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

Software genies

Note, the title doesn't say 'genius' as some might expect. There is a lot of hubris that has been generated by systems weenies, what with the exhibited prowess, the accumulated monies, and the wizardry aura.

Guess what, folks? Throughout our times, humans have been foil for peddlers and malfeasance. Nothing wrong with that, capitalism comes out of that realm. Too, our materialistic, and scientific, progress has caused us to ignore the fact that there is a whole lot that we don't control.

For the most part, the systems, including control, people have won the day. Certain operating systems just crash with no warning (and on a massive scale). So we grumble, but to whom can there be a complaint? Too, the web user, many times, runs into some interminable process (hey, peoples, the basic notion here is undecidability). In this case, just redoing the action can overcome the problem.

There are many, many examples. And, OS, and system, crashes have been the direct cause of billions of losses. How much is being bled, malfeasance'd, from our economy with web-assisted means?

Anyone take the blame here? With these types of losses?

---

Well, in some cases, such as medical computing, we've seen cases where culpability was established and enforced. Too, in flight systems, there is a lot of thought and effort put into safe computing. And, finally, there is going to be an effort at beefing up cyber security.

Ever think the WWW as safe? Of course, that question is directed in the context of mature reason and actual experience. The actions of a whole bunch of unawares seem to indicate that the real problems are not understood. Perhaps, training ought to be better (computing, like other important things, ought to be safe).

Now, did you ever think that computer-related failures would show up in your car? Again, 'computer-related' here subsumes a whole lot, including the systems and the mathematics. Did you think that hubris would allow the spawning of potential 'genies' on the populace on such a large scale (thank goodness, for the older technology)?

But, it has happened and will continue.

---

It's interesting that Consumer Report did some testing before the fact. One thing to be concerned about is the completeness of those things tested before a car is released to the public. Of course, 'completeness' is used advisedly (think Godel), as we cannot attain such, to the nth degree that the political types would like to have us believe.

No, there will be tradeoffs which will require us to be smart. And, the tradeoff analysis ought to be done in a visible arena.

So, we'll see failures. Is the forum open? No, and, then they 'hack' a solution and cast it out across the waters! I guess we need to make it more apparent that changes, themselves release new 'genies' in a manner that requires extreme care (like making software an industry problem, for example).

---

One thing to point out is that hubris leads many to think that some entity that is a collection of systems and sensors is equivalent to a real being. Part of the hubris rests on advances that show that control, and convergence, are partly algorithmic. Yet, that success can hide just how close we come to divergence.

The recent test results point to an area that we need to rethink. And, from this blogger's view, it'll end up requiring what might be specified as 'truth' engineering (of course, there may be a better moniker to use as a handle for the subject).

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).

03/09/2013 -- Zeno can be put forth today in other than a facetious sense.

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

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

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, driver in the loop, ...

05/10/2010 -- Out of control, essentially. Commentary, and cartoon, via USA Today is right on.

Modified: 01/23/2015

Who knows?

Earlier, there was a question about 'who is to know?' in the financial context. Economics is not called 'dismal' for no reason.

Then, we observed the frenzy created by the media about some car problems. Essentially, there are many assumptions about quality that go unaddressed until after the fact of accidents, it seems. Some of this may be due to a slackening of effort, since business has been driven by costs for some time now (that is, the CEO as king as opposed to making the consumer the king, okay?).

But, some problems arise from the difficulties of the cyber-physical. That is, this topic is now being addressed by the NSF, however there is much more to it than the current views cover.

It was good to see in the case of the car problems that experts who are outside the discipline, namely NASA and NAS, are being brought in as these issues go fairly deep. That action raises the level of talent being devoted to the problem and may become more necessary than not as products become more complicated.

By the way, one set of experts addresses myths vs facts. This is an interesting read as it shows that the manufacturer has to consider failure modes in order to instruct the driver what to do when an incident occurs that needs attention. Actually, problem avoidance requires identifying these modes of possible failure, too, so as to lower their possibility during design or to anticipate corrective actions, as we see here.

This, then, raises, again, the question of who represents the consumer in this case? Who would have thought that the merely rolling (as we all do when at a stop light on a hill while we move our foot from the brake to the gas pedal) would raise the likelihood of such a dire consequence?

Remarks:

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

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.

08/13/2010 -- Recent news that it's user error.

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

Modified: 02/26/2011

Can of worms

Well, who are we to believe? It's turning out that the answer to this question is less certain through time than we would like, in many situations.

In a recent one, the past couple of days has us seeing Toyota trying to disprove one professor by using another. Nothing new about that; science is supposed work via a type of dialectic. But, gamemanship, and such, as the main focus? (A third professor's view)

That people have experienced, and suffered the consequences of, some type of failure of auto control systems is the one fact not to be forgotten.

And, one would hope that the illustrious car company, whose reputation has always been associated with value and quality, will take the high road and do the right thing. Which is? (Note: 03/12/10 -- ah, they are, here is their web site related to recalls)

Well, Congress' panels ought to take the thing to its full extent, or at least as far as their monied selves will let them (definition of the politico set, of late, is characterized by a salivation response to the stimulus of money under the nose).

