Re: [FRIAM] Four Color Theorem and beyond!
I agree with you about the numerological or anthropomorphic feel of this attempt to unify disparate subjects with a common pattern. But I can only speak to the bias I see in example 3. At this point, I'm sure I sound like a broken record. So, I'll merely raise the point again and leave it be unless others chime in. The discretization into 4 types (set, class, set member, class member) is violated in lots of mathematics as it's practiced, namely in impredicative definitions (sets defined by a quantification over the set being defined). This is indirectly related to the openness of practical math raised by Feferman and the demonstrations of the practical utility of formal systems that are both complete and consistent (i.e. simple enough to escape the GIT, but complex enough for engineers to use to good effect). Aczel helped to formulate this rigorously and demonstrated a foundational math where a set can be a member of itself, which means the magic number would not be 4, but 3 (or perhaps 2). So, the bias toward 4 is situational, I think. That does NOT mean the idea isn't interesting, though. On 04/27/2013 08:28 AM, Steve Smith wrote: SAS commentary I have not taken the time to follow all of Jack's references and this expose' verges on numerological argumentation, at least half of the bullet points below are convincing to me on their own merits. The position is that 4 is a certain kind of magic number in a topological sense, relevant to some fundamental things like Cartography, Language, Aboriginal Cosmology, Mathematics, Genetics, and most oblique... the Celtic Knot. Reminds me of the anthropic posit-ion that we live in 3 (perceptible) spatial dimensions because it is the lowest number of dimensions where all graphs can be embedded without edge-crossings. Can't remember the source of this - Original Message - *From:* Jack K. Horner mailto:jhor...@cybermesa.com *To:* X *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2013 8:04 AM *Subject:* Re: The Notorious Four-Color Problem Jeremy Martin's KU mini-course (see thread below) on the Four-Color Theorem (FCT, Every planar map is four colorable, [1]) promises to be a spectacle. It's hard to overestimate the importance of the FCT, and on any dispassionate reckoning, it would have to ranked among the 100 most important theorems of mathematics. A color, in the sense of the FCT, is any nominal distinguishable property; red, green, blue, and yellow work as well as any. Given this meaning of color, the FCT, at the heart of which is the notion of four-foldness, is much more than a cartographic curiosity. To sketch a few: [...] 3. Adherents of the logicist program in mathematics ([5], esp. Chaps. II-III) hold that all of mathematics *could* be expressed in set theory (together with a logic and a raft of mere definitions).In its most rigorous form, set theory presumes a four-fold set of distinctions (is a class, is a set (a restriction of a class), is a member of a class, and is a member of a set ([9]). This view of mathematics is thus equivalent to a set-theoretic version of the FCT. [...] [5] Körner S. The Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introductory Essay. 1968. Dover reprint, 1986. [9] Fraenkel A and Bar-Hillel Y. Foundations of Set Theory. North Hollnad. 1958. Jack K. Horner P.O. Box 266 Los Alamos, NM 87544 Voice: 505-455-0381 Fax: 505-455-0382 email: jhor...@cybermesa.com mailto:jhor...@cybermesa.com -- glen e. p. ropella http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847 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
Re: [FRIAM] formaldehyde is made in brain cells from methanol (wood alcohol) by ADH1 enzyme -- breakthrough paradigm by Prof. Woodrow C Monte: Rich Murray 2013.04.27
Very interesting! Thanks, Rich. It's amazing to me how biologically important formaldehyde is, not only as a toxin, but as a naturally occurring metabolite. I don't remember when I first heart the aphorism The dose is the poison. But it comes up again and again. All the interesting chemicals are active and have regimes where they're negligible, interesting, and poisonous, at least in healthy organisms. Damn it. There's that magic number 3 again. ;-) On 04/27/2013 10:00 PM, Rich Murray wrote: May I venture to introduce a new candidate for a toxic cause of autism -- briefly, methanol (wood alcohol) (about the same doses from cigarette smoke, aspartame, and unfresh fruits juices vegetables cut up and preserved wet at room temperature in sealed cans jars plastic containers) quickly enters the blood and travels with the blood, with half-life 3 hours, to the whole body and the fetus every minute -- only in 20 specific human tissues with high levels of ADH1 enzyme, is the methanol rapidly made into free floating formaldehyde right within these cells, which include the inner walls of brain blood vessels at the base of the brain, and also the Purkinje cells in the vermis of the cerebellum: Chapter 12 Autism and Other Birth Defects, free at www.WhileScienceSleeps, Prof. Woodrow C. Monte, Food Science and Nutrition, Arizona State University, retired 2004, with 745 free online full text medical research references: ... our methanol poisoned rat pups lost Purkinje cells preferentially from a very specific area of the cerebellum called the vermis. This meant little to me at the time but it has now been discovered the cerebellum is known to be preferentially damaged in human autism, 622 and the vermis 570 and hippocampus are the particular areas of the cerebellum most damaged and reduced in volume by the disease. 571 ... http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/622.pdf 12 page full text -- glen == Hail Eris! 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
Re: [FRIAM] Shouting...
