Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Summary, 2014

This is our fourth year for a summary: 201120122013. In earlier years, there were more posts: 2007 (33), 2008 (46), 2009 (43). This year we only had 23 posts.

Part of that decrease might be due to the early focus of the blog to which we'll have to return. Perhaps, by 2010, the realization of the Fed's largess continuing, and increasing (QE infinity), sank in and caused depression. Not. Rather, it has taken time to get to the current situation which is just loaded with examples of the need for truth engineering.

However. let's look at this year's numbers for Past 30 days and for All time.

Past 30 days                          All time     

We will get back to basic concerns next year: for one, computation's shaky underpinnings.

Remarks:   Modified: 12/30/2018

12/30/2018 -- Forward links:  201420152016, 2018.

Monday, December 22, 2014

Threats, real and imagined

There are lots of potential threats that are inherent in our beasties which we have spawned willy-nilly without due consideration of ramifications (beyond, many times, the ability to such money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats).

Speaking of which (fat cats), it was nice to see a recent WSJ article ("Artificial Intelligence Isn't a Threat -- Yet" Gary Marcus) use "sandboxed" (influences limited in scope) in relation to the absence of "predict or control" within the context of computation (in a sense, we are already out of control). What we have, in essence, is test by trial (as in, luckless users trying to cope - even to the extent of automotive systems streaming out under very lax supervision?).

The issues raised in the article are central to truth engineering's core focus.

Now, about sandbox, it carries too toward those realms of high finance that have been so problematic (and, we will see another downturn - of worse consequences).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/31/2014

12/22/2014 -- 

Thursday, December 18, 2014


Added pages to allow a coherent view (hopefully) that is above the temporal (usual) and beyond the categorical (as now utilized).

See Tabs below the Header.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/18/2014

12/18/2014 -- Re-did due to missing title.

Friday, December 5, 2014


IEEE Spectrum, Dec 1, 2014, had an overview of the work of James Clerk Maxwell and of those who brought his equations to practice. The title says a lot: The Long Road to Maxwell's Equations. Not only is there a timeline, but the story describes steps along the way and identifies the contributors (Maxwellians).

It was 150 years ago that Maxwell presented his thoughts to the Royal Society of London. Maxwell is revered as providing the means to understand electromagnetism such that we could have operational success, to wit, the Internet (allowing bloggers such as myself) and more. But, Maxwell made other contributions that will be important to our themes (kinetics and control). Too, though, his work allows us to follow the trends of science and technology, in the past century and one-half and in an overall sense, so as to set up for further discussion and work.

James Clerk Maxwell deserves his place(s) on the great wall of contributors to human progress. Too, he stands as an example of thought preceding experience, perhaps, even, the most prominent one that we can think of.

 Imagine, his work was on l50 years ago; from this work there have great strides. And, do most even think of Maxwell as they encounter, and use, modern technology (IEEE members do)? Definitely, he is an unrecognized guy (so many ways to characterize this).


Links for the paper (A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field):

The article said this: Today, of course, we’re willing to accept physical theories, such as quantum mechanics, that defy our everyday physical intuition, so long as they are mathematically rigorous and have great predictive power.

Within the context of what we need to do, that little statement is quite meaningful and representative of a much needed focus that has to be brought forth. Firstly, many now do not have counter-intuitive reactions when thinking of Maxwell-related phenomena. You see, human common sense grows along with the general knowledge base through time (memes, for one). This particular trait of humans will bear more study.

To boot, there are many things going on with consciousness that are very much poorly understood. Can it be ever be other than that? Yes, an area of our focus.

Aside: given Turing's work (We needn't fear the machines), one might say there is a lot that we do (or can) not know (old time minds knew this, such as Newton, ...); somehow, though, hubris leads those of the modern mind to think that we have tamed the unknown.

If you would, such hubris has thrown out intuition; yet, we need trained intuition to become a factor in resolving hard problems. How to show this?

As the statement says, we like those things that are rigorous and have predictive power. Nowadays, that rigor is, to a large extent, accomplished via computational devices that are, broadly, out of control. In fact, some exalt in that lack of control (singularity arguments).

Otherwise, the "rigor" can be found (reigns) in realms of abstract'd regions that can border on nonsense (their terms); there has been a counter effort by some (see quasi-empiricism). One issue: how is (can be) predictive power related to self-fulfilling prophecy?