The Administration needs to live up to its responsibility. Which is? Act as mediator for disparate views (see below) and be an advocate for us, the wee people.

Now, for some of the other roles and views. Engineers need (and ought to be allowed) to work out the technical issues as they may. However, that we're talking hardware (operational and computational - with software for the latter) means that it's a new game. Perhaps, this dilemma might be an opportunity to learn some necessary lessons.

Lawyers? Well, several things here. But, one of these ought not be suppressing the truth by manipulating fear. That counsel goes for both sides. Whose first principles apply?

People, and drivers? Wake the heck up to the growing presence of little hidden 'bots' (general use of a term which is meant to imply that the genie has been let out of the bottle) that can play havoc with us if we don't pay attention. But what are we to do?

Evidently, for awhile, there has been a growing computational framework for the driving platform due to our technical progress of the last few decades. Surprise! Of course, this has been obvious, but we've let ourselves trust too much.

Too, some of us seem to have gone to a total zombie state (you know who you are), in this sense: mind warped by, and wrapped around, an abstracted, thereby virtual, cloud via thumb and eye, in the driving mode, to the extent that the vehicle has become a mindless WMD with no one in control.

Such behavior, on the part of the reckless, has allowed the potentials for devastation, for the driver and for those unlucky souls in the presence of the driver, to increase inordinately.

Of course, we might use that last condition as evidence of the influence that the 'gaming' generation's upbringing (computation in their blood, almost) has had some insidious repercussions that seriously need our attention.

That comment is not being negative; it is more this: the issues related to truth engineering need to be at the forefront (more below) of both an analytic and corrective (in the sense of control theory) stance.

Does failsafe mean anything to the people? Well, we could think of several connotations that are general, but that any of these might pertain to some type of increased certainty needs to be lifted to view for some serious scrutiny.

Why? For a computational system to be risk minimal, there are several things that need to happen. For one, all domains need to be decidable. Okay, sub-domains will be decidable. Any arbitrary collection of these will not, by default, be decidable. It (that is, the order and stability that we all desire) has to be imposed.

By the way, for now, just think of decidable as subsuming stability, convergence, and other numerically behaved properties (technical geeks, be patient, we'll get there - quasi-empiricism).

Too, even if we attain the desired, decidable, state, it may have been due to some type of cleverness and accomplished by a man-in-the-loop. Yet, that 'man' is not everyman but is someone who needs to be cognizant of the decisional issues, to be awake (aware, see above, zombie reference (state of mindless flow (apologies to Buddha) which is insensitive to subtle changes in the related sensors)), and to be experienced (one impetus for the growing use of simulation/visualization in the modern world).

What is decidable? Well, it is not something to assume. Some designers will argue that they've accomplished the necessary assumption set for closure. Ah! In an open framework, such as we see with driving, there is no proof of this. Why do you think that new products require so much testing? Even those with mathematical, and modeling, support need some type of empirical workout (an airplane, for example).

You see, there is really no basic mathematical foundation for these types of decisions that alleviates us of the need for caution. Why do you think that managers and lawyers get involved? Too, the required, onerous, aspects are costly both in time and resources (money, people) so we get the bean counters involved.

Engineers know these things, but they are human and can err.

Who to believe? Well, this is solvable, folks, but requires some effort. We'll use the situation to explore some of the issues and propose possible outcomes.

Leaping ahead: how can we get the proper stable computational bases for these operational entities without some serious cooperation across the industry to the extent, even, of having common platforms?

What? Yes, any creative, and competitive advantage, aspect probably ought to be limited to a small region of performance that could easily be tested.

So, let's bring the concepts of failsafe to fore. This will take a few posts, but here is a short list, for starters.

• Failsafe - acknowledges the possibility of failure and attempts some type of prevention (and lessening) of consequences
• Failure mode - recognition of these is necessary to know how to manage the failures even if they are to occur with minuscule probability
• Who to believe? - yes, in the small world of a system, there will be sensors, decisioners (bow to the great GWB), connectors, and more which at any time can be in conflict (computational sense - constraint satisfaction, NP, meaning hard) about what they know and what to do; too, there will be need some type of rectification (we might say, auto programmers, like quants, ignore complexity) even if the situation is undecidable (that's one reason for overrides, folks - yet, a mere brake override is not sufficient)

In terms of the last item, yes, the macro issues very much parallel those of the micro view. Or, we can look at it the other way.

We all learn conflict resolution in kindergarten or earlier. As we know, conflicts are real, some may even say essential (think ca-pital-sino). And, we know that power from the top-down (hammering down the opposition, for the politocos) can suppress the truth, thereby causing easy (or so it seems) resolution (which usually is a partial solution).

That this situation exists can allow a more complete discussion of some important issues (subsequent posts).

Remarks:

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

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

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.

