Linear logic

Having taken a re-look at linear logic lately, and seeing the extensions as addressed in an ACM Communications' overview, I got the idea that this work could be used to illustrate some of the needed ideas, such as why things are hard.

From a computational sense, this logic has fitted well into the more problematic areas that we try to handle in the modern contexts, especially with growing use of computer systems. It does allow a better handling of proofs without falling into the traps of classical logic.

Yet, its entailment is not decidable. Somehow, we need to get that notion better understood. I've used the fact that we don't have 20-20 vision going further (farther, as in, forward movement from a position or state). Of course, we may not have 20-20 in hindsight, either.

Now, why is linear logic so important? It parallels the progress in advanced linear algebra that has been so important to numeric systems and visualization. That is, even non-linear problems are approximated using linear techniques.

And, we, essentially, have overlaid the world with this type of constraining view, despite that we know the limits of monotonicity and have determined the need for non-monotonicity in complex systems. That is, those with numeracy have superimposed upon us what is very well suspect.

That anyone would argue for some caution raises the ad hominem argument of innumeracy.

---

Now, having before raised the notion of getting technical, we'll do so (actually, we'll plumb to whatever depth is necessary -- the request of the reader? soar as far as we must, to boot). At first, we'll go top down, trying to establish a sound, coherent viewpoint (notice that this is juxtaposed to that approach which has been developed for the past 200 years and which has been deleterious -- disrespect for that which makes us human -- as well as beneficial - attempts at firming up the plumbing which can still leak - outside of our control).

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

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

11/16/2010 -- It is the fact that there are serious lapses in what we can and do know. Now, our maturity provides the basis for decisioning under the resulting uncertainty. That the computer has become a major player raises a whole bunch of issues. The main one is that the underlying framework is undecidable. Plenty have danced around this subject, but linear logic allows us to look at the problem more realistically.

11/10/2010 -- Jim M. could be a hero if he learned the lesson of undecidability.

Modified: 10/12/2011

Truth and media

Of course, we mean 'media' in a broad sense which includes the social, such as Facebook (the metaphor).

The Atlantic has a good article related to the fuzzy nature of facts. Of course, they're talking about this: that which could be called 'disinformation' seems to have taken hold of the information flow by using manipulations of computational (including network) technology.

Ah, there is no better way to introduce the need for truth engineering. You see, even with those supposedly solid facts of the past, it was not as solid as people thought - one source for the interminable conflicts. Even the facts of science can undergo slight perturbations. The same issue of The Atlantic tells us that even science runs after recognition and money.

Of course, we can know what is the underlying reality (big-T truth issue - which have been skirted around, to date, here) better than we have allowed, yet it will always be a mystery, for several reasons.

In fact, what we have found (look closely) is that our reality is wrapped in this digitally-framed cloud that has such power as to alter our thinking in order for us to correspond with (as in communication) the models based upon that set of frameworks (thanks a lot, applied mathematics). Yes, we dumb down ourselves in order to make our systems appear smart.

And, that dumbing is sugar-coated since we can lull ourselves into the belief embedded within a set of complicated mathematical expressions whose 'truth' we cannot compute (no, we need our artificial servants - to whom, we'll eternally bow, if we do not grasp the horn - again, truth engineering - with people's intuition as the key factor).

Wait, crowd wisdom? It may be a matter of training: move from lemming-ness to a higher-order (can we do this?) state (yes, ask any of the smartie group or, for that matter, the manic at their upmost part of the cycle).

Oh? Yes, neuropeptidergic will be important. Had a good breakfast? And, fasting-influenced cognition may be of interest, to boot.

Remarks:

10/28/2010 -- As with the ca-pital-sino, many of our rights have been usurped and our domains interloped.

Modified: 10/28/2010

Truth and law

Well, let's see, Bank of American was first. But, then, they bought Countrywide. So, would they not be first? What took them so long?

Then, we see others following.

Doing what? Admitting that they had robot-signing. Ah! How can there be truth in any situation where corners are being cut?

The question applies in general, as we see cost cutting as the main motivator for things that come back to bite us. In terms of public safety, it's always a battle between the lame-brained view of capitalism and the necessary view of we, the people.

Oh, wait! 'people' are no more than fodder for the capitalists to exploit. Yes, that age-old class oriented view is still around. With new players.

