Thanks Glen,
Yes, me too. In these very wide-ranging discussions, it is hard to say which
aspect of the question I most want to get at. I think it changes depending on
whom I am listening to, that leaves something out, which I wish to say is all
part of the same system as the parts they menti
Glen writes:
*I don't find any of these machines compelling, though. So I can't really
say anything useful in response to your post, except to say that it would
be *great fun* to try to construct a self-correcting truth machine. It
would be even more fun to construct several of them and have them
I really *want* to say something about building a machine (to be provocative)
that implements a "reliable in the long-run without predicting the contents of
reliable sentences" mechanism. I'm purposefully trying to elide your
cognizing-social behavers in order to "flatten" the mechanism somewhat
ks...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:50 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
>
> Thank you, David,
>
> I need to thi
Signal to Nick:
You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and
intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and
Jon. Now is the chance to do it at low cost.
Frank has provided two proofs of irrationality of the square root of 2, one
fo
/>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: thompnicks...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 5:50 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
Thank you, David,
I need to think about all of this.
A brief
: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
Signal to Nick:
You commented on wanting to understand the conversation about formalists and
intuitionists which I have been using in various conversations with Glen and
Jon. Now is t
EricS,
goddamn.
Jon
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - . -..-. . ...
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/fr
F-
> The last thing Doug said to me on Facebook was, "Growing old
> gracefully is an oxymoron."
Which is why we like to say "Youth is wasted on the young"... part of
the ungraceful part I think...
>
> By the way, who was evicted for non-payment of rent? I lost the context.
Lovecraft I think?
The last thing Doug said to me on Facebook was, "Growing old gracefully is
an oxymoron."
Sorry about the munged part of the constructivist proof. It looked fine in
my mail client when I sent it.
By the way, who was evicted for non-payment of rent? I lost the context.
Frank
---
Frank C. Wimbe
Frank -
> Clinicians often call that "being oppositional".
I think "oppositional" is one *motive* for contrarianism, and maybe
contrarianism is one *mode* of being oppositional? I'm far from up on
the clinical definitions, and my own *contrarianism* tends toward
nitpicking and hairsplitting (th
Ha! Not in the end. He refused to be rational right up until they evicted him
and his family for not paying rent. And I agree completely with you. By hook or
crook, we CNS governed animals are fast and fantastic at choosing the right
decoder instantaneously. Everything else is post-hoc and often
-
From: Friam On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:08 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder.
There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to purpose. Going back to
Lovec
The badly rendered part:
{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\right|={\frac
{|2b^{2}-a^{2}|}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{b^{2}\left({\sqrt {2}}+{\frac {a}{b}}\right)}}\geq {\frac
{1}{3b^{2}}},}[image:
{\displaystyle \left|{\sqrt {2}}-{\frac {a}{b}}\righ
Clinicians often call that "being oppositional".
You say that I've known authorities. I was just talking to John Baez about
my advisor Errett Bishop, often called the inventor of constructive
mathematics. Here is a constructive proof, with no use of the excluded
middle, of the irrationality of s
y time wasted sorting it out.
Marcus
From: Friam on behalf of uǝlƃ ☣
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:07 AM
To: FriAM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder.
Ther
Marcus' post hides my own response to your question. There is no good decoder.
There is only a good choice of decoders, fit to purpose. Going back to
Lovecraft, I used to live next door to someone who believed in the Illuminati,
the bad formulation, and the "12 men who rule the world". I'm confi
I notice now that when I make e-mails Glen-ready, that some mechanized editors
advise that the text should be more direct, and strongly-worded. (
On 5/21/20, 9:48 AM, "Friam on behalf of Steve Smith"
wrote:
I like this "turn of events" where the subject of the discussion is
somewhat
gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-Original Message-
From: Friam On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:50 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] anonymity/deniability/ambiguity
On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Don't be fo
On 5/21/20 10:32 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it
> exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.
I KNOW! I know just what you mean!
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - . -..-.
I like this "turn of events" where the subject of the discussion is
somewhat self-referential and is peeling away it's own veneers as it were.
Regarding "false humility", I find myself *avoiding* those qualifiers
sometimes *out of respect* to my audience. I feel like, in a group
like this, that
Don't be fooled. "The problem with communication is the illusion that it
exists." Or ie I believe in a stronger form of privacy than you believe in.
On 5/21/20 9:29 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> We're beginning to really communicate, Glen.
--
☣ uǝlƃ
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-
Reminds me of when I was an undergraduate at Berkeley. I had a TA in
History of Philosophy who was a Harvard graduate. Sport coat, bow tie,
horn-rimmed glasses, etc. In the food court the walked up to one of the
workers and said, "I think this milk is spoiled." The guy said "You THINK
it's spoi
Ha! Nice one. We have only the "apparently" qualifier to guide our decoder
choice.
I forget the phrase Jon used, but I thought "humility signalling" when he
mentioned it and I described being accused of false humility (in a friendly
way). By peppering one's assertions with "I think" and "in my
Bendito Espinoza (Spanish version) apparently did not believe in the
transcendent God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Nor did he believe that men
are constrained by the Ten Commandments*. He was declared "herem", a very
severe action.
My daughter's former Muslim mother-in-law would say "Haram, Har
Glen,
I really like where you are going with this.
I hope to find some time today to sit with these
ideas and produce some notes for tomorrow.
Jon
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - . -..-. . ...
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Comp
It's debatable which type of privacy is a minimal next layer out from
obscurity. In the responses to the combinatorial "privacy by obscurity", we
talked about targeting, classification of decoders, invertibility of the
encoder, etc. My guess is most of us dorks would want to leap to cryptography
27 matches
Mail list logo
