Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.

[lrudolph]

> In my (leetle) world, referential opacity refers to ambiguities that arise
> in intentional utterances ... utterances of the form, "Jones believes
> (wants, thinks, hopes, etc.) that X is the case. "  They are opaque in that
> they tell us nothing about the truth of X.  So, for instance, "Jones
> believes that there are unicorns in central park"  tells us neither that
> such a thing as a horse with a horn in its forehead exists (because Jones
> may confuse unicorns with squirrels) or that there are any "unicorns" in
> central park, whatever Jones may conceive them to be (because Jones may be
> misinformed).  
>
>  
>
> What does the computer community think "referential opacity" means.

If they're at all like whatever community W. V. O. Quine belonged to (mathematical logicians?
empiricist philosophers?), they think it means something quite other than what you wrote
above. --Actually, all I know for sure is that what Quine meant by "opacity of reference" was
quite incompatible with your meaning of "referential opacity".  His standard example of
"opacity of reference" was the pair of phrases "the morning star", "the evening star", both of
which *in fact* refer to precisely the same celestial body, viz., Venus, although the
facticity of that fact may be opaque to any given speaker of the two phrases.  

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/17/13 10:52 AM, glen wrote:
> It's not entirely clear to me where "type" fits (at least not the
> specific sense of "type" we use in programming).
Starlogo TNG illustrates types.

   http://education.mit.edu/starlogo-tng/tutorial-pics/slblocks.jpeg

That `say' and `play sound' have the same connector shapes, suggesting
they are the same.  Without additional information, one might guess they
are just character string names?  But a language utterance and a digital
sound sample have different meanings even if their implementation is the
same.  A strong typing approach would discriminate the meanings and
they'd have distinct connector shapes.  Here there is at least some
discrimination -- one cannot connect a `set score' to a `boing'.

Dynamic typing says that the shapes don't matter.   That does make it
easy to hook together things, but not necessarily easier to really make
progress.  It just makes it seem that way because there is no scolding
about carelessness.  Unix pipelines are like this -- sure it's easy to
connect program streams together, but just because one has a set of
programs that read and write (e.g. tabular data) doesn't mean that a
downstream program knows what is coming at it.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Hmmm!  I just read that Quine thing a few weeks ago, and I thought the two
meanings were pretty much the same.  It's something about the difference
between the intension and the extension of "the morning star".  The
extension of the morning star includes the evening star, right?  It also
includes Venus, and "the planet next closest to the sun" and all sorts of
other fact.   But once we introduce intension in to the conversation, we no
longer can assert that the morning and the evening star are the same,
because the question is not about what they are, not what they mean to
somebody.  Now, I admit I read Quine over and over again without the
question being quite settled in my mind, but that is where I ended up last
time I thought about it.  

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.

> In my (leetle) world, referential opacity refers to ambiguities that
> arise in intentional utterances ... utterances of the form, "Jones
> believes (wants, thinks, hopes, etc.) that X is the case. "  They are
> opaque in that they tell us nothing about the truth of X.  So, for
> instance, "Jones believes that there are unicorns in central park"  
> tells us neither that such a thing as a horse with a horn in its
> forehead exists (because Jones may confuse unicorns with squirrels) or
> that there are any "unicorns" in central park, whatever Jones may
> conceive them to be (because Jones may be misinformed).
>
>  
>
> What does the computer community think "referential opacity" means.

If they're at all like whatever community W. V. O. Quine belonged to
(mathematical logicians?
empiricist philosophers?), they think it means something quite other than
what you wrote above. --Actually, all I know for sure is that what Quine
meant by "opacity of reference" was quite incompatible with your meaning of
"referential opacity".  His standard example of "opacity of reference" was
the pair of phrases "the morning star", "the evening star", both of which
*in fact* refer to precisely the same celestial body, viz., Venus, although
the facticity of that fact may be opaque to any given speaker of the two
phrases.  

