Dear Russ I've read your paper on *how the Fed can fix the economy:
*You've programed the states of the economy and frozen the Fed's response in turns of those states like traffic lights. It reminds me of classical control theory - pure and immediate "P"roportional control to control a single variable. Are there any "I"s and "D"s which are time/rate dependent or is that left up to the Fed? ** On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Russ Abbott <russ.abb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Never beaten over the head with “hypothetical construct” or “intervening > variable”. My notion of state is basic theoretical computer science. How > an automaton (a formally defined mechanism such as a Turing Machine, Finite > Automaton, etc.) reacts to its input depends on its state. This isn't > intended to be particularly sophisticated. It's just a technique used when > specifying how things interact with their environments. > > When a traffic light that controls a crosswalk is in the green state (in > your direction) and you press the cross button, it ignores that input. When > it's in its red state (in your direction) and you press the cross button, it > starts counting down to turning green. How long the countdown will be > depends on another element of its state: how much time has passed since the > most recent green. > > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Thanks, Steve. Will ponder all of this. Nick **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve >> Smith >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 8:47 PM >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Systems, State, Recursion, Iteration.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Nick - >> >> It would be difficult to explain this (Marcus' definition of iteration vs >> recursion) to you without teaching you several key computer science >> concepts which are not necessarily difficult but are very *specific*. >> >> The first step would be to answer your question of days ago about what a >> "System" is. Physicists define System the same way Biologists (or even >> Social Scientists) do, just using different components and processes. It >> involves the relationship between the "thing" itself (a subset of the >> universe) and a model that represents it. >> >> Therein lies two lossy compressions: 1) Reductionism is at best a >> convenient approximation... no subset or subsystem is completely isolated >> (unless perhaps somehow what is inside a black hole is isolated from what >> is outside, but that might be an uninteresting, degenerate case?); 2) The >> model is not the thing... we've been all over this, right? Another lossy >> compression/projection of reality. oh and a *third*; 3) We can only measure >> these quantities to some degree of precision. >> >> In a system, a simultaneous measure every quantity of every aspect of the >> system is it's "state". In practice, we can only measure some of the >> quantities to some precision of some of the aspects, and in fact, that is >> pretty much what modeling is about... choosing that subset according to >> various limited qualities such as what we *can* measure and with what >> level of precision and with a goal in mind of answering specific questions >> with said model. >> >> At this point, we are confronted with "what means State?" >> >> Your preference for "Analytical Output" vs "State" I think reflects your >> attempt to think in terms of the implementation of a model (in a computer >> program, or human executed logic/algorithm). The problems with "Analytical >> Output" in this context arise from both "Analytical" and "Output". >> "Analytical" implies that the only or main value of the "state" is to do >> analysis on it. In Marcus example, it's main use is to feed it right back >> into an iterated model... no human may ever look at this "state". "Output" >> suggests (also) that the state is visible *outside* the system. While >> (for analytical purposes) we might choose to capture a snapshot of the >> state, it is not an "output", it is just the STATE of the system (see >> above). >> >> Marcus point was that in a recursive *program* (roughly a deterministic >> implementation rooted in formal symbol processing, of a model of some >> "system"), the "system" is nominally subdivided into physical or logical >> subsets or "subsystems" and executed *recursively* (to wit, by subdividing >> again until an answer can be obtained without further subdivision). In an >> iterative *program*, the entire (sub) system model is executed with initial >> conditions (state) one time, then the resulting state of that iteration is >> used as the initial conditions for the *next* iteration until some >> convergence criteria (the state of the system ceases to change above some >> epsilon) is met. >> >> I hope this helps... and doesn't muddy the water yet more? >> >> - Steve**** >> >> I don't know, I don't speak Haskell. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> --Doug**** >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** >> >> Could be!**** >> >> **** >> >> Ok. Now that that is behind us, what did the message mean? **** >> >> **** >> >> N**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas >> Roberts >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:02 PM**** >> >> >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group**** >> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning. >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Nick,**** >> >> **** >> >> I surprised that you are not more conversant in computer languages. >> You're always, well, niggling about the meaning of this word, or that one >> in the context of this or that conversation.**** >> >> **** >> >> With computer languages, there are very few ambiguities, contextual or >> other wise. Kind of like mathematics. For one as worried as you often >> appear to be about the true meaning of the written word, I would have >> thought that you would positively revel at the ability to express yourself >> with nearly absolute crystal clarity, no ambiguities whatsoever.**** >> >> **** >> >> Could it be that you seek out the ambiguities that are ever present in >> human languages to give yourself something to pounce upon and worry over, >> and to provide the opportunity to engage in nearly endless conversations? >> **** >> >> **** >> >> --Doug**** >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** >> >> Can anybody translate this for a non programmer person? >> >> N**** >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. >> Daniels >> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 1:10 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.** >> ** >> >> On 4/12/13 5:40 PM, glen wrote: >> > Iteration is most aligned with stateful repetition. Recursion is most >> > aligned with stateless repetition. >> Purely functional constructs can capture iteration, though. >> >> $ cat foo.hs >> import Control.Monad.State >> import Control.Monad.Loops >> >> inc :: State Int Bool >> inc = do i <- get >> put (i + 1) >> return (i < 10) >> >> main = do >> putStrLn (show (runState (whileM inc get) 5)) $ ghc --make foo.hs $ >> ./foo >> ([6,7,8,9,10],11) >> >> ============================================================ >> 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**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Doug Roberts >> d...@parrot-farm.net***** >> >> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> >> **** >> >> * >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-672-8213 - Mobile***** >> >> >> ============================================================ >> 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**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Doug Roberts >> d...@parrot-farm.net* **** >> >> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*<http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> >> **** >> >> * >> 505-455-7333 - Office >> 505-672-8213 - Mobile***** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ============================================================**** >> >> 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 >> > > > ============================================================ > 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
