Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
Dear Nick I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner. http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction otherwise we would be inducing that all cows in Scotland are black. http://www.lockergnome.com/windows/2006/04/19/are-all-cows-in-scotland-black/ I think you've made a truly great discovery - that almost all of whatever you've taken for granted in your life is recent and wouldn't survive beyond a generation or two. This actually is the key to faith. People are gulled by old lies (the Bible ?) more easily than new ones. Since I'm unwilling to risk a visit to your country (I may be impounded) perhaps I'm the perfect alien to induct with (a Swirski test?). I'm communicating with you over radio (well the internet actually), I've been programmed to read/write your language (the z instead of s is an irritation), I watch reruns of your old TV shows - from AbbotCostello to Lucy to Star_Trek to The BigBangTheory (S05E20-The Transporter Malfunction). My civilisation is much further advanced than your violent/primitive one (in which old ladies are at maximum risk), AND our swarm knows the secret of the Universe. Take me to your Leader !!! Sarbajit On 4/6/12, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Sarbajit, Before I forget, induction is coming to a conclusion about the character of a class through amassing instances of that class. (Collecting swans that are white to show that all swans are white.) Abduction is amassing properties of an individual to show that that individual is belongs to a class. (This bird is white, water-loving, monogamous ..). I probably deserved your raillery. I am currently besotted with the American Pragmatist Philosophers, who included Peirce (philosophy), James (psychology) and Holmes (Law) among others. If you want to get as besotted as I, read Menand, The Metaphysical Club. Key to pragmatism is the faith that if everybody thinks carefully, and follows good rational procedures, and collects data, the community of inquiry (or the law) will converge on the truth. Reading that book, and a biography of James, and many original essays by Peirce, I am struck by how much of what I have taken for granted in my life is of relatively recent origin and could easily be torn down in a generation. I don't know how much you know about our politics over here, but there is actually a political war on rationality going on which is terrifying to me, and should be terrifying to anybody else in the world, given levels of fear and power that we combine. For example, we live in a scruffy little neighborhood in down town santa fe. The other night the little old lady who lives across the street was visited (he knocked on her door) by a begger. She has recently moved here from Texas. On her own report, she sat up the entire subsequent night, facing her door in an armchair, with a loaded shotgun across her knee. I have a right to defend myself, she said. Anyway, Please forgive my besottedness. I have been using an awful lot of bandwidth, recently, and it's probably time to shut up. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 8:30 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone? Dear Nick I'm rather surprised to learn from you that the notion of settled legal opinion is an American Institution brought about by induction. By this reasoning almost everything that are uniquely American useful things - apple pie, Thanksgiving turkey etc can be ascribed to induction in addition to bridges, cheap food etc, The apple falling on Newton's head could equally have been induced by him to formulate a recipe for Apple Pie for the masses instead of the Law of Gravitation. Could you be a little more specific on what you consider induction to be as I think you and Doug or Bruce understand induction to be different things. I am an engineer (aka. intelligent designer) , while designing bridges or machines etc I have neither the time nor inclination to consider the philosophical implications of whether my creation has feelings or free will. I just need to focus on my grand design and its purpose. Sarbajit 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
[FRIAM] definitions will be the death of us (was: So, *Are* We Alone?)
Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/06/2012 06:36 AM: I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner. http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction Thread successfully hijacked! ;-) I think it's hilarious how we all want to _fix_ the semantic map and that we fail to tolerate others' maps. I also think Nick, Doug, and Bruce (and everyone else) are and will always be using different definitions of the word induction. And I actually think that's a _good_ thing. Ambiguity is good. N-ary relations are good. Why are so many of us so _proud_ that we are not dazzled by what others think? What's wrong with basking in the idiocy, mediocrity, and brilliance of the world around us? Where lies this impetus to either retreat into little holes of cynicism or forcibly _remake_ reality to match our fantasies? Let's take this back to Doug's original offending question: whether a two-fold increase in intelligence would lead to a reduction in religious belief. Moron that I am, I am fascinated and dazzled by tales of magic, extra terrestrial life, personal transformation, and mythology[*]. I.e. the thoughts of others. These thoughts breathe life into what can become a debilitating existence of fact-checking and pompous denigration of others' semantic maps. So, if I were to draw lines (which I won't lest I contradict myself ;-), then you should count me on the side of the morons who prefer to be less intelligent and continually bedazzled by the thoughts of others. [*] Though I am thoroughly tired of vampires at this point. [sigh] I used to love a good vampire story. I'm not sure what happened. -- glen 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
Re: [FRIAM] definitions will be the death of us (was: So, *Are* We Alone?)
Thank you, Glen. Re: Vampires, *Twilight* is one thing that happened. Ick. A note on dazzled or bedazzled, vs. amused, or bemused: I am frequently amused, and often bemused by things I see and hear every single day, but almost never dazzled. To be dazzled is to lose one's vision, or perspective, or ability to think rationally - a very unhealthy thing to do as a steady diet. Attempts should be made to avoid blind bedazzlement. It's bad for the rest of us. Finally, back to the original offending, as you say, question: who is to say we wouldn't find the puzzles of the universe twice as interesting and amusing, and bemusing, if we were twice as smart? Hopefully all the while being less prone to swallowing those absurd religious hooks, lines, and sinkers? I am particularly unsympathetic towards those who have chosen to be bedazzled by the Mormon religion, because that is the one major religion whose genesis occurred entirely during modern recorded history. Joe Smith was a scam artist, a scheister, a grifter, and a lier; that story about the golden tablets he found in a field on New York state, covered in Egyptian hieroglyphics which only he, conveniently enough, ever saw is the *basis* of the Mormon religion. The whole story is a HUGE load of bullshit, and yet it is happily swallowed, er, excuse me, taken as an article of faith by the multitudes comprising the fastest growing religion on the planet! And, as one of my friends said recently, The only difference between the Mormon religion, and Christianity is time and place. So with that, it is now permitted for those on this list who choose to act in the capacity of apologists for bible-thumping zealots everywhere to resume their chastisement of me for having dared to ask the offensive question. Twice. --Doug On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/06/2012 06:36 AM: I would treat induction/deduction/abduction in an alternate formal manner. http://psivision.objectis.net/DeductionAbductionInduction Thread successfully hijacked! ;-) I think it's hilarious how we all want to _fix_ the semantic map and that we fail to tolerate others' maps. I also think Nick, Doug, and Bruce (and everyone else) are and will always be using different definitions of the word induction. And I actually think that's a _good_ thing. Ambiguity is good. N-ary relations are good. Why are so many of us so _proud_ that we are not dazzled by what others think? What's wrong with basking in the idiocy, mediocrity, and brilliance of the world around us? Where lies this impetus to either retreat into little holes of cynicism or forcibly _remake_ reality to match our fantasies? Let's take this back to Doug's original offending question: whether a two-fold increase in intelligence would lead to a reduction in religious belief. Moron that I am, I am fascinated and dazzled by tales of magic, extra terrestrial life, personal transformation, and mythology[*]. I.e. the thoughts of others. These thoughts breathe life into what can become a debilitating existence of fact-checking and pompous denigration of others' semantic maps. So, if I were to draw lines (which I won't lest I contradict myself ;-), then you should count me on the side of the morons who prefer to be less intelligent and continually bedazzled by the thoughts of others. [*] Though I am thoroughly tired of vampires at this point. [sigh] I used to love a good vampire story. I'm not sure what happened. -- glen 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 -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell 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