` Geez, owen. I see what you mean! At first I thought this was a joke because the first couple of days I saw this thread both inline images were giving me the broken image icon: Kinda like the XKCD Umlaut comic. -Arlo James Barnes 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
Re: [FRIAM] Cell phone turns 40
Going through some old emails and completing and sending drafts I had. I voted for Obama more because he was young than because he was not-white. He is young compared to most presidents, but JFK and Teddy Roosevelt outflanked him, and nobody can go younger than 35 (I don't believe the 30s-40s barrier has been breached yet). Not that it matters - I think two 42-year-olds can relate to each other as much or as little as a 25- and a 55-year-old; what depends more is interests, and their living situation. However, the *perception* of age still seems to matter to people for whatever reason. You may notice that when Obama wants to look like the fresh new face (whenever I think of that expression, I think of how acne is predominantly a teenage affliction) of America, hope and change and all that (as seen in election campaign events), he dyes his hair black...when he wants to look put-upon, as when dealing with Republican leadership, he dyes it greyer. Probably it is naturally somewhere in between. I want my children's generation I recognize that it is a colloquialism, but is there really any good reason to use the concept of 'generations'? I may have said this before on this list, and have definitely said it elsewhere, and will doubtless say in in the future. After all, humans are not born in batches, and most societal changes either happen gradually or affect people of all ages. And there is the question of how generations are defined: for example, my parents born circa 1950 are solidly in the Baby Boomer generation, so as their child I might fall in Generation X - but many Generation Xers have children or even in some cases grandchildren my age. And what generation they are called is uncertain also...are they Generation Y? Generation Next, as the New Mexican seems to call them? The Internet generation (Vince Cerf, Doug Engelbart, Tim Berners Lee et al. should feel a bit ignored for that)? What was the 'Me' generation again? Some people are calling the youngest members of society right now 'Generation Z' - once we run out of Latin characters do we switch to Greek, like hurricanes? Basically I think it is a silly arbitrary system, but would welcome any and all arguments to the contrary. -Arlo James Barnes 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] robodialers and other kinds of phone spam
Mayhaps someone one the FRIAM list can enlighten me on this I've recently been getting all sorts of 1800 numbers calling at a long variety of numbers of the day- one I think was a bord fax machine- I canot fathom why these business can not fathom that some of us do not apreciate getting calls at 10 at night telling me all about how the sky is dayglow orange and tastes like chicken(from the voice mail) I also can not fathom why these robo dialers pick my google voice number- it only makes me think I want a bit bleach for the business genepool-and try set a speed record for how fast I can add the offending business to my spam list.. What kind of strange business model has somewhere in there: Piss off the customers? Why do we as a society put up with that? 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
Re: [FRIAM] robodialers and other kinds of phone spam
I think a small portion of it is accounted for by businesses having different ideas of what pisses people off from some of their customers. For example, many times after signing up for an account with a small startup, to see what it is, I get an email or often a series of emails from an employee wanting to help me get started, check in to see how I am doing, ask for feedback on how I like my experience so far. I usually try to politely respond by saying I am just checking out their service and don't need any special attention. And I have been getting some missed calls to my Google Voice account from a toll-free number a Google Search identified as Nuance Software; I had helped my school install Dragon Naturally Speaking on several computers and must have foolishly put my number down somewhere in the installation/registration process. But no doubt much of it is the 'this is cheap, and it will make one in a thousand people buy [more] stuff from us, so it is worth it' ethic. -Arlo James Barnes 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
Re: [FRIAM] Cell phone turns 40