You see, interposed twixt ourselves and reality, many times and increasingly so, are our own devices that were (have been) couched in metrical notions and developed to allow our perception. Unfortunately, we are far removed from direct observation; so, we walk a fine line of circularity.

So, that brings in the "ism" part of the subject line. So much to discuss there.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/05/2014

12/05/2014 --

Monday, November 10, 2014

State of affairs

Context: See Tru'eng anewfocus going forwardmathematics.


One might say that the post offers some remarks about "What I learned from Hitchens" or even about what the recent look at Hawking's life might be telling us. But, not. The former will be revealed at some future point (perhaps, nearer than not). The latter would deal with quasi-empiricism's role as one of many viewpoints that are important; yet, these get little more than a distracted look.

Distracted? Well, one phrase is of note: head in the apps. Yes, lose one "p" and convert the other to "s" and you will get the drift.

This post does do this: announce a change of venue (mental, spiritual, mathematical, computational shift, so to speak). Now, what is all of that? Did evolution happen overnight?

Let's just say that a new school has been formed. Compared to those, say the illustrious one of 1636, that are behemoth'ic now, this school is not much more than an idea that has increased in importance, the energy source necessary for its fruition, and credentials affording the facilitation.

Say what? Unlike Hawking with his current interest in being the one mind that we are to listen to, the new school is non-elite, open to all of humanity that might catch its drift, and very much grounded (at the same time, oriented toward inspiring the best that people can grasp).


For starters, a rant is necessary to begin a description of the current state of affairs. Thank God that the filth encapsulated in TV ads has ceased, for the moment (they will be back and more negative -- think "black holes" as Hawking might see if it was presented correctly). These two were written firstly in the FB milieu but then cut over to this post which will be pushed back as a link.
    1: FB user: I have a question about Facebook. There are two choices for reading your Timeline, "most recent" (which I tend to think of as chronologically reading the comments) and "Top Stories" (which I assumed were the most popular). After being suspicious about these choices, and switching back and forth all week, this is today's timeline: Most recent - top 5 comments were Sept. 10, 20 hours, 5 minutes, Nov. 1, 48 minutes. Top Stories - 12 minutes, 15 minutes, 50 minutes, 1 hour, 1 hour. OK, what is going on here? 
    Response: No mystery. Behind the scene are youngsters of little ethical/moral education or leaning (speaking from decades of experience - at one point, opening email would have not been considered to be okay - do we expect the post man to open and read our snail mail?). Under the current scheme, there is not even a way to ask for an accounting (use at your own risk). Is there someone somewhere thinking of a robust, trustworthy platform. Of course, perhaps, given the current environment, even asking such a question might be considered laughable. Sad, sorry, state of affairs.  
      How did we get to where adults trying to communicate in a mature manner are subjected to psychological (however couched, it still stinks) testing, with our information being used for unknown ends, all the while getting further entrapped with each little bit transmitted?

      Whence such thoughts? In 1215, King John was forced to seal/sign the Magna Charta. Internet/cloud users have as much right, many rights, as did those Lords of old (their concerns did not include serfs - of which class, internet/apps users, today, are, most likely, the modern variant).

    2: All this media talk about the infrastructure being at risk through hackers? Gosh, guys, where was this attention when the genie was let loose (as in, a defense-developed system put out for general use with little thought given to security - everyone seemed to be so gaga about the web, which turned wild real fast)? Where were you when utilities (dumb bosses running after big pay for themselves) were stupidly putting critical systems on what is, essentially, a flimsy framework? Oh, then, what can we say about the m/billionaires who have raked in the dough from exploiting the system and those who get pulled into morass? ... Actually, media, look back and see if there were foresighted people who were castigated, at the time. Tell us about these "heroes." Perhaps, we could learn something of use (actually, the same thing goes for NSA).
The first was a reaction that has been expressed before. Like we see with the world, led by mathematcians/physicists (and many others), like Hawking, everything is fluid and situational. People, some, have grasped after the chimera (different connotation than used with the ca-pital-sino, but not that dissimilar) as if it has some value ("spiritual" and otherwise) that is of a lasting nature. How many find such? Well, many have found sufficient lure to completely forget the wondrous world offered them by the Creator (yes) or to suppress such reality beneath their abstract'd overlay that comes via the augmentation via ubiquitous computing and the uber (cloud). More will be said here. Now, too negative. Well, that is why this post denote a demarcation point (no more following those who fall into the valley of filth - ah, again, thank God, it's over - not, we now will watch new personality dynamics unfold (while Janet ponders unwinding, later than was needed). The truth in those comments is there, to be lifted.