Re: [FRIAM] Great Free Math Book
Muy chévere. Gracias 2012/4/6 Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net A couple of friends from Silicon Valley are taking the Stanford Algorithms course with me. One of the readings for the class is: Mathematics for Computer Science Eric Lehman and Tom Leighton 2004 http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr10/cos433/mathcs.pdf ... which is a surprisingly complete survey of most of your basic undergraduate math, done very well. -- Owen Here is the table of contents: Contents 1 What is a Proof? 15 1.1 Propositions. 15 1.2 Axioms 19 1.3 LogicalDeductions . 20 1.4 ExamplesofProofs . 20 1.4.1 ATautology. 21 1.4.2 AProofbyContradiction . 22 2 Induction I 23 2.1 AWarmupPuzzle.. 23 2.2 Induction... 24 2.3 UsingInduction... 25 2.4 ADivisibilityTheorem... 28 2.5 AFaultyInductionProof.. 30 2.6 CourtyardTiling... 31 2.7 AnotherFaultyProof 33 3 Induction II 35 3.1 GoodProofsandBadProofs 35 3.2 APuzzle... 36 3.3 Unstacking.. 40 3.3.1 StrongInduction .. 40 3.3.2 AnalyzingtheGame 41 4 Number Theory I 45 4.1 ATheoryoftheIntegers .. 46 4.2 Divisibility.. 46 4.2.1 Turing’sCode(Version1.0) 47 4.2.2 TheDivisionAlgorithm .. 50 4.2.3 BreakingTuring’sCode .. 51 4.3 ModularArithmetic. 51 4.3.1 CongruenceandRemainders... 51 4.3.2 Factsaboutremandmod. 52 4.3.3 Turing’sCode(Version2.0) 54 4.3.4 CancellationModuloaPrime... 55 4.3.5 MultiplicativeInverses... 56 4.3.6 Fermat’sTheorem. 57 4.3.7 FindingInverseswithFermat’sTheorem 58 4.3.8 BreakingTuring’sCode—Again. 58 5 Number Theory II 61 5.1 DieHard... 61 5.1.1 DeathbyInduction. 62 5.1.2 AGeneralTheorem. 63 5.1.3 TheGreatestCommonDivisor.. 64 5.1.4 PropertiesoftheGreatestCommonDivisor... 65 5.2 TheFundamentalTheoremofArithemtic 67 5.3 ArithmeticwithanArbitraryModulus.. 68 5.3.1 RelativePrimalityandPhi. 68 5.3.2 GeneralizingtoanArbitraryModulus.. 70 5.3.3 Euler’sTheorem .. 71 6 Graph Theory 73 6.1 Introduction. 73 6.1.1 Definitions.. 74 6.1.2 SexinAmerica ... 74 6.1.3 GraphVariations .. 76 6.1.4 ApplicationsofGraphs .. 77 6.1.5 SomeCommonGraphs .. 77 6.1.6 Isomorphism 79 6.2 Connectivity. 80 6.2.1 ASimpleConnectivityTheorem . 80 6.2.2 DistanceandDiameter... 81 6.2.3 Walks. 83 6.3 AdjacencyMatrices. 83 6.4 Trees . 84 6.4.1 SpanningTrees ... 86 6.4.2 TreeVariations ... 87 7 Graph Theory II 89 7.1 ColoringGraphs... 89 7.1.1 k-Coloring.. 90 7.1.2 BipartiteGraphs .. 90 7.2 PlanarGraphs 91 7.2.1 Euler’sFormula... 93 7.2.2 ClassifyingPolyhedra ... 94 7.3 Hall’sMarriageTheorem.. 95 7.3.1 AFormalStatement 97 8 Communication Networks 99 8.1 CompleteBinaryTree 99 8.1.1 LatencyandDiameter ...100 8.1.2 SwitchSize .101 8.1.3 SwitchCount 101 8.1.4 Congestion .101 8.2 2-DArray ..103 8.3 Butterfly ...104 8.4 Benes ̆Network ...106 9 Relations 111 9.0.1 RelationsonOneSet111 9.0.2 RelationsandDirectedGraphs
[FRIAM] Charlie Rose - Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson
Pretty good chat by Simpson Bowles on their debt reduction plan .. that wasn't accepted by Washington. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12265 -- Owen 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
