Intuition-geometry-computation
Locked
Intuition-geometry-computation
 
|
Peter, Thanks for helping out here. I make my comment below in CAPS. Not SHOUTING, I promise. N > [Original Message] > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > To: <friam at redfish.com> > Date: 7/25/2007 10:03:55 AM > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22 > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam at redfish.com > > -------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:39:06 -0600 > From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net> > Subject: [FRIAM] Intuition-geometry-computation-mathematics > To: friam at redfish.com > Message-ID: <380-22007722418396563 at earthlink.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Intuition-geometry-computation-mathematics > > The limitations of the mean value theorem are well understood by any > carpenter who ever laid out a triangular roof beam. The mean slope is > of the horizontal tie beam; the local slope is that of the rafters. > Nowhere does any piece of rafter have the mean slope. I THINK MY MATHEMATICAL CORRESPONPONDENTS WILL RESPOND THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENTIABLE, CONTINUOUS FUNCTION THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE SHAPE OF A ROOF. THEREFORE THE MEAN VALUE THEORY DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT APPLY. LET'S SEE! nICK > > Intuition is in the eye of the beholder. The intuition of a test pilot is > different from that of a violinist. The fighter jock intuits that a little > topstick will sweeten his turn, the fiddler intuits tiny details of bowing > will sweeten his melody. Both are true, and learned from years of doing it > wrong. Sooo intuition about things with which one has no experience means > nothing. > Geometry has no place in mathematics. Mathematics cannot be explained > graphically -- all math proofs must be for blind men, as me tutor used to > say. Pictures are beautiful, but for architects and renaissance draftsmen. > Hardy?s great book on pure mathematics, like the Bible contains many > transcendental truths, but no prevarications, no illustrations and no > jocularities! > Computation is, shall we say, counting, very fast, on very many fingers. > Pablo Picasso said, ?Computers are useless: they can only give you answers?. > Mathematics has been called the Queen of the Sciences and is essentially an > abstract and difficult discipline. > Consider the ancient puzzlements below, which are answered differently by > the four above disciplines, and illustrate their distinction. > The length of the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle of unit side, > which cannot be determined in rational numbers (it?s called root two, but > that?s its name, not value) > The definition of the interior of a closed curve ( I dunno, nor did Cauchy > or my tutor) > The perimeter of a circle constructed from infinitely small square tiles > laid orthogonally (it?s 4 D) > The sum of the infinite series 1/n, compared with that of 1/n squared > infinite in the first case, in t?other not) > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 7/23/2007 10:03:23 AM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 21 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam at redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Why "true" random? (Robert Howard) > > 2. Re: Why "true" random? (Russell Standish) > > 3. DISREGARD: math and the mother church (Nicholas Thompson) > > 4. Re: Why "true" random? (James Steiner) > > 5. Re: DISREGARD: math and the mother church (Russell Standish) > > 6. Re: Criminalizing Peace (PPARYSKI at aol.com) > > 7. Re: Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed > > (steve smith) > > 8. Re: Why "true" random? (PPARYSKI at aol.com) > > 9. Re: Criminalizing Peace (PPARYSKI at aol.com) > > 10. Re: DISREGARD: math and the mother church (Nicholas Thompson) > > 11. Re: Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed > > (Roger Critchlow) > > 12. Re: Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed > > (Marcus G. Daniels) > > 13. It's the Spies, Stupid! (Peter Lissaman) > > 14. Re: math and the mother church (G?nther Greindl) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:52:35 -0700 > > From: "Robert Howard" <rob at symmetricobjects.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <007501c7cca2$3bd15010$0400a8c0 at Core2Duo> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > How about deleting confidential data from hard disks! > > > > The solution today is to overwrite it many times with random data. > > > > But modern mathematics and technology makes it possible to recover the > much > > of the original text given the original random sequence used to delete > > data. Given a long sequence of deleted white space (or zeros on the disk), > > then it becomes possible to recover the original pseudo-random sequence > (for > > example, one based on linear > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruence_theorem> congruence) - > even > > if a many passes are performed. > > > > With a true random number generator, only one pass is needed. > > > > I'm sure hardware random number generators based on quantum effects, > > have been around for decades, would be used instead of hitting a web site, > > which compromises the who shebang. > > > > > > > > Robert Howard > > > > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > Behalf > > Of Roger Frye > > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 6:40 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > > > > > > I would argue the opposite. While I agree with Doug that you need good > > > > RNGs (though not necessarily true RNGs) in order to avoid bias, the > > > > problem with good pseudo- or true- RNGs is that they have order N^2 > > > > convergence for Monte Carlo simulations. Quasi-random number generators > > > > on the other hand (such as multiples of an irrational square root, or a > > > > Peano tiling) converge in order N. If you can trust the results, faster > > > > conergence lets you simulate more. > > > > -Roger > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:18:36 -0600, Douglas Roberts > <doug at parrot-farm.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, > > > > > especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this > > > > > word) > > > > > emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce > > > > > emergent > > > > > behavior that will be "flavored" by a bad random sequences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:39:58 +1000 > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <20070721133957.GH845 at hells-dell.localdomain> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:52:35PM -0700, Robert Howard wrote: > > > How about deleting confidential data from hard disks! > > > > > > The solution today is to overwrite it many times with random data. > > > > > > But modern mathematics and technology makes it possible to recover the > much > > > of the original text given the original random sequence used to delete > the > > > data. Given a long sequence of deleted white space (or zeros on the > disk), > > > then it becomes possible to recover the original pseudo-random > (for > > > example, one based on linear > > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_congruence_theorem> congruence) - > even > > > if a many passes are performed. > > > > > > With a true random number generator, only one pass is needed. > > > > > > I'm sure hardware random number generators based on quantum effects, > which > > > have been around for decades, would be used instead of hitting a web > site, > > > which compromises the who shebang. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Howard > > > > > > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > > > > > > > You don't even need to do that. Entropic sources are available from > > considering timings on a system undergoing interrupts from external > > sources (eg mouse or keyboard activity). The Linux kernel performs > > this analysis and provides a conveniently encapsulated device called > > /dev/random. I used used precisely this technique to implement a disk > > erasing program a couple of years ago - and offered the possibility > > to do it multiple times for the absolutely paranoid. > > > > Note that /dev/random has rather unpredictable performance - you are > > advised to shake you mouse, or something like that when generating a > > seed for ssh for instance. To improve its performance, you use the > > output of /dev/random to fill a table, which is continually > > overwritten as new random bits become available, Then you use a > > conventional pseudo RNG to index into the table, so the resulting > > bitstream has small chunks of "correlated" numbers, but is by and > > large unpredictable. > > > > The state of the art for doing this is a library called Havege. Look > > it up if you're interested. > > > > Cheers > > > > -- > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:12:58 -0600 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > Subject: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <380-22007712301258314 at earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > SORRY, i SENT THIS OFF BEFORE IT WAS DONE! THIS VERSION IS COMPLETE > > > > Dear Friamers -- or Fry-Aimers, however it is that we are pronounced. > > > > Ever since I first got to santa fe four years ago, the pot has been > burbling here concerning what can and cannot be done with mathematics that > can or cannot be done with computation. Some have taken the position > some complex processes -- or aspects of complex processes --- can only be > understood through computational models while others -- or other aspects > --- can only be understoud through maths. I apologize to all for my > starting of the isargument in about three different places in the last > week, but I have finally decided that the FRIAM list, being the most > comprehensive list, is the best place for it. > > > > What I THOUGHT I understood about this argument was that it was about > inference tickets. All deductive arguments give you inference tickets to > travel from the premises to the conclusions. How you get to the premises > is your own business. Mathematical arguments are deduductive. They tell > you that if you can manage to get from Boston to Albany, you can get a > train to Chicago. > > > > In order to get a better idea of what it meant to be > mathematically "on a train to Chicago", I decided to read a book for > english majors on calculus recommended to me by Mike Agar. I guess I > thought this would be helpful because if ever there were some powerful > inference tickets lying about, they would be in the calculus, no? And I > thought that if I understood, how mathematicians argue for the calculus, I > would understand, perhaps, how they argue. > > > > So, here is my present understanding of the mathematician's argument for > the mean value theorem. What I dont understand is why it takes three > of algebra to get there! > > > > Let us amagine that ab is a bit of a line. It could be straight, and the > argument would still hold, but let us imagine that it is curved.... curved > up, curved down, it does not matter. Let's imagine that is an inverted U, > except that it doesnt have to be a straight up and down inverted U. In > fact, it can be sitting so that somebody wobbled it so that it is, at the > instant of being photographed, standing on one leg, about 30 degrees from > the verticle. . > > > > What does matter is that the line be continuous ALL THE WAY FROM a to B. > No gaps, not steps. Imagine that no matter how small the steps you are > taking, you can walk along the points of the line from a to b and not get > your feet wet, NOT AT ALL -- if of course your shoe size is small enough. > > > > Now draw a line that connects the bottom of the two legs of the inverted > U. As we just said, that line will move off to the right, from a through b > and beyond, at about a thirty degree angle from the horizontal. Thus the > mean slope of the tilted inverted U is 30 degrees, right? > > > > Here is what that means, as I understand it. Every point on the tilted > inverted U has a "slope", the slope of the line that is just tangent to the > U at that point. Near point "a" that slope is VERY positive; near point > "b", that slope is very negative. Now, imagine you set out to walk along > the curve from "a" to "b". If you take tiny enough steps, you MUST step on > the point where the slope is the same as the mean slope. That is what the > mean value theorem says. > > > > But I just got there without any of the algebra usually devoted to that > proof. So the question is, what is the VALUE of the algebra. If one can > estab lish the truth of such an important MATHEMATICAL theorem in other > than mathematical means, what is the value of the maths? > > > > I promise I am not MERELY trying to be a horses ass, here. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com) > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University > (nthompson at clarku.edu) > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:28:48 -0400 > > From: "James Steiner" <gregortroll at gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > <5ec674320707221728u77b5b0e7y1405f2ceafa67c80 at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed > > > > Robert, > > > > It's my understanding that there has been no documented case of data > > recovered from a hard disk that has been erased by completely > > overwriting the contents 3 or more times with your choice of 0s, 1s, > > alternating bits, random bits, or whatever, outside of a lab > > environment using magnetic electron microscopy. Is that no longer > > true? I had thought that one didn't need a particularly good RNG for > > it, since anything will do. Or, is that just what the NSA *wants* me > > to think? > > > > ~~James > > _____________________ > > http://www.turtlezero.com > > > > > > On 7/22/07, Robert Howard <rob at symmetricobjects.com> wrote: > > > How about deleting confidential data from hard disks! > > > > > > The solution today is to overwrite it many times with random data. > > > > > > But modern mathematics and technology makes it possible to recover the > much > > > of the original text given the original random sequence used to delete > the > > > data. Given a long sequence of deleted white space (or zeros on the > disk), > > > then it becomes possible to recover the original pseudo-random > (for > > > example, one based on linear congruence) ? even if a many passes are > > > performed. > > > > > > With a true random number generator, only one pass is needed. > > > > > > I'm sure hardware random number generators based on quantum effects, > which > > > have been around for decades, would be used instead of hitting a web > site, > > > which compromises the who shebang. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Howard > > > > > > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:42:01 +1000 > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church > > To: nickthompson at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <20070721154201.GJ845 at hells-dell.localdomain> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 06:12:58PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > > > > So, here is my present understanding of the mathematician's argument > for the mean value theorem. What I dont understand is why it takes three > pages of algebra to get there! > > > > I don't know where you get the 3 pages from. My analysis book does it > > 2 paragraphs of algebra, half a page at most. (That's including all > > the necessary lemmas and definitions). > > > > > > > > Let us amagine that ab is a bit of a line. It could be straight, and > the argument would still hold, but let us imagine that it is curved.... > curved up, curved down, it does not matter. Let's imagine that is an > inverted U, except that it doesnt have to be a straight up and down > inverted U. In fact, it can be sitting so that somebody wobbled it so > it is, at the instant of being photographed, standing on one leg, about 30 > degrees from the verticle. . > > > > > > What does matter is that the line be continuous ALL THE WAY FROM a to > B. No gaps, not steps. Imagine that no matter how small the steps you > are taking, you can walk along the points of the line from a to b and not > get your feet wet, NOT AT ALL -- if of course your shoe size is small > enough. > > > > > > Now draw a line that connects the bottom of the two legs of the > inverted U. As we just said, that line will move off to the right, from a > through b and beyond, at about a thirty degree angle from the > Thus the mean slope of the tilted inverted U is 30 degrees, right? > > > > > > Here is what that means, as I understand it. Every point on the tilted > inverted U has a "slope", the slope of the line that is just tangent to the > U at that point. Near point "a" that slope is VERY positive; near point > "b", that slope is very negative. Now, imagine you set out to walk along > the curve from "a" to "b". If you take tiny enough steps, you MUST step on > the point where the slope is the same as the mean slope. That is what the > mean value theorem says. > > > > > > But I just got there without any of the algebra usually devoted to that > proof. So the question is, what is the VALUE of the algebra. If one can > estab lish the truth of such an important MATHEMATICAL theorem in other > than mathematical means, what is the value of the maths? > > > > > > > What you have given is the "handwaving" version of the proof. The > > trouble is that human imagination can easily get us into trouble when > > dealing with infinities, which is necessarily involved in dealing with > > the concept of continuity. In the above example, you mention that > > continuity is important, but say nothing about differentiability. Are > > you aware that continuous curves that are nowhere differentiable > > exist? I fact most continuous curves are not differentiable. By most, > > I mean infinitely more continuous curves are not differentiable than > > those that are, a concept handled by "sets of measure zero". > > > > To give an example, consider your interval joined by two line segments > > so as to form a single kink in the middle at point c: > > > > At all points on the interior, except for the c, the slope is either > > s1 = (f(c)-f(a))/(c-a) or s2=(f(b)-f(c))/(b-c). At c, the slope is > > undefined. But neither s1 nor s2 = (f(b)-f(a))/(b-1), so the mean > > value theorem fails. > > > > > I promise I am not MERELY trying to be a horses ass, here. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > Handwaving arguments are good for developing intuition. Great for > > teaching during a lecture, and get the students to study the rigorous > > proof later. Similarly, they're good for scientific seminars, but not > > scientific papers. > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com) > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University > (nthompson at clarku.edu) > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > -- > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:24:34 EDT > > From: PPARYSKI at aol.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Criminalizing Peace > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <cbc.15ce6164.33d55d52 at aol.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I received this from Frank Wimberly and think it deserves distribution > and > > reaction. Bush's executive order is appalling and frightening even more > so > > because the media have not adequately reported it or reacted. Perhaps we > could > > apply a RNG to Bush and Cheney? cheers (?) Paul > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new > AOL at > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:38:41 -0600 > > From: steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully > > Ill-Informed > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <4a8d243665c9e2bd940e3b5a5717081b at swcp.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > I am disturbed by the non-sequitur inherent in the Subject and Body of > > this article: It suggests that the Web inherently *should* make > > Americans more well informed. > > > > 3 points: > > > > 1) I agree that these are not particularly important questions in their > > own right, but they *are* hugely significant indicators of how > > uninformed the folks who were "studied" are on this type of details, > > and I agree with Owen that is scary that "anyone ALIVE in the US ... > > cannot answer these". > > > > 2) The internet, in my opinion, is still mainly a reference source... > > Somewhere between a dictionary or encyclopedia and a newspaper or > > magazine subscription. > > > > If people aren't interested in these kinds of facts, they won't look > > them up and they won't "subscribe" (e-mail lists, blogs, podcasts, > > news/information web sites) to sources that provide them. Like the > > folks I grew up around whose only reading material was their > > subscription to GRIT or Nat'l Enquirer. > > > > 3) If there is a correlation, perhaps it is a negative one... the ratio > > of "important" (by some measure) factoids to the "unimportant" (by any > > measure) has plummeted, no? > > > > Even TV (with 182 channels) in it's "ubiquity" has aggravated this. > > At 5 or 6 PM and 10 PM each night in my youth, *any* television running > > would be showing news... mediated by a local station such that anyone > > within earhshot would hear their Gov's name as well as the VP's and > > some of the other facts in question fairly frequently. Today > > specialized channels like ESPN, MTV, TBS, HBO, Science, Discovery, even > > CNN (and all of their competitors/wannabes) mean that you can run your > > TV night and day and never hear most of these things (even with CNN you > > won't hear your Gov's name often unless he's a bombast like our own). > > > > At the newsstand there are hundreds of magazines where there were once > > tens. Geeks like us maybe all read Byte and now Wired (haven't had a > > subscription in a decade myself) and maybe Nature/Science/SciAm and > > maybe Fashionistas all read Cosmo (or whatever is equivalent) but the > > competition for eyeballs (and ears) is fierce... and a lot that is > > being offered up is overly refined (like white sugar, flour, > > corn-syrup, textured-vegetable-protein, etc.) to do more than satisfy > > (seduce) the most immediate of appetites. > > > > > > Owen said: > > I sorta have to agree: Just how IMPORTANT are any of these questions? > > > > > >> The five questions: > > >> Who is the vice president? > > >> Who is your state's governor? > > >> Does the US have a trade deficit or surplus? > > >> Which party controls the House of Representatives? > > >> Is the chief justice of the Supreme Court a liberal, moderate, or > > >> conservative? > > > > > > If you were to be able to ask 5 questions that you would LIKE folks > > > to know the answer to, would any of these be on it? I think only > > > one .. the trade deficit. > > > > > > But, man, its scary to know that there's anyone ALIVE in the US who > > > cannot answer these. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:47:55 EDT > > From: PPARYSKI at aol.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <cbc.15ceae22.33d562cb at aol.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Logically is true, perfect randomness possible since it is being > generated > > by a program designed by a human with a purpose - a thought construct? > On one > > level is anything in the universe truly random? > > > > Paul Paryski > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new > AOL at > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:52:45 EDT > > From: PPARYSKI at aol.com > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Criminalizing Peace > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <c02.1b339022.33d563ed at aol.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Somehow the fwd about Bush's exec order didn't work, so I have copied > > > text below. Paul Paryski > > > > > > > > While the American public...and the world...was being diverted by news > > stories of Dubya's colonoscopy scheduled for today, this, his latest > executive > > order, was signed July 17, 2007... However, blogs, blogging comments > have > > been numerous...see a sampling below. > > > > > > > > Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement > > > > By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky > > > > July 20, 2007 > > > > The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who > > Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the > authority > > to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war. > > A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the > stroke > > of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military > agenda > > in Iraq. > > The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who > > Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the > authority > > to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war > in > > Iraq: > > "I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons > determined to > > have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or > acts > > of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or > > stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to > promote > > economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide > humanitarian > > assistance to the Iraqi people." > > In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an > > illegal act. > > > > The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended > to > > "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved > in the > > peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in > > financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to "block the property" > and/or > > confiscate/ freeze the assets of "Certain Persons" involved in antiwar > activities. It > > targets those "Certain Persons" in America, including civil society > > organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and > stability" program in > > Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and > > continued killing of innocent civilians. > > The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are > > "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again > in plain > > English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's > oil resources, > > on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. > > > > > > > > The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of > > "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the > legitimacy of an > > Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces. > > Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who > provide > > bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved > by > > the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet > government are > > also liable to have their financial assets confiscated. > > The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of > the > > US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US > democracy, > > which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not > been the > > object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been > addressed by > > the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement. > > > > Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the > > executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has > been no media > > coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the > heart > > of the US Constitution.. > > Broader implications > > The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and > > President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, > presidential > > directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact > they > > they are the criminals. > > > > This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be > > viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, > the gamut > > of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are > ultimately > > geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial > law > > in the event of a "national emergency"... > > Excerpted from: > _http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377_ > > (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377) > > Text of the Executive Order: > > _http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html_ > > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) > > Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International > > Emergency Economic Powers Act _ht > > tp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html_ > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html) > > > > > > -- > > ----- > > Bloggers are alert... > > > From:_http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the > _P > > rez_can_take_your_stuff_ > > > (http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the_Prez > _can_take_your_stuff) > > > > > > +357 diggs > > by _ajkxxx_ (http://digg.com/users/ajkxxx) on _07/19/2007_ > > > (http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the_Prez > _can_take_your_stuf > > f?t=7903154#c7903154) > > > > > > I'm worried that no newspapers have picked up on this story. This is the > > White House Website. > > This is getting scary. > > > > _Hide 7 replies to this comment (most popular has 21 diggs)_ > > > (http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the_Prez > _can_take_your_st > > uff) > > > > > > > > > > * +21 diggs > > > > by _massivity_ (http://digg.com/users/massivity) on _07/19/2007_ > > > > _can_take_you > > r_stuff?t=7903154#c7905530) > > > > > > Seriously. WHY is this not front page news? > > > > _View 3 replies to this comment (most popular has 18 diggs)_ > > > (http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the_Prez > _can_take_your_stu > > ff) > > > > > > > > * +3 diggs > > > > by _ronaldinho_ (http://digg.com/users/ronaldinho) on _07/19/2007_ > > > > _can_take_y > > our_stuff?t=7903154#c7907218) > > > > > > it is on Digg, but you know the mainstream media (aside from Jon Stewart > and > > Stephen Colbert) are controlled by Bush > > > > _View 2 replies to this comment (most popular has 3 diggs)_ > > > (http://digg.com/politics/So_as_of_yesterday_If_you_protest_the_war_the_Prez > _can_take_your_stuf > > f) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new > AOL at > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 21:59:32 -0600 > > From: "Nicholas Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church > > To: "Russell Standish" <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > Cc: friam <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <380-22007712335932432 at earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Russell, > > > > Remember, mine was a book for English Majors, Berlinski's Tour of the > > Calculus. > > > > But thou quibblest! Dothn't thou? Why is the algebra necessary at all. > > Doesnt the mean value theorem fall out of the definition of a mean and > > definition of continuity? Full stop. Granting only that the mean falls > > between (or is one of) the extremes? > > > > Nick > > > > PS. I apologize for my message garblement. In fact I had NOT sent an > > incomplete message. So the message saying "disregard the message" was the > > only message. "This is not a pipe." > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > > To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>; The Friday Morning Applied > > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > > > Date: 7/22/2007 7:04:29 PM > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 06:12:58PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > > > > > > > So, here is my present understanding of the mathematician's argument > > for the mean value theorem. What I dont understand is why it takes three > > pages of algebra to get there! > > > > > > I don't know where you get the 3 pages from. My analysis book does it > > > 2 paragraphs of algebra, half a page at most. (That's including all > > > the necessary lemmas and definitions). > > > > > > > > > > > Let us amagine that ab is a bit of a line. It could be straight, and > > the argument would still hold, but let us imagine that it is curved.... > > curved up, curved down, it does not matter. Let's imagine that is an > > inverted U, except that it doesnt have to be a straight up and down > > inverted U. In fact, it can be sitting so that somebody wobbled it so > that > > it is, at the instant of being photographed, standing on one leg, about 30 > > degrees from the verticle. . > > > > > > > > What does matter is that the line be continuous ALL THE WAY FROM a to > > B. No gaps, not steps. Imagine that no matter how small the steps you > > are taking, you can walk along the points of the line from a to b and not > > get your feet wet, NOT AT ALL -- if of course your shoe size is small > > enough. > > > > > > > > Now draw a line that connects the bottom of the two legs of the > > inverted U. As we just said, that line will move off to the right, from a > > through b and beyond, at about a thirty degree angle from the > horizontal. > > Thus the mean slope of the tilted inverted U is 30 degrees, right? > > > > > > > > Here is what that means, as I understand it. Every point on the tilted > > inverted U has a "slope", the slope of the line that is just tangent to > the > > U at that point. Near point "a" that slope is VERY positive; near point > > "b", that slope is very negative. Now, imagine you set out to walk along > > the curve from "a" to "b". If you take tiny enough steps, you MUST step > on > > the point where the slope is the same as the mean slope. That is what > the > > mean value theorem says. > > > > > > > > But I just got there without any of the algebra usually devoted to > that > > proof. So the question is, what is the VALUE