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/17/13 10:52 AM, glen wrote:
> "Type" seems like a state-oriented conception, whereas "predicate"
> seems like a process-oriented conception. We talk about things being
> "of a type". But we talk about "satisfying a predicate".
There's a question of why a set must be mixed in the first place. With
some restructuring it may be possible to treat homogeneous sets (or even
compresses the set into a prototype and count), rather than treating
individuals in an independent fashion, but in the same pool, and then
partitioning them after the fact with various predicates.
If there is no mixing of different instances in the pool, the fact that
sets can be kept separate is a helpful thing to recognize (and good for
efficiency).  If there is mixing, how do the species change?  Can they
be described by a distinct or elaborated type such that another separate
and homogeneous set can be introduced?   The process of elaborating the
member types or the aggregate sets is an incremental, analytical
process, and analytical predictions are usually what folks want from a
model.  The former does not necessarily lead to the latter, but letting
anything happen anywhere does tend to make it harder to reason what a
model can do.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/17/2013 10:51 PM:
> There's a question of why a set must be mixed in the first place. With
> some restructuring it may be possible to treat homogeneous sets (or even
> compresses the set into a prototype and count), rather than treating
> individuals in an independent fashion, but in the same pool, and then
> partitioning them after the fact with various predicates.
>
> If there is no mixing of different instances in the pool, the fact that
> sets can be kept separate is a helpful thing to recognize (and good for
> efficiency).

Well, by efficiency, I infer you mean computational efficiency, not the
efficient use of storage space?  Again, the distinction involves the
duality between state and process, size and effort, matter and energy.

Even if there is no mixing by one particular (set of) measure(s), it's
often safe to assume that, when the measures change, the sense of
whether mixing is occurring or not may well change.  It depends
fundamentally on whether we have access to what the individuals actually
_are_ versus what roles they may play.

> If there is mixing, how do the species change?  Can they
> be described by a distinct or elaborated type such that another separate
> and homogeneous set can be introduced?   The process of elaborating the
> member types or the aggregate sets is an incremental, analytical
> process, and analytical predictions are usually what folks want from a
> model.  The former does not necessarily lead to the latter, but letting
> anything happen anywhere does tend to make it harder to reason what a
> model can do.

This goes back on the interesting question.  Are computational models,
or really any extant things, reusable in any serious sense?  Or are they
slaves to their initial requirements, the initial circumstances under
which they were constructed?  When you pick up a rock and use it as a
hammer, what is the satisfied predicate?  It's certainly not
"hammer(x)", because rocks are usually nothing like hammers.  There's an
implicit predicate lurking in there that has to do with hardness,
handiness, etc.  It's something more like "anything hard enough and
handleable enough to hit whatever I'm currently trying to hit".

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
The economic factors are no longer relevant


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/18/13 10:16 AM, glen wrote:
> When you pick up a rock and use it as a hammer, what is the satisfied
> predicate? It's certainly not "hammer(x)", because rocks are usually
> nothing like hammers.
An object with high mass and volume, low acceleration vs. low mass, low
volume, and high acceleration?
Even if you have a type that simply tracks physical properties, it can
be embedded in other objects.

data PhysicalProperties = PhysicalProperties Mass Volume Location

data Hammer = Hammer PhysicalProperties

data Rock = Rock PhysicalProperties

or tagged instances..

data Tag = Hammer | Rock

data PhysicalProperties = PhysicalProperties Mass Volume Location Tag

hammer = PhysicalProperties 1 1 (0,0,1) Hammer

rock = PhysicalProperties 0.5 0.5 (0,0,0) Rock

mass :: PhysicalProperties -> Mass
mass (PhysicalProperties mass _ _) = mass

isCrushed :: PhysicalProperties -> Bool
isCrushed (PhysicalProperties _ volume _) = volume < 1e-6

impact :: PhysicalProperties -> PhysicalProperties >
(Bool,PhysicalProperties,PhysicalProperties)

If you want to have both physical realism and rules, then decouple them
using a physics engine.
Let the physics engine move the objects around but have rules embedded
in the objects be unaware of physical properties..

Marcus



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

That's exactly my point, of course.  Reduction from requirements to
physics is rarely logically abstracted.  In other words, while you and I
may be interested in some of the physical properties of hammers and
rocks (namely, the ones that facilitate crushing), someone like Andy
Warhol might be interested in other physical properties (the color of
the materials from which they're made). [Queue some jabber about
Tarski's Indefinability of Truth!]

If you logically abstract the physics engine, you can swap it out, at
will (in principle, anyway), replace a coarse one with a finer one or
one that implements an entirely different physics.

Even though we _speculate_ that this can be done in principle, how often
is it actually done?  I submit that the eminent and immediate
requirements set forth by any problem or task will prohibit, or at least
limit, the extent to which the constructor will logically abstract.
I.e. reduction is convenient, canalizingly convenient.

Further, there's an ideological and methodological bias of "computer
people" (perhaps any artisan, actually) to treat their building blocks
as _the_ building blocks.  Variation or substitution among those
building blocks (like physics engines or reified rocks and hammers)
requires an annoying willingness to play these abstraction games.  The
extent to which those of us willing to play the games are scorned or
ridiculed by those who are unwilling, provides social pressure that
positively reinforces the already present building block and
reductionism bias.

