to cast illumination on 'truth engineering' and its usefulness?

So, leaving any conclusions until after some analysis, here are a few questions. Mainly, for now, we'll look at what can be known, is thought to be known, and what might not be known (avoiding Scott C's unknown unknowns).

• -- Firstly, the players are many. We have ex-employees in the video. We have experts, too, such as FAA personnel. We have lawyers. But, too, we have a major player in the military-industrial complex (see Ike's concerns, raised, of late, due to some of his early speech drafts being recently discovered in cabin). On the other side is Al Jazeera which may give some pause. But, People & Power is a nice concept, as opposed to the big stompers (even red-staters ought to understand this).
• -- For each of the players, there will be further categorization that is possible which would allow some insight, hopefully, to motivation and such. Yet, as shown by the plane graveyard scene, all we have is verbal testimony unless some type of physical evidence (obtained at what cost?) is found. So, from a truth engineering framework, we can look at the interminable fluxes in ungrounded spaces versus the underdetermined states in the physical (one impetus for cyber-physical studies).
• -- So, how do we de-construct this thing to find the truth? Well, it will be a multi-dimensional task that will take time and ought to continue to intrigue as time unfolds the details. Thankfully, that the sources are on-line will help. Yet, what type of grunt, ground work might be necessary? As in, does not finding the truth go beyond the cyber and virtual (rhetorical, to some)?
• -- How does this play into the themes of oops (how do we know?) and business (who tells the truth?)? We'll look at that, too.

We might also use this opportunity to discuss more about computer modeling and what it might mean for ourselves and how we process truth. That an airplane requires so much thought, in design, manufacture, and operation, makes it a perfect vehicle for this type of discussion. Too, do we not have some intuitive grasp of flying (natively)?

Remarks:

04/07/2012 -- Flightblogger ends, as least, Jon's watch. Some issues raised five years ago are still apropos. The context may have changed a little, yet, perhaps now is time to re-address the themes.

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

12/18/2010 -- On the finance side, Martin Weiss reminds us that Big Ben has grown the money supply by 1.2T the past couple of years. Then, he lowered the cost (interest) while giving bunches of money to the banks. These guys then loaned the money to us at a high rate of interest. And, pulled in the bucks. Of course, Ben had taken 1T of toxic assets off of their hand and put it on our backs. Finally, those jerks are getting paid big bonuses this year. We should have nationalized, yes, indeed.

Modified: 04/07/2012