of the algebra. If one can > > estab lish the truth of such an important MATHEMATICAL theorem in other > > than mathematical means, what is the value of the maths? > > > > > > > > > > What you have given is the "handwaving" version of the proof. The > > > trouble is that human imagination can easily get us into trouble when > > > dealing with infinities, which is necessarily involved in dealing with > > > the concept of continuity. In the above example, you mention that > > > continuity is important, but say nothing about differentiability. Are > > > you aware that continuous curves that are nowhere differentiable > > > exist? I fact most continuous curves are not differentiable. By most, > > > I mean infinitely more continuous curves are not differentiable than > > > those that are, a concept handled by "sets of measure zero". > > > > > > To give an example, consider your interval joined by two line segments > > > so as to form a single kink in the middle at point c: > > > > > > At all points on the interior, except for the c, the slope is either > > > s1 = (f(c)-f(a))/(c-a) or s2=(f(b)-f(c))/(b-c). At c, the slope is > > > undefined. But neither s1 nor s2 = (f(b)-f(a))/(b-1), so the mean > > > value theorem fails. > > > > > > > I promise I am not MERELY trying to be a horses ass, here. > > > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Handwaving arguments are good for developing intuition. Great for > > > teaching during a lecture, and get the students to study the rigorous > > > proof later. Similarly, they're good for scientific seminars, but not > > > scientific papers. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > > Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com) > > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University > > (nthompson at clarku.edu) > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 11 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:22:30 -0600 > > From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully > > Ill-Informed > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: > > <66d1c98f0707222122l7d4160f3p8576dfda03362d89 at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > On 7/22/07, steve smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote: > > > > > > I am disturbed by the non-sequitur inherent in the Subject and Body of > > > this article: It suggests that the Web inherently *should* make > > > Americans more well informed. > > > > > > Myself, I'm getting a little tired of the pop quizzes demonstrating one > kind > > of ignorance or another. > > > > Given any population, there exists some set of questions which they will > get > > mostly wrong, and another set they will get mostly right. So what? > > > > Ability to regurgitate facts on demand measures what? Ability to think? > > No. Ability to research? No. Ability to make good decisions? No. > > Ability to ask good questions? No. Ability to understand answers? No. > > > > If you want people to look smart, ask questions they know the answer > If > > you want them to look stupid, ask other questions. In either case, > > establish that the questions asked are the ones the people should know by > > hand waving, because there is no authority for the questions people should > > be able to answer. > > > > -- rec -- > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070722/b6d1920a > /attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 12 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:55:41 -0600 > > From: "Marcus G. Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully > > Ill-Informed > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <46A434CD.5040101 at snoutfarm.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > steve smith wrote: > > > 2) The internet, in my opinion, is still mainly a reference source... > > > Somewhere between a dictionary or encyclopedia and a newspaper or > > > magazine subscription. > > > > > > If people aren't interested in these kinds of facts, they won't look > > > them up and they won't "subscribe" (e-mail lists, blogs, podcasts, > > > news/information web sites) to sources that provide them. > > With more kinds of appealing facts accessible (ranging from gossip blogs > > to online academic journals), and assuming fixed available attention by > > individuals, then we should expect per-individual knowledge of any > > particular topic to be reduced... > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 13 > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:48:08 -0600 > > From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net> > > Subject: [FRIAM] It's the Spies, Stupid! > > To: friam at redfish.com > > Message-ID: <380-2200771235488891 at earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Thanks to all who responded in much more courteous terms than my present > > title! A'course, it reminded me and well should I have remembered! But > > "old men forget" as da Bard had it (Lear). My old tutor (thesis advisor > in > > these parts, (one S.W., for those in the know )) was one of the > > Boys" who cracked Enigma in WW II. And, as a math grad student, I well > > remember more than 1/2 century ago hearing his tales as we looked out over > > the rainy rooftops of Cambridge! A'course, the Enigma Machine was > entirely > > deterministic, mechanical, but verrray complicated. Wheels within > wheels!! > > New setting each morning! I can imagine some totally bored Wehrmacht > > Feldwebel cranking away at this horizontal axis coffee grinder while he > > slurped his ersatz Kaffee and wished he had some sugar! The Brits said, > > languidly and typically Englishly, "we usually managed to 'sort out' the > > day's code by tea time". Also, being an honorable Englishman, (there were > > still a few left then), my tutor said very little of substance because the > > Official Secrets Act ran for 50 years. > > My remarks are really meant entertain, so thanks to all for putting up > with > > this BS!!! > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > > Date: 7/22/2007 10:02:51 AM > > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 20 > > > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > > friam at redfish.com > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. Why "true" random? (Peter Lissaman) > > > 2. Re: Why "true" random? (Robert Holmes) > > > 3. Re: Why "true" random? (Russell Standish) > > > 4. Re: Why "true" random? (Prof David West) > > > 5. Re: Why "true" random? (Phil Henshaw) > > > 6. Re: Why "true" random? (Douglas Roberts) > > > 7. Re: Why "true" random? (Phil Henshaw) > > > 8. Re: Why "true" random? (Roger Frye) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:24:42 -0600 > > > From: "Peter Lissaman" <plissaman at earthlink.net> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: friam at redfish.com > > > Message-ID: <380-220077621162442468 at earthlink.net> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > randomness??? > > I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days of Aerospace, in > > the 50's, when we were really doing practical earthshattering things -- > > like going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND corporation, for > > I consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan telephone > > directory) of "random" numbers for engineering application. Much > > entertainment was occasioned when, about three months later, they > > distributed a list of "typos" to their original list of random numbers. > > Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real problems, > > specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in real > > atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the sense that > > what we predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never found it > > necessary to utilize any more "perfectly random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > URL: > > > > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:34:44 -0600 > > > From: "Robert Holmes" <robert at holmesacosta.