So, yes, you're being reasonable.  Perhaps we _can_ do this.  But we
will not ... because we're sloppy ... perhaps even sloppy by
evolutionary design.  Practical reuse remains purely opportunistic.

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 10:53 AM:

> An object with high mass and volume, low acceleration vs. low mass, low
> volume, and high acceleration?
> Even if you have a type that simply tracks physical properties, it can
> be embedded in other objects.
>
> data PhysicalProperties = PhysicalProperties Mass Volume Location
>
> data Hammer = Hammer PhysicalProperties
>
> data Rock = Rock PhysicalProperties
>
> or tagged instances..
>
> data Tag = Hammer | Rock
>
> data PhysicalProperties = PhysicalProperties Mass Volume Location Tag
>
> hammer = PhysicalProperties 1 1 (0,0,1) Hammer
>
> rock = PhysicalProperties 0.5 0.5 (0,0,0) Rock
>
> mass :: PhysicalProperties -> Mass
> mass (PhysicalProperties mass _ _) = mass
>
> isCrushed :: PhysicalProperties -> Bool
> isCrushed (PhysicalProperties _ volume _) = volume < 1e-6
>
> impact :: PhysicalProperties -> PhysicalProperties >
> (Bool,PhysicalProperties,PhysicalProperties)
>
> If you want to have both physical realism and rules, then decouple them
> using a physics engine.
> Let the physics engine move the objects around but have rules embedded
> in the objects be unaware of physical properties..

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/18/13 12:19 PM, glen wrote:
> If you logically abstract the physics engine, you can swap it out, at
> will (in principle, anyway), replace a coarse one with a finer one or
> one that implements an entirely different physics.
>
> Even though we _speculate_ that this can be done in principle, how often
> is it actually done?

Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface
of Bullet physics to Haskell.
It just amounts to agents/clever particles/etc. asking themselves,
"Where am I?", or "Let's point the rocketship north!", etc.  The
consequences of that the physics engine copes with..  That's a decent
way to do things because agents don't make the rules about much of their
physical environment.  The increasingly irrelevant point was that
choosing strong or weak typing in a simulation implementation (model
description, whatever) isn't a function the need to estimate a physical
environment.  It's not related as far as I can tell.

Another non-hybrid example:  Molecular dynamics folks switch between
different force fields.
> The extent to which those of us willing to play the games are scorned or
> ridiculed by those who are unwilling, provides social pressure that
> positively reinforces the already present building block and
> reductionism bias.
I agree it doesn't come up much because the either camp is too busy
being convinced they have the right way to look at things..  :-)

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 11:39 AM:
> Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface
> of Bullet physics to Haskell.

Nice.  Is it open?  Or lost in some well of secrecy somewhere?

> The increasingly irrelevant point was that
> choosing strong or weak typing in a simulation implementation (model
> description, whatever) isn't a function the need to estimate a physical
> environment.  It's not related as far as I can tell.

Well, I think the point maintains its relevance.  And I agree that the
choice of typing for an implementation can be unrelated to the
requirements for the simulation.  That point is something I try to make
clear to the many biomedical modelers with whom I traffic.  They tend to
be convinced of reduction.  Some stop at differential equations,
claiming that the underlying "stuff" can vary as long as it can be
quantitatively, precisely described.  Others insist that biophysics is
crucial.  I try to convince them that the choice of tool depends
fundamentally on the requirements for the model, which they often leave
implicit and unstated.

I.e. they assert that the types are already defined by reality and every
simulation ought to map to them directly.

In the context of this conversation, my interest revolves around
when/how to identify and remove tautologies from the inferences made by
the model.  More generally, I want algorithms for detecting and removing
inscription error.

Because the types are an assumed ontology, inferences made by the
simulation can be classified into "yeah, we programmed it that way" vs.
"hey, that's interesting".  The extent to which strong or weak typing
matters should depend on the requirements, the use cases for the
simulation.  I'd like to find a way to choose strong or weak typing
depending on what I'm trying to do.  To be clear, a _way_ that is
transpersonal, more than just me ... i.e. I'd like to be able to
describe what I do to others so they also do it.

Writing it down in prose or log form is one thing.  Instantiating it in
a workflow is something else.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
To watch me blow my mind


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/18/13 1:05 PM, glen wrote:
> Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 11:39 AM:
>> Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface
>> of Bullet physics to Haskell.
> Nice.  Is it open?  Or lost in some well of secrecy somewhere?
Um, err, it was a SC11 demo, so it's been shown, but I'd need to fill
out paperwork to distribute it.
Meh.

