Friam

vote

Classic

List

Threaded

14 messages Options

Prof David West

vote

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: vote

The conditional probability of Trump given rural is high but you said that in other words.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 4:34 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: vote

Interesting to look at the above cartogram to see how the red/blue and population density distribution "distorts" our country geospatially...

All the "coastlines" get stretched while the "natural resource" expanses get shrunk.

The conditional probability of Trump given rural is high but you said that in other words.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 4:34 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: vote

In reply to this post by Prof David West

The chemtrails (or that other thing) would just have to tip the vote in the right direction..

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] vote

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: vote

I think I can see Houston, Dallas, St Louis, etc.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 4:59 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

The chemtrails (or that other thing) would just have to tip the vote in the right direction..

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 3:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] vote

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: vote

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave,

That's the scary part: They're all around us.

n

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 5:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] vote

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

A/R theory

Here's a recent paper from a friend of mine in the UK (Susan Stepney) on the the topic of Abstraction/Representation theory:

"The representational entity in physical computing"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11047-020-09805-3

from the introduction:

Many and diverse physical substrates are proposed for unconventional computing, from relativistic and quantum systems to chemical reactions and slime moulds, from carbon nanotubes to non-linear optical reservoir systems, from amorphous substrates to highly engineered devices, from general purpose analogue computers to one-shot devices. In another domain, biological systems are often said to perform information processing. In all these cases it is crucial to be able to determine when such substrates and systems are specifically computing, as opposed to merely undergoing the physical processes of that substrate.

this work seems to relate to several recent threads here... I'd be very interested in other's response to these ideas.

- Steve

jon zingale

Re: A/R theory

This work does seem to be relevant, up to 𝜀-equivalence, to many of the
fibers in recent threads :) As the authors point out, the question of
deciding which diagrams 𝜀-commute is the business of experimental science à
la EricC's commentary on the history of chemistry. Also, the ideas expressed
in this paper appear to point in a similar direction to the
(model-theoretic) ideas I was attempting to land in the *downward-causation*
discussion from last week. Lastly, the thesis is related to questions of how
extensional (or purely-functional) computation arises from the intentional
(maximally-stateful) variations of a substrate. So, thanks.

𝜀-equivalence itself is interesting because it comes with a *competence
constraint* that prevents it from being a transitive relation, that in
general a =𝜀 b ^ b =𝜀 c ⊬ a =𝜀 c is crucial to the theory. In other
words, while there may be a wide range of arm shapes that can be used as
bludgeons, one can evolve themselves out of the sweet spot. Dually, the
𝜀-equivalence condition provides a route to modeling *exaptation*, via
modal possibility. As p's belonging to the Physical domain vary, images in
the abstract theory vary into or out of 𝜀-equivalence with values belonging
to other problem domains. In particular, if we imagine that the R-map in the
paper is *actually* a structural functor as it seems to imply, we can
imagine another functor R' which specifies yet another problem space.
Natural transformations then, up to 𝜀-equivalence, provide a model of
exaptation. Because of the experimental nature of 𝜀-equivalence, I suspect
we would slowly discover an underlying Heyting algebra which would extend to
a topos via studying relations on sieves of 𝜀-equivalent structures. This
approach would formalize *how far from competent* a structure is wrt
*proving* a particular computation.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Russ Abbott

Re: A/R theory

You may be interested in my Minds and Machines (also Springer) paper on the same subject.

The Bit (and Three Other Abstractions) Defne the Borderline Between Hardware and Software

Abstract Modern computing is generally taken to consist primarily of symbol manipulation. But symbols are abstract, and computers are physical. How can a physical device manipulate abstract symbols? Neither Church nor Turing considered this question. My answer is that the bit, as a hardware-implemented abstract data type, serves as a bridge between materiality and abstraction. Computing also relies on three other primitive—but more straightforward—abstractions: Sequentiality, State, and Transition. These physically-implemented abstractions define the borderline between hardware and software and between physicality and abstraction. At a deeper level, asking how a physical device can interact with abstract symbols is the wrong question. The relationship between symbols and physical devices begins with the realization that human beings already know what it means to manipulate symbols. We build and program computers to do what we understand to be symbol manipulation. To understand what that means, consider a light switch. A light switch doesn’t turn a light on or off. Those are abstractions. Light switches don’t operate with abstractions. We build light switches (and their associated circuitry) so that when flipped, the world is changed in such a way that we understand the light to be on or of. Similarly, we build computers to perform operations that we understand as manipulating symbols.

In other words, it's all in our minds.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:35 AM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

This work does seem to be relevant, up to 𝜀-equivalence, to many of the
fibers in recent threads :) As the authors point out, the question of
deciding which diagrams 𝜀-commute is the business of experimental science à
la EricC's commentary on the history of chemistry. Also, the ideas expressed
in this paper appear to point in a similar direction to the
(model-theoretic) ideas I was attempting to land in the *downward-causation*
discussion from last week. Lastly, the thesis is related to questions of how
extensional (or purely-functional) computation arises from the intentional
(maximally-stateful) variations of a substrate. So, thanks.