Truth engineering. Perhaps, we'll rephrase the concept, but there will be additional effort put into describing (yes, not created, rather discovered - actually, it's either/or).

Now, the second. How did we get to this state of affairs? The general adoption of abstraction as more real than that which is extruded by mammals (and others) such that we can step in it. Think of this. One deep view of such matter may just have more to say to us than a whole lot of abstracted nonsense. Hyperbole? Perhaps from one view, but, we'll get to that (multi-verse implies multiple viewpoints - in an active sense (yes, psychology and physics) -- the kids actually get it - we drum it out of them).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

11/14/2014 -- One very good example is a major hotel chain whose founding family sold out to private equity which let existing properties decay (through neglect) while focusing on new; then, the going public bit (can be characterized so many way) put 10s of billions in the pockets of the private equity people (and their cronies) who laughed on their way to the bank (which they own) while employees labor, in a Sisyphean manner, to keep customers (some of long time loyalty - stupid jerks that the clients are) happy so that they might return despite the deteriorating conditions. And, customer reviews, perhaps too strongly but perhaps not, all talk of the state of affairs not being up to the exalted name of the chain's founder.

01/05/2014 -- Renewal, see Context line.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Models and models

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forwardmathematics.


The progression in the world of ideas somewhat has parallels which can be seen to be like those of the markets. Which means that there are downturns in thought, just like we see with the ca-pital-sino.

Ca-pital-sino? The roaring bulls, essentially.

So, thought downturns? Well, we see this several ways, all of which bear a look. One that is really prominent deals with data, as in big data, and all of the truths there. Well, that would not even be possible without computing.

So, computing is the next thing in line. How can it be problematic? You mean, "heads in the apps" living (and driving) is an adorable trait, to be emulated?

Too, computing plays heavily in the issues related to the ca-pital-sino. So, that theme will be central to a lot of discussion.


Going forward, though, how is it that we have lost any grasp on truth? DC? Public stances and spin, essentially. Banking? Well, it is nowhere near the utility (as in piping, folk) look that it ought to have. Even with wheeling and dealing (which would be outside of the plumbing), we still need to have a robust system (without the systemic risks inherent in what has evolved with technology).

And, what is truth? Exactly. Can it be engineered? Ought it be? We'll have to get back to our fundamentals.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/05/2015

11/03/2014 -- So, we, here, need to get away from the monied view. You see, it very much is limiting (for many reasons). The proper thinking needs one's mind divorced from things economic. Now, our problem is that the Harvard-ites of the world (and the FBers) are very much tied into money. In terms of the latter, that is due to the current blindness of the web'd. In terms of the former, ah, "how did it happen?" I have to ask the folks in Cambridge. So much to discuss.

01/05/2014 -- Renewal, see Context line.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

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.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

The best

The post is motivated by the fact that the most-read post is "Best and brightest of what?" from almost a year ago (10/03/2013).  There has been much change in the world since then that ought to be of interest to the theme.

Let's recap a few of these changes:
  • We had the Olympics in Russia. Despite some infrastructural problems, things happened enough to allow the record books to continue. Yet, right after, the Ukraine became a hotspot. 
  • There was a loss of an airliner (777, which has had no major crashes during the program's long life - kudos to engineering) which has never been explained. Then, another plane was lost to a ground-to-air missile over the Ukraine. 
  • We now have solidification of an Islamic-based organization and society to contend with. If you have to ask, it's ISIS (lots to discuss regard this emergence). 
  • Janet has seen to it that savers (flayed to the bone, if you would) are still the fall guy. The ca-pital-sino rages along nicely due to a continual filling (spiking) of the punch bowl. Yes, QE is easing; the coo-coo (goo-goo) talk has not (yes, they need a continuation of the soft-handling - and do not even think of removing the training wheels from the bike). 
  • Google said that creativity and other attributes trump that which leads to good (and perfect) SAT scores. The theme will continue (many reasons - best of what?). 
  • Early responders (9/11) are reporting after-effects related to health. 
  • ... 

One thing of interest will be to look at the posts from early on. The problems are still there, not having been resolved by the political wags (leveraging is up, dark pools are seen as necessary, ..., a very, very long litany whose elucidation attempt might be a worthy expenditure of time and energy).

Remarks:  Modified: 11/21/2015

Tuesday, August 12, 2014


Over the years, we have had many opinions of Finance (see Remarks at this post on how it goes toward non-realistic models - how is it to not get so entrapped, given funny money is our norm?) Now, let's stop and look at FAME. In short, Finance and Accounting MEmos.

                      See, fame-jagazine.com.

Nice, like the business model which expends the effort to condense, summarize academic papers in order to present these little overviews in a coherent form. And, on-line access is free. The printed copy requires one to come up with money.

To date, there have been two publications. These will be the source for coming posts.

We will have to give a nod to editors and supporters. Great idea.


As an aside, CALPERS seems to want to downplay equities. Perhaps, they're seeing that the aerated property causes things like the Minsky dump.

Remarks:  Modified: 08/12/2014

08/12/2014 -- 

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Content vs configuraton

It's natural for the user to think of the former. Actually, running a business demands that. Too, if you spend time and money getting some process going, you would like to keep it running as long as feasible. A couple of years ago, we saw a transition that jumbled some lives as people woke up to the fact of their process being overlaid on something that was disappearing.

This year, we had a similar when ancestry announced that myfamily was going away. Many genealogical sites made use of myfamily as did people who wanted to stay in touch with their wide-spread family and friends. To where ought one go for a replacement? There are several alternatives, but, let's look at what is involved with getting the data out of myfamily.

At first, there was an offer of doing an export. Turns out that the export was not complete and offered cumbersome formats. At that early state, some had access to the database and offered to do extractions in an intelligent manner.

But, of late, the database was turned off disallowing access except for browser mode. Too, those who thought of scraping were told that such activities was a violation of policy. The proverbial catch-22?


Earlier, we talked about a Magna Charta for computer users. One thing of importance would be some semblance of requirements.

Too, myfamily did allow users until Sept. But, anyone building a process will need to do some risk analysis and consider what to do to maintain the process when things shake up a bit. None of that is easy, but the effort ought to be more than some minimal amount.


I was surprised to read comments about all of the people who had built their business methods upon the earlier environment that went away. But, then, it made sense to them at the time. Except, buried in all of the legal jargon of the policy agreement would have been something about terminations and other types of end conditions.

Remarks:   Modified: 08/02/2014

08/02/2014 --

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Magna Charta

Recently, Facebook, with some academic cohorts, did an experiment on FB users. As in, manipulating them without their knowing what is going on.

Sound sophomoric? Well, with young guys in charge, I ask, what do you expect? "Lord of the Flies" comes to mind. Some point to Orwell (one of the Georges).

But, we do not have to invoke fiction. We have the reality of the Magna Charta and the times thereof. Starting in 1215, with the first sealing, the King went through cycles of agreeing and then disagreeing (more than 45 times).

About what? The rights of anyone besides himself. You see, Barons of the time wanted constraints on the king (who claimed divine right). But, those Barons were, for the most part, cousins of the king. And, they held, in bonds, oodles of serfs and others.

Yet, many claim that the Constitution was enabled by the machinations of the Barons (who were looking out for their own self-interest).

Was anyone looking out for the rights of the little people? Well, some priests and nuns and others (like Saint Margaret), I would suppose, who took Christ's admonitions to heart.


Andreessen and sarcasm
So, come to the present and FB. This behavior shows a provider stomping on the rights of users. But, who speaks for users? What are their rights?

Well, we can point back to the Magna Charta. The modern analogs is that the provider role leads people to think like kings/barons (as do corporate bosses). The users are equivalent to the old barons who know that they need to stand up for their rights.

Also, we have the issue of the layers of cognitive ability. The cognitive elites might be (not all, as some of us are wise) considered as the kings/barons. The rest along the cognitive scale are the barons/serfs, of old, who tolerate the "jerkiness."


What does truth engineering have to do with this? Lots. Firstly, the whole computational framework rests on shaky grounds. Then, when we add in the predilections of humans, we get a messy affair which is not outside of control. But, we do have a lot to learn; some of the issues are age-old (and, our 100+ years of experience pales in terms of the magnitude). Secondly, recognizing that there is a problem is essential. Even then, though, the mind baffles. ... Rich makes smart (Smart and its money)?