It's a 3D model of enzymatic degradation of cellulose.  A couple kinds
of enzyme agents, one that breaks hydrogen bonds thereby exposing
glycosidic bonds for breaking by another enzyme type.   Idea is to find
the right mix of enzymes to optimize the rate at which agricultural
waste wood can be broken down into gluclose, and then fuel.  Spatial
considerations like are important in containing the reactions.  Going
further and doing a full blown molecular dynamics simulation would take
a solar system worth of computers.  Thus the hybrid approach.

Obviously, the decoupling of agents and environments is not a new idea.  
Karl Sims '94, etc.
> Because the types are an assumed ontology, inferences made by the
> simulation can be classified into "yeah, we programmed it that way"
> vs. "hey, that's interesting". The extent to which strong or weak
> typing matters should depend on the requirements, the use cases for
> the simulation. I'd like to find a way to choose strong or weak typing
> depending on what I'm trying to do.
Ok, assertions can be added to check for expected constraints on mixed
sets or types can be grown to tolerate some or total mixing. Sort of the
same idea.  But I now find I prefer the latter because it requires
explicit consent at compile time.    Tracking down when a errant member
in a mixed set appeared in a weakly typed collection requires putting
assertions all over the place or intercepting all set insertions and
winding the stack back to see who did it.  Makes me sad.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 12:33 PM:
> I'd need to fill out paperwork to distribute it.

Ugh. I do not envy you from that perspective.

> It's a 3D model of enzymatic degradation of cellulose. [...] Thus the
> hybrid approach.

Hm.  That sounds useful for my rhetoric.  Is it published or at least
described anywhere?  I can't find it on the SC11 site.

> Ok, assertions can be added to check for expected constraints on mixed
> sets or types can be grown to tolerate some or total mixing. Sort of the
> same idea.  But I now find I prefer the latter because it requires
> explicit consent at compile time.

I infer you're talking about assertions in the code.  I presume those
assertions could be promoted to objects or semi-independent "auditors"
and applied dynamically.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Lay out naked in a sunny L.A.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/19/13 9:56 AM, glen wrote:
> Hm. That sounds useful for my rhetoric. Is it published or at least
> described anywhere? I can't find it on the SC11 site.
I have to open source some other code, so I'll throw that one on the
list too.  It was an exhibit, not part of the technical program.
>> Ok, assertions can be added to check for expected constraints on mixed
>> sets or types can be grown to tolerate some or total mixing. Sort of the
>> same idea.  But I now find I prefer the latter because it requires
>> explicit consent at compile time.
> I infer you're talking about assertions in the code.  I presume those
> assertions could be promoted to objects or semi-independent "auditors"
> and applied dynamically.
>
I'm contrasting compile-time assertions against run-time assertions, and
claiming the former is better when it can be achieved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -
>> Hm. That sounds useful for my rhetoric. Is it published or at least
>> described anywhere? I can't find it on the SC11 site.
> I have to open source some other code, so I'll throw that one on the
> list too.  It was an exhibit, not part of the technical program.
Back in my day, we had to LA-UR the posters that went along with the
presentations at SC... do you have at least *that* level of description
released?  I know that is usually just enough info to get the saliva
flowing, but sometimes those posters have all the high level points made?


- Steve


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/19/13 11:11 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Back in my day, we had to LA-UR the posters that went along with the
> presentations at SC... do you have at least *that* level of
> description released?  I know that is usually just enough info to get
> the saliva flowing, but sometimes those posters have all the high
> level points made.
The booth demos (running simulations for visitors to play with) don't go
through that process.  Maybe they should.   I guess because code isn't
being distributed.

Usually it's programs related to stuff from papers (already LA-UR'ed),
but on several occasions I've sat down a few weeks ahead of time and
banged out new code (sometimes with vendor involvement).  And on this
occasion it was well into the wee hours of the night before the show in
my hotel room too.  It wasn't clear to me what would have been LA-URed
to a significant extent.

Glen sent me back a URL to an earlier version of the work.  (Yes, that's
it, Glen.)

http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/5/1/55

The newer work switches to 3D and adds physics.

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -

> Usually it's programs related to stuff from papers (already LA-UR'ed),
> but on several occasions I've sat down a few weeks ahead of time and
> banged out new code (sometimes with vendor involvement).  And on this
> occasion it was well into the wee hours of the night before the show
> in my hotel room too.  It wasn't clear to me what would have been
> LA-URed to a significant extent.
>
> Glen sent me back a URL to an earlier version of the work.  (Yes,
> that's it, Glen.)
>
> http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/5/1/55
>
> The newer work switches to 3D and adds physics.