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: plissaman at earthlink.net, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > > Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: > > > <857770150707211234h692a7989h5debe46c1b558b3d at mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Cryptography. The required robustness of a random generator is highly > > > sensitive to the intended application; > > > > > > - Generating a "thought for the day" for your blog? Required > > > randomness = low. > > > - Response testing a missile system? Required randomness = medium > > > - Stealing above test results, encrypting them and transmitting > > > to Al Quaeda in a form that you hope the NSA won't understand? > Required > > > randomness = high > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > On 7/21/07, Peter Lissaman <plissaman at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > randomness??? > > > > I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days of > > in the > > > > 50's, when we were really doing practical earthshattering things -- > like > > > > going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND corporation, for whom > I > > > > consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan telephone > > directory) > > > > of "random" numbers for engineering application. Much entertainment > > was > > > > occasioned when, about three months later, they distributed a list of > > > > "typos" to their original list of random numbers. Today I use > homemade > > > > random numbers alla time for real problems, specifically the actual > > response > > > > of real flight vehicles in real atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests > > > > support analysis, in the sense that what we predict is not obviously > > > > incorrect. We have never found it necessary to utilize any more > > "perfectly > > > > random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > URL: > > > > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:27:33 +1000 > > > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: plissaman at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <20070721042733.GG845 at hells-dell.localdomain> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your cipher > > > used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a cracker discovering > > > your algorithm and key has broken your code. > > > > > > I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for open-ended > > > evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is in the position of > > > the code cracker, and once the code is cracked, the evol algorithm > > > stops. I had a workshop paper on this in 2004, which has some problems > > > with it. The concept is controversial, to say the least. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days > > Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical > earthshattering > > things -- like going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND > corporation, > > for whom I consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan > telephone > > directory) of "random" numbers for engineering application. Much > > entertainment was occasioned when, about three months later, they > > distributed a list of "typos" to their original list of random numbers. > > Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real problems, > > specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in real > > atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the sense > > what we predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never found it > > necessary to utilize any more "perfectly random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:55:30 -0400 > > > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <1185069330.26136.1201375009 at webmail.messagingengine.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " cryptography ... missile system ... encrypting ... transmitting ... > > > Al Quaeda ... NSA" sequence occurring twice within 7 hours in the > > > mail-list. Somewhere in VA a computer just burped. Expect the black > > > helicopters within 24 hours. :) > > > > > > davew > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:34:44 -0600, "Robert Holmes" > > > <robert at holmesacosta.com> said: > > > > Cryptography. The required robustness of a random generator is highly > > > > sensitive to the intended application; > > > > > > > > - Generating a "thought for the day" for your blog? Required > > > > randomness = low. > > > > - Response testing a missile system? Required randomness = medium > > > > - Stealing above test results, encrypting them and transmitting > them > > > > to Al Quaeda in a form that you hope the NSA won't understand? > > > > Required > > > > randomness = high > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > On 7/21/07, Peter Lissaman <plissaman at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > randomness??? > > > > > I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days of > Aerospace, > > in the > > > > > 50's, when we were really doing practical earthshattering things > > like > > > > > going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND corporation, for > whom > > I > > > > > consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan telephone > > directory) > > > > > of "random" numbers for engineering application. Much > entertainment > > was > > > > > occasioned when, about three months later, they distributed a list > of > > > > > "typos" to their original list of random numbers. Today I use > > homemade > > > > > random numbers alla time for real problems, specifically the > > response > > > > > of real flight vehicles in real atmospheric turbulence. Flight > tests > > > > > support analysis, in the sense that what we predict is not > obviously > > > > > incorrect. We have never found it necessary to utilize any more > > "perfectly > > > > > random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:19:25 -0400 > > > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <000001c7cc0f$1b4d1240$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > > > Or what about 'decynchronization', rather than random noise..to erase > > > inconvenient pattern? Probably has nothing to do with cryptography, > > > though, I suppose, as I expect that the sort of lab experiment thing > > > people at the SASO conference were talking about has no mathematical > > > representation as yet, just ways of producing them. At least that's > > > another property that efficiently hides pattern. It came up that some > > > of the work on syncronization, that doing the opposite had valuable > > > proprerties in preventing congestion and surges when used to produce > > > desynchronized flows. Interesting work though! > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > NY NY 10040 > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 12:28 AM > > > > To: plissaman at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied > > > > Complexity Coffee Group > > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your > > > > cipher used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a > > > > cracker discovering your algorithm and key has broken your code. > > > > > > > > I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for > > > > open-ended evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is > > > > in the position of the code cracker, and once the code is > > > > cracked, the evol algorithm stops. I had a workshop paper on > > > > this in 2004, which has some problems with it. The concept is > > > > controversial, to say the least. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: > > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > > > > randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, > > > > bad old, days > > > > > of Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical > > > > > earthshattering things -- like going to the moon -- sans > > > > computers!! > > > > > The RAND corporation, for whom I consulted, published a typed > > > > > (size of a Manhattan telephone directory) of "random" numbers for > > > > > engineering application. Much entertainment was occasioned when, > > > > > about three months later, they distributed a list of > > > > "typos" to their > > > > > original list of random numbers. Today I use homemade > > > > random numbers > > > > > alla time for real problems, specifically the actual > > > > response of real > > > > > flight vehicles in real atmospheric turbulence. Flight > > > > tests support > > > > > analysis, in the sense that what we predict is not obviously > > > > > incorrect. We have never found it necessary to utilize any more > > > > > "perfectly random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, > > > > > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------- > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > > Mathematics > > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:18:36 -0600 > > > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > > <friam at redfish.com>, plissaman at earthlink.net > > > Message-ID: > > > <f16528920707212218t5d7a368bk3c81a01bf7b3af63 at mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, > > > especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this > word) > > > emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce > > emergent > > > behavior that will be "flavored" by a bad random sequences. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Doug Roberts, RTI International > > > droberts at rti.org > > > doug at parrot-farm.net > > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/07, Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your cipher > > > > used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a cracker discovering > > > > your algorithm and key has broken your code. > > > > > > > > I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for open-ended > > > > evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is in the position of > > > > the code cracker, and once the code is cracked, the evol algorithm > > > > stops. I had a workshop paper on this in 2004, which has some > > > > with it. The concept is controversial, to say the least. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: > > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > > > randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days > > of > > > > Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical > > earthshattering > > > > things -- like going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND > > corporation, > > > > for whom I consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan > > telephone > > > > directory) of "random" numbers for engineering application. Much > > > > entertainment was occasioned when, about three months later, they > > > > distributed a list of "typos" to their original list of random > > > > numbers. Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real > > problems, > > > > specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in real > > atmospheric > > > > turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the sense that what > > > > predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never found it necessary > to > > > > utilize any more "perfectly random" "random" sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > > Mathematics > > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > URL: > > > > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:31:25 -0400 > > > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <000801c7cc5c$38c4fd40$2f01a8c0 at SavyII> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > Not sure really what the inputs always used, but I think these > > > & Self-adapt algorithms the SASO engineers were playing with didn't > > > always use random generators to produce the systemic effects they were > > > getting. Obviously all input effects all output in some sort of way, > > > but it was the outcomes that would come from the whole gamete of > > > unspecified inputs that seemed to be the 'phase space profile' they were > > > most interested in. > > > > > > Many of the papers were on how the inputs could seriously 'misbehave' > > > and still not screw up the control schemes, often discussed in terms of > > > 'malicious agent' concepts, of which the real net has plenty real > > > examples! I also found them very receptive to considering not only > > > what a malicious person would think of doing to defeat someone else's > > > operating plan, but also the 'malicious creativity' of natural system > > > emergence as a focus of design contingencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > NY NY 10040 > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On > > > Behalf Of Douglas Roberts > > > Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:19 AM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; > > > plissaman at earthlink.net > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > > > > > > > Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, > > > especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this > > > word) emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will > > > emergent behavior that will be "flavored" by a bad random sequences. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Doug Roberts, RTI International > > > droberts at rti.org > > > doug at parrot-farm.net > > > 505-455-7333 - Office > > > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/07, Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your cipher > > > used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a cracker discovering > > > your algorithm and key has broken your code. > > > > > > I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for open-ended > > > evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is in the position of > > > the code cracker, and once the code is cracked, the evol algorithm > > > stops. I had a workshop paper on this in 2004, which has some problems > > > with it. The concept is controversial, to say the least. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: > > > > Why is it important (except intellectually) to have "true" > > > randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days > > > of Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical > > > earthshattering things -- like going to the moon -- sans computers!! > > > The RAND corporation, for whom I consulted, published a typed book > > > of a Manhattan telephone directory) of "random" numbers for engineering > > > application. Much entertainment was occasioned when, about three months > > > later, they distributed a list of "typos" to their original list of > > > random numbers. Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real > > > problems, specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in > > > real atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the > > > sense that what we predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never > > > found it necessary to utilize any more "perfectly random" "random" > > > sequences! > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > > > > > > > Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. > > > > > > > > 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 > > > > TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > > Mathematics > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > <http://www.hpcoders.com.au> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ---- > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > > URL: > > > > > /attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 8 > > > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:40:10 -0600 > > > From: "Roger Frye" <rfrye at qforma.com> > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why "true" random? > > > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > > > <friam at redfish.com> > > > Message-ID: <op.tvvb880hmlpho7 at vivarini.frye> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; > > > charset=iso-8859-15 > > > > > > I would argue the opposite. While I agree with Doug that you need > > > > RNGs (though not necessarily true RNGs) in order to avoid bias, the > > > problem with good pseudo- or true- RNGs is that they have order N^2 > > > convergence for Monte Carlo simulations. Quasi-random number > generators > > > on the other hand (such as multiples of an irrational square root, or a > > > > Peano tiling) converge in order N. If you can trust the results, > faster > > > conergence lets you simulate more. > > > -Roger > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:18:36 -0600, Douglas Roberts > > <doug at parrot-farm.