Remarks:   Modified: 07/03/2014

07/03/2014 --

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Made w/ code

Much in the news, the past couple of days (example, Huffington), is Made w/ Code which is a Google initiative (project blog) which is trying to encourage, in part, more female participation in technology.

I had commented in another blog (thomasgardnerofsalem) that deals, in part, with technical issues. There, I mentioned that I had female cohorts all along the way. Some of whom were better than their male peers, in my mind.

The post here is motivated by seeing the post at the Computer Science Teacher site. It will be interesting, as Alfred wrote, to watch this unfold. If thrusts, such as this, can get people interested in computing, that will be a great step forward.


At one time, computer science was generally interesting to the younger folks. Let's say, a couple of decades ago.

Then, finance came to fore (to my puzzlement, at the time). That is, this was true until that last crash (do you remember?) brought reality back to everyone's mind. As things crashed and the dust settled (is still doing so), we all had a chance to look more closely at what went down. For instance, consider the pay differential that we saw between finance and, what might be considered, more critical work.

Aside: Did we really learn from the machinations of those times? The computer proved to be problematic (one of a very huge set of examples) and will continue to be so. For example, the issues raised by Minsky are multiplied when computers are involved.

One thing that turned people off about computing was the tedium which may have been a reaction to the difficulties and complications that one can face. Too, large systems can be very hard to do and to keep running; but, tools have always been the clever adaptation to handling such requirements. There were other things that caused negative reactions.

Aside: A world of a zillion little apps is not any major improvement. Those issues that faced us before are still around.


Yes, code is (can be) fun especially if you're in the driver's seat (yeah, Zuck). If the requirements are being imposed upon you by others, then it's really a process oriented affair that has a much different flavor. This goes beyond the bazaar/cathedral discussions. What? Yes, discussions about truth are pending.


Blockly seems interesting. Perhaps, it can lift the discussion, at some point, beyond code (as in, coding at what level?) to where we can start to "truth engineer" as needed and to get peoples' rights, in so far as they deal with computing, to the fore (we're coming up on the 800th of the (first) Magna Charta signing).

Aside: In a sense, everyone ought to code. And, there are many layers of code. Those who deep dive (yeah, wizards, I mean you of the power) have no greater claim to the truth of the computational experience. On the other hand, many of the upper echelons would not dirty their hands (ah, how do we get them out of their sheltered world?) thereby showing their lack of respect for truth (ah, this can be demonstrated).

Remarks:   Modified: 06/22/2014

06/22/2014 -- I would be impressed if I heard that Sheryl would deign (or stoop) to coding. Without a code sense, how does one handle truth (yes, mathematicians, you, too)?

Monday, June 9, 2014

Cognitive elitism

I have been looking at what intelligence is (might be), for a bit. One obvious answer to the question would be, like the Gump quote, intelligence is as it does. However, tests abound (we might say, starting with the military's need when first faced with scores of new entrants - the Army General Classification Test (by the way, look at Ballantyne's work that is quoted in the Wikipedia article) ensued); as well, arguments about what it is seem to be of a non-ending sort.

Then, we have the schools that favor the cognitive elite (see Hsu) and that filter out those not intelligent (in a sense). This whole thing of testing can be troublesome (many smart people do not test well - we will get to that).

Aside: In the meantime, to put Harvard in its place in these discussions (as it is the epitome, somewhat), let me invoke the early years (yes, we'll need to recap, in a deep, broad manner the whole unfolding of the institution, from the beginning while, at the same time, looking at its influence (good, bad, and not) upon the society as a whole).


Today's post came from seeing that Hsu had a post with this title: If you're so smart, why aren't you rich? Now, his post was dated November 19, 2009. And, just a few hours ago, I had a post (Smart and its money) in which I referred to an earlier post: If you're so smart ... (from when? how about Tuesday, August 14, 2007). Of course, the phrase was used then, two years prior to Hsu's usage.

Aside: I used the phrase, in 2007, while recalling its use from the '60s. It would be interesting to trace down the original use of the smart-arse'd comment. Were the youngsters, of the '60s, quoting from something they had seen earlier?

Aside: During that whole period (2007 - onward), I was castigating the financial idiots (having awakened, like old Rip, and having found that they had screwed up the world - requiring, first, Ben and, then, Janet to coddle their little systems -- the result? inflationary state of those markets, Janet). Still am as we have not learned the proper lessons (I know them?, yes, indeed).


Cognitive elite? Ah, so many ways to characterize the group, but I'll desist for now. This post is just to mark the discovery, today, of the growing use (Google search).

Why g Matters: The Complexity ofEveryday Life
Linda S. Gottfredson
University of Delaware
Wait! I can say one thing: a society of only the cognitive elite or that only respects that class (ilk) would be a hopeless bunch unable to feed themselves (and a whole lot of other things would be beyond their grasp).

Here's another: my version of a proper elite would have post-doc educational attainments but, at the same time, would be able to tear down an engine and assemble it back to a workable state (or any number of real, existential events, of a very large variety, that I am prepared to itemize and discuss).


The discussion, of supreme interest to truth engineering, could start with the paper by Linda S. Gottfredson. But, there is much, much more to look at.

Remarks:   Modified: 07/03/2014

06/09/2014 -- In this whole context, consider pre-Harvard times, namely Dorchester Company. In the post, see the third bullet about a book: Farmers and Fishermen (The Making of an American Thinking Class). Ah, so much to discuss in this regard, to boot; those of the church ilk were not only querulous, they were a clamorous bunch (causing God to turn a deaf ear?). ... Where is there the proper appreciation of those who can think, work, and praise (even doing so simultaneously)? And, social media'd distraction, even if abetted by robotic'd assistance, is not it (to be discussed; hint: get a grip on being).

06/12/2014 -- Intelligence, value and truth. Also, examples: 50 smartest teenagers. And, links for further reading: Nice thoughts on a dissertation about race and IQ, Controversy, ...

06/24/2014 -- Howard Gardner on Multiple Intelligences: The First Thirty Years and How Apps are shaping a generation.

07/03/2014 -- The Magna Charta is a wonderful example for us to apply to provider (king)/user (baron) issues.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Smart and its money

Or some such, as we asked the question a long time ago: If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?

We will have to get back to this subject. Notice the time frame: 2007. What has changed since then? Well, a whole lot; yet, there ain't nothing new under the sun.

Social media has abounded, but so what? Zombies are more prominent (as in, idiots who drive while having their attention diverted from their responsibilities to something social, gameful, or whatever - texting is the most used concept, applied).

Many are dreaming, again. Things were touch and go, it seemed. Many lost their jobs and their futures. Ben, on the other hand, kept his largess going (way beyond what was necessary - and, Janet follows the same path).

So, that has created a large bifurcation with gigantic accumulations (or, Richer as smarter? being the theme to explore) for a relatively small set.


So, let's take rich. Does giving away your riches remove all of the negative impacts that the accumulation thereof created? No, of course, not. We have to consider this subject, time and again (it's age-old and not of this recent time). But, can using your riches, at least, help some? Of course.

What can we look at on the other side? Well, Tolstoy (how much does one man need?) comes to mind. How much does one need? Well, enough, one would think, to be able to take care of yourself and your significant others. And, perhaps, a little breathing room beyond that.

But, can one be happy with less (as in, austerity, as many in Europe were recently forced to face)? That is a point to discuss. Again, the answer can be yes, unless you're in hock to some unreasonable person (and, pulling/pushing people into debt has become a big thing - to be discussed, again and again).

And, there is some minimum required to have a decent, respectful life (whence this is a big issue to address).


What has happened with Ben's/Janet's largess is that a bubble has come about. Yes. It is there. And, the cheshire multiple makes the thing even more troublesome (we'll get to this, again and again). Yet, there seems to be a blindness (something to study, too).


So, we'll have to consider types of smart. As well, how can unbalanced, unjust states be considered smart (except for those licking their chops)?

Remarks:   Modified: 07/03/2014

06/09/2014 -- Ray Dalio and his views. 

06/12/2014 -- One way to look at this: cognitive elitism.

07/03/2014 -- The Magna Charta is a wonderful example for us to apply to provider (king)/user (baron) issues.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Formally truthful

Ah, what a mouthful. Meaning what?

From CACM article,
Formally Verified Mathematics
The CACM, April 2014, had an article about formal approaches to mathematical proofs. It was titled Formally Verified Mathematics and is readable on-line (image is from the article). Now, this article struck me, for several reasons, motivating this post.

The context? The proliferation of apps (see thoughts on algorithms) ought to be a concern. The auto industry seems to live more with recalls than not (many times, "computer" and "software" appear in the explanation). We just had a bad financial failing from which only the manipulators recovered (and they're at it still, yes HFTers - riggers by any other name, are riggers). The litany is depressing to behold.

Now, the authors (Jeremy Avigad and John Harrison) provide a nice overview of the issues. They actually mention the work of many (who's who) who have looked at the issues. To be brief, we have several things leading to the fact that proofs are difficult and not possible computationally without human assistance (we really need to discuss man-in-the-loop imperatives, in this case).

But, how does one get such human assistance? As, with the growing awareness of singularity (big S - actually, there are many singularities - Remarks, 05/19/2013), we get to where the computer does things that are not understandable by humans. In short, take code, do you know what it does without running it through some parse/execution device? If you do, it would have to be some trivial stuff (let me generate something very effective using rewites, etc., and then look at the code - all sorts of other methods can be proposed).

So, yes, mathematicians have interactive approaches, with supporting tools. This means that we get to a state where the computer is essential (we actually got there a long while ago - how could such an important thing devolve into a game'd affair?). In one example, they talk of a proof that was 255 pages (journal style) in the '60s for a theorem. Of course, such proving took a lot of time to state; too, it took much effort to verify.

Now, the computer can help in the verify step being faster than us in lots of way. Smarter? No way. We'll get to that (again and again). It's a "being" issue, folks.

Now, that 255 pages can be done with 150K lines of code (talking fairly terse stuff here). But, even then, a lot of stuff is not expressed but it implied with rules. Definitions, and such, would be mostly explicit.  


Where are we going with this? You see, mathematics does involve rigor. Formal systems are a part of mathematics, in certain senses. Computational systems are formal (yes, they are, even if it's ignored at the level of the user). Yet, we have people spawing off system willy-nilly; even the big folks do this (tsk, tsk) as the end user can be the tester.

Now, this whole thing is not to argue for being more formal and slow. Rather, we really need to get a handle on the operational aspects (beyond agility, young ones, okay?) such that we have a better handle on risks. Anyone care? Yes, those who get hurt by these types of failures. Those who are dependent upon such or who care for such.

How ought this be done? Very good question. But, my put is to propose that such techniques would very much intersect with the issues of truth engineering. So, there is one little bit about motivation for all of this stuff in this blog.


In that same issue of the CACM were some interesting (and related) articles. I've listed some of them by title (some may not be publicly readable on-line - requiring an account).
  • Unifying Functional and Object-Oriented Programming with Scala - the surprise was use by several web vendors (those who provide something cloud-wise). For example, LinkedIn switched to the approach. 
  • Security and Privacy for Augmented Reality Systems - timely, yes, and, of note, especially in regard to looking forward to issues rather than trying to cope after the fact. Perhaps, as the web user mature, and get away from the frills and titillation, we can get to more looking at more reliable types of things. 
  • Re:Search - Here are two blogs by Ken MacLeod (The Early Days of a Better Nation, Ken MacLeod Writing). The former resonates, as, in another context, I'm looking at the early days of this nation (that in which I sit writing). 
Remarks:   Modified: 01/23/2015

05/30/2014 -- The May CACM (Vol. 57, No. 5) had an interesting article title "Understanding the Empirical Hardness of NP-Complete Problems" in which the authors talk about helping resolve hardness, somewhat (taming the beast), via statistical means (in terms of things, like SAT-solvers). Makes one almost thing that these issues are of no concern going forward (throw computational power at the problem). But, it cannot be as easy as that (to wit, at the end of the 18th century, the Illuminati was claiming that everything was known about physics - so everyone go home and twiddle your thumbs). As the authors say, has to do with whether you can get solutions and whether you can do so in a reasonable time. Yet, there is more (still to be characterized). If the spaces quake, solutions become more difficult. Say what? Yes, we'll be getting back to this.

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).

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Content and more

Content? Yes, would not all of us like to be such?

But, the web works against that blissful state, for various reasons, which will be a continuing theme for this blog (metaphors abound).

In the meantime, we have to consider the management of our information, called content, both on the web and not. Which of those is of a larger size? Some, no doubt, would argue for the former; such are the was of the e-literate.

However, in truth, non-web'd (where web encompasses a whole lot, including those "cloudish" things that are so appealing) is the larger; showing this is one of our tasks.