Understood... I've been there wiring things up and hacking in a last
minute fix on the show floor even *after* it is up and running... but
usually we had a few posters printed up weeks ahead of time that were
LA-UR'd...  I just thought maybe you forgot about those... trivial
content to you, but obviously enough for SC grazers... and the rest of
us edumificated lay audience.

I didn't know you were working on the Biofuels project... very
interesting work...

- Steve
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 4/19/13 11:59 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I didn't know you were working on the Biofuels project... very
> interesting work...
I'm barely involved, but it is cool.   An amazing thing to me about this
the empirical side.  For example, the center of integrated
nanotechnologies can actually show individuals enzymes at work. Want to
know what happens to the enzymes on the substrate when you shake the
container?  They'll shake the container, do their imaging and it will be
settled!

Marcus


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -

I didn't know you were working on the Biofuels project... very interesting work...

I'm barely involved, but it is cool.   An amazing thing to me about this the empirical side.  For example, the center of integrated nanotechnologies can actually show individuals enzymes at work. Want to know what happens to the enzymes on the substrate when you shake the container?  They'll shake the container, do their imaging and it will be settled!

Didn't Yogi Berra get a patent on this approach back in the 50s? 

"You can see a lot just by observing" - Y. Berra

And circling back to circular reasoning, how do we classify the Great Yogi's many circular but dead-nuts-on aphorisms like the one above?

"It ain't over till it's over."

"You wouldn't have won if we had beaten you."

"If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it."

"Nobody goes there anymore...it's too crowded!"

- Steve ( "I really didn't say everything I said." )

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ep ropella]

Steve Smith wrote at 04/19/2013 11:55 AM:

> And circling back to circular reasoning, how do we classify the Great
> Yogi's many circular but dead-nuts-on aphorisms like the one above?
>
> # "It ain't over till it's over." <http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12128>
> # "You wouldn't have won if we had beaten you."
> <http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12129>
> # "If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it."
> <http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12132>
> # "Nobody goes there anymore...it's too crowded!"
> <http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12136>

These aren't semantically circular, they're equivocations.  The beauty
of these aphorisms, perhaps akin to zen and unasking the question, is
that they encourage you to reevaluate your preconceptions.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of
cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom. -- Bertrand Russell


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

1) "It ain't over till it's over." <http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12128>

2) "You wouldn't have won if we had beaten you."
<http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12129>

 3) "If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it."
<http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12132>

4) "Nobody goes there anymore...it's too crowded!"
<http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12136>

These aren't semantically circular, they're equivocations.

Well instructed.  I was not familiar with this use of Equivocation until now.  It aligns with my more colloquial use roughly as "non-committal"  1 and 2 seemed roughly tautological or redundant with 4 sort of having a second order self-negating element.

Although what Yogi did so often was not exactly that either was it?  I'm puzzled by this (in a good way)...

  The beauty
of these aphorisms, perhaps akin to zen and unasking the question, is
that they encourage you to reevaluate your preconceptions.

yes, I often forget to reconceive my preconceptions, it is good to have my reminder reminded of this.  I am pretty sure I would be better off if I'd dropped out of school after the 8th grade as well.  I might be clever where I am now merely tedious.

Sparky Anderson, GeeDubya and Yogi Berra
exchanging aphorisms.

We now know where Dubya da Decider got some of his most DubyUs lines... trying to emulate the one, the only, the great Yogi hisself!  I'm not sure those extra years in school did Dubya much good either.  He should have done his coursework (and Air Guard duty?) online in a MOOC. 

- Steve

PS.  apologies to any of GW's fans here... he is just too easy of a target sometimes. And Happy Birthday Richard!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/19/2013 09:32 AM:
> I'm contrasting compile-time assertions against run-time assertions, and
> claiming the former is better when it can be achieved.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence

That's awesome!  Thanks for that link.  It proves that I've been lazy.
I'll paraphrase this and submit it for ridicule?

Until Griffin, the Curry-Howard correspondence was thought to only apply
to intuitionist logic.  I.e. no proof by contradiction and other magic
that relies on the excluded middle.  As such, type theory was distinct
from program (theory?) because it captures conditions/state that
formulae don't.  By showing that the excluded middle can be formulated
as a continuation, i.e. capturing a particular type of program state,
the correspondence holds out to classical logic as well.

If that's even close to a decent paraphrase, then it bolsters my sense
that types are somehow a state-oriented conception.

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
Fire it up, fire it up, fire it up yeah that's the ticket now kick out
the jams.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com