4th December

We've been at it enough to have four last posts for a year. It might be interesting to look at these with some commentary, starting with the one for 2007.

• 2007 (5 posts) -- Extrapolation, calibration, truth -- Originally, this attempted to look at an ongoing technical problem. Those who tout operational definition are heading the right way. Too, see the 2010 last post below. Until the issues of undecidability and its consequences are understood, those who game will continue to wreck the lives of the innocent.
• 2008 (5 posts) -- Last post for 2008 -- This was written before the 'new day' and when much ink was being spilled about the bad guys. Then, for two years, they used our money to make money and to pay themselves bonuses. That is, those who could. A whole bunch of bankers are now facing doomsday (1000s?). We'll see more on this in 2011.
• 2009 (2 posts) -- Dead peasant -- Still find it hard to believe 1) that bankers are this gross and 2) that the insurance industry has to allow this type of obvious ethical malfeasance. The bank's initial payout was the policy payoff value minus the premium. Now, people, in what universe is this type of thing seen as a good business deal? Oh, by the way, is this how bankers are to make their living? Remember, folks, that we can run all this highly glorious stuff with a few smart people who know about simple living and who understand that entanglement means that everyone needs (actually, deserves) to not be entrapped forever in the debt being accumulated for us by the fat cats' actions.
• 2010 (2 posts) -- Software issues -- Needless to say, the uses of computing have accelerated far beyond what was seen just a few years ago. Who foresaw that 'apps' would become so embedded within the language? However, the problems remain in their eternal state which, then, implies that we can 'app'ly solutions, albeit they approximate only what would be ideal. That, folks, is our lot: to deal, within our limitations, what is essentially unbounded.

---

Well, the issues remain the same. Recognition of bad thinking increases, though, with time. And, we're some type of higher-order, evolved, creature?

Remarks:

12/29/2012 --  Summary - 2012.

02/26/2011 -- Added links to the months' archives. Another go.

02/08/2011 -- A topic of a year ago: 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.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

01/23/2011 -- Added number of posts by the month for the year. Also, we have a 4th January, to boot.

Modified: 12/29/2012

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

Motivations

Though t-issues are important to the discussion, these are for the most part of little-t type. From time to time, there can be big 'T' issues brought in, such as this one or that one. It is of interest that both deal with things economic.

Are there big-T issues in engineering? Or, are they just easier to avoid?

Well, we can re-look at why truth engineering in this context. System thinking is a late attribute of enlightenment quest that we can trace over 100s of years. How all this came about can be avoided, skirting several big-T topics.

Yet, the basic theme is that systems relate to problem solving (oops minimization). Computational efforts then followed, and, for a long while, the computer was the human brain with some artifacts involved. Applied mathematics, and resolving systems of equations, was the focus of a lot of energy by very smart people.

We have to acknowledge their stamina, to boot. Some types of problems, that nowadays take the blink of an eye on a modern computational device, took years for people to work. One just has to marvel at the initiative, work ethic, and management skills in terms of tracking all of the details.

As our prowess increased, that which did the work became more artificially based. We're almost to the point that if the computer is not used in some professional situations things may be bordering on mal-practice.

Yet, just as we have underdetermination at the core of our knowledge, the real core of computing is undecidable. Wait! Yes. If we acknowledge that the basic circuitry is for the most part decidable, we can feel better. However, folks, progress has place real-time switching there that can be very problematic.

In fact, one worry ought to be that malfeasance-motivated mischief is not embedded. The US DOD takes this seriously.

But, we'll get back to that. Even if the switching was very stable, what we build upon the framework, layer by layer, introduces back the problematic issues real quick. Then, when we look at the growing presence (ubiquity), it can become very much troublesome.

Now, recognition of that is the motivation of the proposal that truth engineering is essential. Yes, it is necessary that computation be involved and that the majority of the work is being done by some artifact, but is that not the case and is not that expected to continue to grow?

Remarks:

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

12/17/2010 -- An interesting topic may have presented itself for further study in this regard.

Modified: 01/22/2013

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