Decisions made a couple of years ago resulted in a serious of learning experiences which helped the blogger update his world view. You see, he has been web-izing since its beginning (and, before). Too, he has watched the various newcomers appear, like waves in the ocean. At any point, some of these make a splash (make someone a bunch of money).

Yet, none have really been enough to bring contentment. Until now which we'll go into below. First, though, let's recap.
  • The precipitating event as the need to move a website (associated with the TGS) because of Office Live going away. Several people had built processes upon this freebie offered by Microsoft. Having that basis jarred was interesting (several posts). 
  • After casting about for some alternative, the site was moved to a hosting facility. However, it was done in a mode that is late 1990s in flavor. Why? Fall back position (important lesson learned long ago while dealing with large, complicated systems). There was some attention paid to tools (this old timer has all sorts of opinions on the matter). Yet, none were attractive (Sea Monkey's Composer felt good, for the time). 
  • Later, I started to look at CMS approaches. That took several iterations to get the proper feel. 
  • None really clicked. For one thing, databases are overused (we'll go on about that, folks, time and again - any young one listening?). Too, a lot of effort is put into the titillation requirements that seem to be implicit. So, I continued with my static approach. 
  • Then, I gave CMS another chance and did a couple of examples. One of these has been used for a What's New for a few months. 
  • Of late, I have gotten back to code, thanks to Codecademy (code is a right, rather than being a privilege - yes, I want to know what crap comes down to my browser). During the past sixty days, I have played with several environments. Python still looks good (albeit server related), but I'm not making a decision about the language, yet. Using several languages may be the necessity (due to contextual imperatives).
Today, I took another look at WordPress and was impressed (see showcase examples). So, within the next few days, I will try it again within the context of TGS content and will get back with the specifics. 

Remarks:   Modified: 01/21/2019

04/25/2014 -- Oh yes, Internet shock. The Office Live fallout pales in comparison but is analogous enough for us to use as an example.

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.

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

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.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

SAT Solvers

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

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

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

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

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

Catch-22? Somewhat. But, not.

Remarks:   Modified: 05/30/2014

04/24/2014 -- For a recent discussion on the other SAT, see Rick's post (he mentions big data and analytics, thereof).

05/30/2014 -- The May CACM (Vol. 57, No. 5) had an interesting article title "Understanding the Empirical Hardness of NP-Complete Problems" in which the authors talk about helping resolve hardness, somewhat (taming the beast), via statistical means. Makes one almost thing that these issues are of no concern going forward (throw computational power at the problem). But, it cannot be as easy as that (to wit, at the end of the 18th century, the Illuminati was claiming that everything was known about physics - so everyone go home and twiddle your thumbs). As the authors say, has to do with whether you can get solutions and whether you can do so in a reasonable time. Yet, there is more (still to be characterized). If the spaces quake, solutions become more difficult. Say what? Yes, we'll be getting back to this.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Codecademy, again

Context: See Tru'eng anewfocus going forwardmathematics.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:   Modified: 01/15/2015

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

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

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

05/27/2914 -- Codecademy has a nice Javascript glossary with examples.

06/23/2014 -- Example of true cost being ignored: Phone app in eight hours.

01/05/2015 -- Tru'eng, anew. This post is one of the most popular, of late, which raises some interesting questions. But, code as the focus? We have this from Tegmark: Consciousness as a state of matter.

01/15/2015 -- I will be getting back to their site, soon. Perhaps, I can use javascript to have some demos about this topic which is a series that will establish the basis and extensions for a fair and technical economic framework (motivation? sustainability). We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Logic, Probability, Reflection, and more

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:   Modified: 03/23/2014

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

Monday, February 24, 2014

Professor Lucio Arteaga

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Remarks:   Modified: 04/01/2017

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

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

03/03/2014 -- Mathematicians have ancestors, know about it, and honor them. What other field does that? My mathematical pedigree:
08/07/2014 (edited 04/01/2017) -- Georges Metanonski's autodidact start: My universities (formerly, two chapters, now off-line - My Universities 1, My Universities 2). The query of importance about the autodidact's role in society is this: does such learning bring into play insights that are not attainable under the regimen of the institutional environment?

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

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

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

Focus going forward

Context: See Tru'eng anewfocus going forwardmathematics.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:   Modified: 01/05/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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