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/15/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Of course, some media may be better than others. Popular Mechanics has a good article about the Toyota issue. Notice the comments: a wide range, some seemingly coherent and well expressed. However, that the overall tone of the article suggests user error as the chief problem is something that ought to be analyzed itself. For instance, if the accelerator and the brake pedals are being confused by the foot and mind of the driver, is that not indicative that someone didn't think to cause sufficient means to differentiate the two? Ah, ought there not to have been some studies to 'optimize' such selection? One problem with the modern world, folks, is that we apply set discriminators (in general, separation algorithms) without regard to some of the nuances that apply. Oh yes. One criticism of Lean (and Toyota's system) is that is cuts to the quick in a very efficient manner; at the same time, these actions leave a state in which it is very hard to recover traces sufficient for analysis, many times. That is one thing the NHTSA ought to look at in terms of what might be necessary to perform ex-post-facto diagnosis.

03/12/2010 -- Forgot to mention one player, namely the media, especially TV. Guys/gals, don't monkey with reports in order to emphasize some viewpoint, such as ABC is accused of doing. Oh, it's just editing, they claim. Wait, aren't media businesses just like the car makers driven by market share and profit? ... The question was asked: doesn't the public know that Toyota, with all its resources, hasn't looked at the underlying issues? Well, we also know that Toyota publicly admitted moving negatively on a quality line in order to put resources toward expansion of the market share. How to attain balance? Good question in that even the best-and-brightest fail regularly.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Cars and quality

We all have some sense of quality when it comes to the auto. Progress has given us safety glass, air bags, crash worthiness concepts, and a whole lot more. What about the growing inclusion of systems which deal with sensors, networks, chips, AND software (hacked out or what?).

Turns out that recent events (or, to put it another way, revelations of the reality that been slipped under our collective noses) point to the necessity of what truth engineering has been trying to define, discuss, and deal with.

We could say that it's probably not a bad thing that Toyota is the focal point. For one, cars have become increasingly dependent upon what could be characterized as 'drive-by-wire' systems. But, a lot of this was put into place under the covers. Who knew, for instance, that the accelerator on some cars is a phony, being essentially a switch that is supposed to feel like the real thing?

As mentioned in many posts here, we have essentially taken our success at layering our abstractions on computers (just look at the computational marvels everywhere - too bad that it's led to zombies texting their inanity across precious virtual space) and let that success breed hubris (ah, how many projects brought down by the lowly computer?).

Guess what? The same thing happened to our finances where we let the (supposed, we're going to be picking on Harvard in this regard - as they, too, need to step up to a leadership position here) best and brightest, and the scoundrels (Made-off), run amok using their, supposedly advanced mathematics and software.

It's time to step back and reconsider, folks. Remember this: there is no easy answer, no silver bullet, or quick fix.

But, the situation is not un-resolvable if we proceed using quasi-empiricism.

That is one of the points here.

Remarks:

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

02/26/2011 -- Another go.

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.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

03/12/2010 -- Toyota's web site that is related to recalls.

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain. Where is there an auto user group?

Modified: 01/22/2013

Lordly Prince trap

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

--

Following up on the book that supposedly is for government, we have to announce that any business executive can have as much hubris, or even more, than any little civil servant. And, bankers are top on the list.

So, adding to the Eggers/O'Leary list, we'll start with the Lordly Prince trap which relates to an unbounded sense of entitlement for success. Our problem? As we've seen, this entails, a lot, misuse of other people's money and enfringement on the rights of others.

The best-and-brightest are only a part of this set, and CEOs are just about all infected, as a class, with this little defect. This is one side of the Lord/Serf phenomenon and a large factor in out-housing.

Remarks:

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

11/27/2011 -- Continuation, somewhat.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

Modified: 01/05/2015

Dead peasant

Earlier, in terms of class acts (bankers, in particular), there was a post that mentioned the 'dead peasant' issue that has come to attention, of late. Not that it wasn't already an established thing. Rather, we now know.

What does 'dead peasant' refer to? Well, it's not a bird in hand in some place like Stratford, Texas (the pheasant capital of the world). Rather, it's a reminder of times past when lords had their serfs (peasants). The lord owned all, much like the modern capitalist thinks he or she owns all under their view.

Gosh, that companies can be given the same rights as a human seems to outrageous. What it does is create a bully, yes legal minds consider that (oh, wait, is that not what many lawyers are?). Of course, given that the legal mind has more on its plate than human rights, what ought we to expect?

Anyone who has worked for a company, both management (lower levels) and non-management, knows that one gives one's soul to the company (you load more than 16 tons and get only cursory attention and respect) and that, in many cases when one is feeble and old, promises of a decent retirement don't come forth.

Getting back to the issue at hand, let's just list a few items with comment.

• -- The WSJ had a good overview of the situation. You have to pay to see, but the first part mentions that Bank of America, itself, had received over 17B (yes, billion) at the end of the first quarter of 2009.
• -- Hair Balls' comments are accessible. It points to an original storyline (Feb 2009 timeframe).
  
• 
  
• -- Michael Moore weighs in.
  
• ...
  

Enough said, for the moment.

Remarks:

10/28/2011 -- Unconscionable, in any sane way. The OWS ought to look at this.

05/28/2011 -- They also gave us more lemons than not.

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

01/01/2011 -- The bank settled.

Modified: 10/28/2011