𝜀-equivalence itself is interesting because it comes with a *competence
constraint* that prevents it from being a transitive relation, that in
general a =𝜀 b ^ b =𝜀 c ⊬ a =𝜀 c is crucial to the theory. In other
words, while there may be a wide range of arm shapes that can be used as
bludgeons, one can evolve themselves out of the sweet spot. Dually, the
𝜀-equivalence condition provides a route to modeling *exaptation*, via
modal possibility. As p's belonging to the Physical domain vary, images in
the abstract theory vary into or out of 𝜀-equivalence with values belonging
to other problem domains. In particular, if we imagine that the R-map in the
paper is *actually* a structural functor as it seems to imply, we can
imagine another functor R' which specifies yet another problem space.
Natural transformations then, up to 𝜀-equivalence, provide a model of
exaptation. Because of the experimental nature of 𝜀-equivalence, I suspect
we would slowly discover an underlying Heyting algebra which would extend to
a topos via studying relations on sieves of 𝜀-equivalent structures. This
approach would formalize *how far from competent* a structure is wrt
*proving* a particular computation.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: A/R theory

In reply to this post by jon zingale

Re: transitivity -- What if "d(mp′,m′p)" were defined in an interesting (or pathological) way such that we don't use ≤ but something else ... maybe a partial order or something even weirder. Then instead of thinking of ε as some sort of "error", we think of it as a complicated similarity map ... a model in and of itself? Then maybe there would be some form of transitivity.

Re: the whole thing -- I'm a little worried about the practicalities in all the symmetric opposites {R_re,Ȓ_c}, {Ȓ_re,R_c}, {Ȓ_c,R_c}, {R_re,Ȓ_re}, {C_c,H_c}, {C_re,H_cr}, {C_re,C_c}, {H_re,H_c}, etc. The reason I'm worried about them is because they represent the many types of validation and verification beyond the "data validation" represented by ε-equivalence. Such "behavioral analogies" (comparing arrows) can be and are scored similarly to the "structural analogies" considered when comparing the boxes.

I may have missed it in the paper. Where do they talk about the degree to which the physical form of the abstract objects is arbitrary? I see where they say there's no need for universality, just sufficiently powerful, accurate, instantiable, etc. Don't we need such concepts in order to reason out *whether* there exist a commuting structure for any given abstraction or physical thing? I.e. just because we can find a commutation with a structural analogy doesn't imply a behavioral analogy ... and vice versa. And *if* that's the case, then what does this say about object-behavior (box-arrow) duality? ... if anything?

On 11/7/20 9:34 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> 𝜀-equivalence itself is interesting because it comes with a *competence
> constraint* that prevents it from being a transitive relation, that in
> general a =𝜀 b ^ b =𝜀 c ⊬ a =𝜀 c is crucial to the theory.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

thompnickson2

Re: A/R theory

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ,

This is exactly the mind-body problem, isn’t it? Could we be computational monists and resolved the mind body problem by saying that behavior is the implementation of mind?

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 12:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A/R theory

You may be interested in my Minds and Machines (also Springer) paper on the same subject.

The Bit (and Three Other Abstractions) Defne the Borderline Between Hardware and Software

Abstract Modern computing is generally taken to consist primarily of symbol manipulation. But symbols are abstract, and computers are physical. How can a physical device manipulate abstract symbols? Neither Church nor Turing considered this question. My answer is that the bit, as a hardware-implemented abstract data type, serves as a bridge between materiality and abstraction. Computing also relies on three other primitive—but more straightforward—abstractions: Sequentiality, State, and Transition. These physically-implemented abstractions define the borderline between hardware and software and between physicality and abstraction. At a deeper level, asking how a physical device can interact with abstract symbols is the wrong question. The relationship between symbols and physical devices begins with the realization that human beings already know what it means to manipulate symbols. We build and program computers to do what we understand to be symbol manipulation. To understand what that means, consider a light switch. A light switch doesn’t turn a light on or off. Those are abstractions. Light switches don’t operate with abstractions. We build light switches (and their associated circuitry) so that when flipped, the world is changed in such a way that we understand the light to be on or of. Similarly, we build computers to perform operations that we understand as manipulating symbols.

In other words, it's all in our minds.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:35 AM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

This work does seem to be relevant, up to 𝜀-equivalence, to many of the
fibers in recent threads :) As the authors point out, the question of
deciding which diagrams 𝜀-commute is the business of experimental science à
la EricC's commentary on the history of chemistry. Also, the ideas expressed
in this paper appear to point in a similar direction to the
(model-theoretic) ideas I was attempting to land in the *downward-causation*
discussion from last week. Lastly, the thesis is related to questions of how
extensional (or purely-functional) computation arises from the intentional
(maximally-stateful) variations of a substrate. So, thanks.

𝜀-equivalence itself is interesting because it comes with a *competence
constraint* that prevents it from being a transitive relation, that in
general a =𝜀 b ^ b =𝜀 c ⊬ a =𝜀 c is crucial to the theory. In other
words, while there may be a wide range of arm shapes that can be used as
bludgeons, one can evolve themselves out of the sweet spot. Dually, the
𝜀-equivalence condition provides a route to modeling *exaptation*, via
modal possibility. As p's belonging to the Physical domain vary, images in
the abstract theory vary into or out of 𝜀-equivalence with values belonging
to other problem domains. In particular, if we imagine that the R-map in the
paper is *actually* a structural functor as it seems to imply, we can
imagine another functor R' which specifies yet another problem space.
Natural transformations then, up to 𝜀-equivalence, provide a model of
exaptation. Because of the experimental nature of 𝜀-equivalence, I suspect
we would slowly discover an underlying Heyting algebra which would extend to
a topos via studying relations on sieves of 𝜀-equivalent structures. This
approach would formalize *how far from competent* a structure is wrt
*proving* a particular computation.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Barry MacKichan

Re: vote

In reply to this post by Prof David West

If I understand you, you ignored Trump supporters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, etc. All of those states have substantial rural parts. I think that possibly doing the same exercise with counties would be interesting as a measurement of the degree politics is a function of location.

The line between red and blue is going to be very complicated, going through the middle of many Thanksgiving dinner tables.

—Barry

On 6 Nov 2020, at 18:33, Prof David West wrote:

A comment was made at vFRIAM that support of trump/biden was "explained in large part as rural versus urban."

I just did a quick, and therefore not 100% accurate, count of the population of states supporting trump: more or less 75 million. If that was the sole source of his support, then 90% of the population of those states — not just voters — would have to vote trump to account for his 68 million votes.

Yes, flyover country is sparsely populated (in comparison) and yes, they supported trump, but, just like biden, most of his support had to come from urban areas.

davew

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: A/R theory

In reply to this post by gepr

Unless I am somehow forgetting some clever interpretation, I was wrong about
the transitivity.

Let me try to reason from an example: an experimenter defines a litany of
tests for deciding how well a collection of things can be relied upon when
treated as computational objects. For instance, an audiophile may have a box
of capacitors that they wish to rank according to how well the caps filter
out hum without suppressing the dynamic range of the music. This process
defines a partition function on the box of capacitors. In a limiting case,
we can imagine having only two buckets, one with caps that are good enough
and the other with those that are not. In this coarse way, transitivity
holds because we either grabbed 3 caps that are from the *good enough*
bucket or we did not.

What I think I found confusing has to do with the distance function d:: C_t
x R_t(H) -> K, with K some ring. Here, allowing the C_t param to vary has
the effect of allowing the problem dependence to vary, or as in the example
above, allowing the hum tolerance to vary. Fixing a problem domain fixes the
C_T and this is rather instead like providing a space equipped with a fixed
origin. From that the more familiar distance function d':: R_T(H) x R_T(H)
-> K can easily be formed with nice transitivity features and all.

Now that I am reoriented a bit, I think an interpretation in terms of
V-profunctors and the closed monoidal categories we discussed in the linear
logic discussions could be fruitful. In effect, the function d as defined in
the paper is effectively a profunctor interpreted via a Cost quantale,
covariant in the Abstract category parameter, and contravariant in the
Physical category parameter. Dang, I hope some part of this makes any sense
:)

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: A/R theory

A partition, e.g. the buckets, defines an equivalence relation which is transitive. Or is that what you said.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020, 7:25 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Unless I am somehow forgetting some clever interpretation, I was wrong about
the transitivity.

Let me try to reason from an example: an experimenter defines a litany of
tests for deciding how well a collection of things can be relied upon when
treated as computational objects. For instance, an audiophile may have a box
of capacitors that they wish to rank according to how well the caps filter
out hum without suppressing the dynamic range of the music. This process
defines a partition function on the box of capacitors. In a limiting case,
we can imagine having only two buckets, one with caps that are good enough
and the other with those that are not. In this coarse way, transitivity
holds because we either grabbed 3 caps that are from the *good enough*
bucket or we did not.

What I think I found confusing has to do with the distance function d:: C_t
x R_t(H) -> K, with K some ring. Here, allowing the C_t param to vary has
the effect of allowing the problem dependence to vary, or as in the example
above, allowing the hum tolerance to vary. Fixing a problem domain fixes the
C_T and this is rather instead like providing a space equipped with a fixed
origin. From that the more familiar distance function d':: R_T(H) x R_T(H)
-> K can easily be formed with nice transitivity features and all.

Now that I am reoriented a bit, I think an interpretation in terms of
V-profunctors and the closed monoidal categories we discussed in the linear
logic discussions could be fruitful. In effect, the function d as defined in
the paper is effectively a profunctor interpreted via a Cost quantale,
covariant in the Abstract category parameter, and contravariant in the
Physical category parameter. Dang, I hope some part of this makes any sense
:)

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/