Then, we hear that Goldman Sachs spawned Paulson who then sat on his hands so that they could make a bunch of money. Old GS is trying to stay under the radar, it seems.

Methinks that what we have now is the reincarnated souls of the idiots of the past in perpetuity working out the same problems time and again.

Gosh, even the Dalai Lama thinks that he'll come back for another try.

What really grates is that those inclined toward that position of limited insight, namely the libertarian view - did they wipe their own butts as babies? (oh, wait!, their adulthood consists of expecting all to serve their wishes) -- think that capitalism is a divinely bestowed gift to them. And, the main prophet is Smith (Adam tells me that he never offered himself for that role), supposedly.

Then, they think that there are mechanisms (see Remarks) that'll magically bring their wishes to fore. In many cases, it is the fact that the money'd manipulate the law that is the key.

Oh, may we get started on the Magna Carta update? And, then start to build, construct, a better capitalistic system.

For those who may perceive the notion, yes, we need a constructive view, not that built upon fancy.

Remarks:

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. New robber barons?

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

Modified: 08/24/2011

May and Must

We can use these two concepts to discuss the basis for truth engineering and to look at oops related to improper handling.

We use 'must' in the sense of knowing that something is true or false. There is a larger set of unknowns, as in 'may' be true or false. We know that 'may' is much larger than 'must' (ignoring big 'T' issues, for now, and allowing some hierarchy of unbounded sets) just from our experiences.

These sets, must and may, can be subsumed by overlaying with reals, that is we can take 1.0 as true and 0.0 as false. We, then, have that large collection in between.

Of course, this concept applies in a computational context. Not many run around with a world view based upon the reals. Not without some gizmo for handling the numbers. What we see in the modern world is that computation, and abstraction, are overlaying reality.

Such is progress, but we need to get this right, folks.

As we have already mentioned, various issues come to fore with the modern way of doing things, such as map-territory misconstruing and much more. We need to change our ways, somewhat, and do more than just stress critical thinking.

You see, no amount of critical thinking will offset undecidability and the overly complex nature of the world. Now, creativity does help.

For some, there is fear that comes from not knowing. What manager (politician) wants to talk in terms of 'may' when the audience (like the vultures of capitalism) want to hear certainty.

Granted, the problems that will be looked at are related to logic, computing, and applications thereof. That is, the modern mind and its models are the core issue. Some people seem to be beyond the types of limitations that need to be discussed, yet whether they are, or not, is itself an open-ended issue (big T).

Sure, we like to see the confident. Success in the world does point to some type of knowing. That the gaming (chimera) has adapted itself to optimize types of insights (that is, insider views, arbitrage positions that are 'must' (and ought to be a public good/debt) yet have been privatized, and more -- we can enumerate these).

So, what's the issue here? Well, an ACM paper (Intro, Article) discusses static analysis of a program and suggests means to do so successfully. The basic problem is NP-complete so cleverness is in order. Yet, the creative moves have their costs and undesirable effects.

In essence, it's not impossible to do this type of proof, just very hard. And, when done, the results are conditioned upon several things.

That ought to give us pause about planning for the future and for doing large projects. Let's take the discussion over to the FEDaerated context.

Remarks:

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 09/27/2010

Believe whom?

The Toyota SUA problem is in the news, again (really hasn't left). The USA Today reports that nothing was found by looking at the black box recording to indicate other than user error.

But, then, an export says that this determination was not based upon complete enough analysis to mean much.

I would ask, how can anything of substance be found without thorough shakedown of the systems, including code? Perhaps, we ought to be looking at the limits of behavioral testing taken by itself.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/26/2011 -- Another go

.02/22/2011 -- One expert site says they wouldn't buy these cars for their kid. A few recent incidents.

02/09/2011 -- Brief comment (will keep updates at this post). They did look at code. Some slight theoretical chance of error was mentioned, to boot. Yet, as NASA knows, those 'slight' measurements assume a whole lot that is not as rational (think, Gaussian overlays, etc.) as some would expect. Again, watch this site, too.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Apps and truth

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

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

...

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

...

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

Ontology and epistemology are a couple of important issues here.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

Modified: 01/23/2015

Truth derivatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Handelsman.

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 01/22/2013