Arlo - I voted for Obama more because he was young than because he was not-white. He is young compared to most presidents, but JFK and Teddy Roosevelt outflanked him, and nobody can go younger than 35 (I don't believe the 30s-40s barrier has been breached yet). Not that it matters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age gave me some interesting info, including the fact that Bill Clinton was younger than Obama (at inauguration). I always was lead to believe that JFK was closer to the magic floor age of 35 than his almost 44 and was surprised at Teddy R's 42! Thanks for the history lesson. - I think two 42-year-olds can relate to each other as much or as little as a 25- and a 55-year-old; what depends more is interests, and their living situation. I do agree that on an individual level, age is only one differentiator among many. However, the /perception/ of age still seems to matter to people for whatever reason. You may notice that when Obama wants to look like the fresh new face (whenever I think of that expression, I think of how acne is predominantly a teenage affliction) of America, hope and change and all that (as seen in election campaign events), he dyes his hair black...when he wants to look put-upon, as when dealing with Republican leadership, he dyes it greyer. Probably it is naturally somewhere in between. Age is a reasonable positive correlate for experience. The 25 year old in question will have had 5-15 years of adult-like experiences to draw from where presumably the 55 year old will have at least 30 or more... no matter their circumstance. Age is also a reasonable negative correlation for innocence which can translate into naivete (for better and worse) while the loss of naivete can lead to various forms of cynicism (read the FRIAM archives?) and negativity. Not hard connections, just correlations. You don't have to be old to be wise nor to be cynical, but it seems to help. I want my children's generation I recognize that it is a colloquialism, but is there really any good reason to use the concept of 'generations'? I'll offer two arguments for this. The first is simple and personal. I am much more able/comfortable tracking my children's cohort than I am people younger or older, because I am in regular contact with them and have been since they were born. So, my children's generation is probably more aptly the cohort of people born within roughly 5 years of my own children (1975-1985). The second argument is that while generations in the sense of a labeled X, Y, Z or greatest is a bit trite and seems contrived, there is often (maybe more historically than contemporarily) a natural oscillation between parent and child. The old adage some things skip a generation is apt in my experience... for example, my own father rebelled against certain aspects of my grandfather's nature which I in turn rebelled against, roughly returning full circle to certain aspects of my grandfather's nature (e.g. My grandfather was an avid journaler and correspondent while my father probably wrote no more than 3 letters in his life, each one fitting onto less than a single sheet of paper). It also seems (anecdotally) true that parents try to give *their* children what *they* didn't have... again leading to an oscillation in many dimensions with a time constant of roughly the age of reproduction. I may have said this before on this list, and have definitely said it elsewhere, and will doubtless say in in the future. After all, humans are not born in batches, and most societal changes either happen gradually or affect people of all ages. And there is the question of how generations are defined: for example, my parents born circa 1950 are solidly in the Baby Boomer generation, so as their child I might fall in Generation X - but many Generation Xers have children or even in some cases grandchildren my age. And what generation they are called is uncertain also...are they Generation Y? Generation Next, as the New Mexican seems to call them? The Internet generation (Vince Cerf, Doug Engelbart, Tim Berners Lee et al. should feel a bit ignored for that)? What was the 'Me' generation again? Some people are calling the youngest members of society right now 'Generation Z' - once we run out of Latin characters do we switch to Greek, like hurricanes? There *is* some batching, first correlated with the staging and returning-from wars... and the second is simply the second order effect of THOSE children coming of age and having their own 15-30 years later. I agree that there is huge skew among individuals based on many features, but you pointed out specific examples, some of which are notable. My parents grew up with a post-WWI cohort who missed the roaring 20's, lived through the depression (as children),
Re: [FRIAM] Splitting? was Re: How do forces work?
[Week-old draft] But subgroups require me to know what I want and what I don't want so I can absolutely have or not have them, respectively. This does not reflect real mail, where I am not sure whether I think Phunny Stuph is amusing or crass and have to see it first. The best way to do this would be to have all the mail delivered, but in separate bins, so that I can see each pertinent part of the whole at a time without having to work my way through all the rest, mixed in. This would require some mechanism in the email system to do this, though, like the mail program remotely implementing Gmail's filters (auto-applied labels, which are just non-exclusive categories [tags, in other words]) - probably a security problem, and just hypothetical anyway. I suppose you could consider separate mailing lists to be Better Binning like that, and then if so we have the machinery for a solution (since many [but importantly not all] members are shared between FriAm, WedTech, and Discuss, so it is basically the same general community binned by topic type), we just need to keep the definitions in the lists clearer in our minds. So...what are they? As I understand it, the WedTech list is for planning WedTech and discussing topics that would be discussed at a WedTech event, and in the same manner: so, an instance of technology and what it means for the world? I guess the only WedTech event that I have actually attended is the one where my Supercomputing Challenge team presented our project, mostly involving an explanation of Dijkstra's algorithm. Then Discuss is discussing news items (including those local to Santa Fe, but maybe in not a predominant enough volume for that distinction to be significant) relating to the list's interests, namely technology, world affairs, and social trends. And then there is FriAm...which also has physical meetings, so presumably some of it is organising that, though from the time I have been subscribed it has been discussions ranging all over tech, science, philosophy, and social issues, incorporating both news and olds, with a good dose of interpersonal flavouring. I guess long story short, organising discussion is nontrivial. -Arlo 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] Fwd: NDPR Christopher Hookway The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism
Nick, FWIW. *-- Russ * ** Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2013.04.30 View this Review Onlinehttp://ndpr.nd.edu/news/39498-the-pragmatic-maxim-essays-on-peirce-and-pragmatism/ View Other NDPR Reviews http://ndpr.nd.edu Christopher Hookway, *The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism*, Oxford University Press, 2013, 256pp., $75.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199588381. Reviewed by Cheryl Misak, University of Toronto Christopher Hookway is one of the very finest scholars of C.S. Peirce and the tradition he founded -- American pragmatism. In reading this latest collection of his essays, I am reminded of how much I have learned from him. (Full disclosure: I was his doctoral student.) These essays are required reading for anyone interested in Peirce or pragmatism. It is very good to have them collected in one volume, as some were published in hard-to-find venues. We are also treated to a magnificent introduction, which will serve as a primer for those who want to know the essentials. I am going to focus in this review on what I think are the most significant ways in which Hookway advances a sophisticated understanding of pragmatism. Other fans of Hookway will no doubt have their own favorites. Pragmatism arose in the late 1860's in a reading group whose most prominent members were Peirce, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Chauncey Wright. The central insight of pragmatism is that in philosophy we must start from where we find ourselves -- as human beings, laden with beliefs and practices, trying to make sense of ourselves and our world. As Peirce's version of the pragmatic maxim has it, we must not adopt empty metaphysical theories. Rather, we must link our philosophical concepts to experience and practice -- to that with which we have dealings. When the pragmatist applies the maxim to the concept of truth, a set of problems immediately arises for the correspondence theory and any other theory that would make truth something that stood outside of human reach. How could anyone aim for a truth that goes beyond experience or beyond the best that inquiry could do? How could an inquirer adopt a methodology that might achieve that aim? The very idea of the believer-independent world, and the items within it to which beliefs might correspond or represent, seems graspable only if we could somehow step outside of our practices. The correspondence theory, Peirce says, is useless and having no use for this meaning of the word 'truth', we had better use the word in another sense (CP 5. 553). He argues that when we ask how truth is linked to our practices, we find that a true belief is one that would be indefeasible; or would not be improved upon; or would never lead to disappointment; or would forever meet the challenges of reasons, argument, and evidence. A true belief is the belief we would come to, were we to inquire as far as we could on a matter. This view of truth has been much maligned, partly because on occasion Peirce says that truth is what we are fated to believe at the end of inquiry. Problems and counterexamples to this way of understanding pragmatism have been gleefully marshaled. What if human beings were wiped out tomorrow -- would all our current beliefs be true? What if we never inquired about a question -- such as how many cups of tea Chris Hookway drank on December 2, 1985? Would there be no truth of that matter? Hookway is one of relatively few scholars of Peirce who understands that Peirce's account of truth is not an analysis of truth -- not a listing of necessary and sufficient conditions for when a belief is true (49). That is one important bulwark against the above misunderstandings. He is also one of the few scholars of Peirce who understands that when Peirce says that true beliefs are those on which there would be agreement at the end of inquiry, Peirce requires that the agreement be warranted by how things are, whatever that amounts to in this or that domain of inquiry. Hookway's essays illuminate this sophisticated kind of pragmatism and show how it is a compelling position. For instance, Pragmatism and the Given: C.I. Lewis, Quine and Peirce is, in my view, one of the best papers written about the heady days when Quine was supposedly carving out a new and bold theory, but was really repeating what his teacher Lewis had said -- and what Lewis, much more honestly, rightly attributed to Peirce. Hookway busts the myth that Lewis was in the grip of the Myth of the Given, in which we are given something in experience that can ground our beliefs and provide them with the stamp of certainty. For Lewis, as for Peirce, the given is that which impinges upon us or resists our attempts to change it and thus constrains our opinions. It is not something with a particular structure or quality and it does not deliver certainty. Lewis, and Peirce before him, put forward a fallibilist view on which no kind of belief is immune from revision and in which all beliefs form an interconnected