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, > > > > especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use > > > > word) > > > > emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce > > > > emergent > > > > behavior that will be "flavored" by a bad random sequences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Friam mailing list > > > Friam at redfish.com > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 20 > > > ************************************* > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 14 > > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:02:03 +0200 > > From: G?nther Greindl <guenther.greindl at gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] math and the mother church > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > <friam at redfish.com> > > Message-ID: <46A46E8B.9040709 at gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Hello all, > > > > > What you have given is the "handwaving" version of the proof. The > > > trouble is that human imagination can easily get us into trouble when > > > dealing with infinities, which is necessarily involved in dealing with > > > > I disagree - why was that a handwaving proof? It was exactly the way > > someone _understands_ what the proofs are about. Mathematical notation > > is only meaningless symbolism unless it is interpreted. It is > > interpreted by our intuitions (visualization, relation to other, more > > basic concepts etc). > > > > Mathematical notation is good for a number of things: > > > > 1) define your concepts exactly (again, somewhere it has to bottom out > > intuitively like in the concept of set membership or the rules of > inference) > > > > 2) use a convenient shorthand (=math notation) which let's us reason > > more easily about the concepts than in natural language. Good math > > notation captures some intuitive reasoning analogy in our brains about > > the subject - no platonic reality about the structural relation in > > > > 3) Mathematics is then used to reason about ever more complex subjects. > > The notation has been developed in a way that inferential validity is > > preserved when mindless symbol shunting is correctly followed. This > > let's us "reason" about things where our intuition _fails_ to preserve > > inferential validity. > > > > > > So, actually, there is no _magic_ in math or in the notation: it is just > > a very clever way of performing reasoning. > > > > But in essence, a three page proof in english (if diligently written) > > differs not from a two paragraph proof in algebra (which is just more > > condensed). > > > > That is actually the reason (I think) why some people who are very > > intelligent fail at math: not because they are to dumb, but because > > somewhere in their education they had bad math teachers who failed to > > teach the intuition/understanding on a certain essential and basic > > formalism. > > > > As maths will build on this formalism in more complex situations, > > everybody who has failed to grasp the grounding "shorthand" will fail > > grasp anything else (or it will appear like magic anyway). > > > > > Handwaving arguments are good for developing intuition. Great for > > > teaching during a lecture, and get the students to study the rigorous > > > proof later. Similarly, they're good for scientific seminars, but not > > > scientific papers. > > > > I'm not sure - I think the focus on formalism and the deprecatory > > attitude which one regards intuition nowadays is actually bad for > > mathematics. > > > > For a refreshingly different approach read for instance > > > > Needham: Visual complex analysis > > > > http://www.usfca.edu/vca/ > > > > which shows that you do not have to sacrifice rigor by being intuitive > > (on the contrary!). > > > > Cheers, > > G?nther > > > > -- > > G?nther Greindl > > Department of Philosophy of Science > > University of Vienna > > guenther.greindl at univie.ac.at > > http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ > > > > Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ > > Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Friam mailing list > > Friam at redfish.com > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 21 > > ************************************* > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:39:44 +1000 > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Intuition-geometry-computation-mathematics > To: plissaman at earthlink.net, The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <20070725003944.GA896 at hells-dell.localdomain> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:39:06PM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: > > Geometry has no place in mathematics. Mathematics cannot be explained > > graphically -- all math proofs must be for blind men, as me tutor used > > say. > > I vehemently disagree with this comment. Consider the theorem that the > determinant of the product of two matrices is the product of the two > determinants. > > This can be understood geometrically in a trice, as a determinant is > simply the ratio of the changed hypervolumes undergo when passed through a > linear map (for 2 dimensional hypervolumes, substitute "area", for 3D > substitute "volume"). Sign captures whether the volume has undergone a > mirror transformation. > > Obviously applying two linear maps one after the other leads to the > desired composition rule. > > However, to show this theorem algebraicly requires at least a page of > algebra, and it is not clear one hasn't made a mistake. One would > never get to the theorem in the first place without the geometrical > intuition. However, the algebra is needed to ensure one isn't mislead > by intuition. > > I have met mathematicians one cannot talk to in geometry. They are a > pain to work with. > > -- > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:59:45 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Intuition-geometry-computation-mathematics > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <f16528920707241759g50914dffqbeb77c3fcea9c59c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I agree. > > ;-} > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > droberts at rti.org > doug at parrot-farm.net > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > > On 7/24/07, Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have met mathematicians. They are a > > pain to work with. > > > > -- > > > > > > > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070724/9ec4fed9 /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:47:11 -0700 > From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" <gepr at tempusdictum.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Intuition-geometry-computation-mathematics > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <46A6C7BF.1080100 at tempusdictum.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Peter Lissaman wrote: > > Geometry has no place in mathematics. > > [...] > > > Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures > > You cannot possibly expect the joke to go over well without placing your > signature in close proximity to the ridiculous statement. For us > dumb-asses to get your humour, you have to be simple and state them in > close proximity.... something like: > > "Mathematics cannot be explained graphically! > -- Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures! > > "da Vinci", indeed. [grin] > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally > and attempting to make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGpse/ZeB+vOTnLkoRAplOAKC57+p64yNsErQYTpBJSIL0srIalwCgxlYR > oXDgICGlqTWG1YXxzLYKFTk= > =M0c5 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:57:03 -0600 > From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> > Subject: [FRIAM] YouTube - Debates > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: <923CED3A-4EB8-42C8-B0F6-42B0831A3EAE at backspaces.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > Just in case you didn't see/hear the YouTube debate: > http://www.youtube.com/debates > > -- Owen > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:35:43 -0600 > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net> > Subject: [FRIAM] Interesting article and ad > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" > <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <f16528920707250735t145da79fref6602fd4ec7c1d7 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > http://public.cq.com/docs/hb/hbnews110-000002553782.html > > in the Congressional Quarterly, a press release from Rajeev Venkayya, the > end customer for the flu study that my colleagues and I worked on > We ran hundreds of EpiSims runs for the study, as well as a similar number > of runs with two other epi codes, and then spent months collating and > correlating results, and identifying additional scenarios to simulate. > > Also check out the "ad by Google" to the left of the article. > > --Doug > > -- > Doug Roberts, RTI International > droberts at rti.org > doug at parrot-farm.net > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: /attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam at redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22 > ************************************* |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |