Form

He didn’t get it.

I was surprised, kinda.  But it made sense, why he didn’t think much of my suggestion.  In fact, in his seminar at UCIrvine Information and Computer Science department (as tactic to get MIT to give him a better offer as a tenured faculty member), he dismissed my “idea”, quickly, even though he had asked (obviously rhetorically, in hindsight) for suggestions as a kind of Socratic presentation tactic in his talk.

My mentioning of Kirchoff’s law as a parallel in regards into information flow, he thought irrelevant, and was rather dismissive.  But who was I, just a graduate student from a west coast Podunk U [which eventually was a key university in the development of the World Wide Web].  He was an assistant Professor from MIT, angling for tenure.

kirchoff_law_1

This time I understood.  Although I didn’t have a name for it at the time.  I just shut up.

Now, I call it eucaryotic hubrisWe all have it, in the area of our expertise and our vast areas of ignorance.

This time, I had had enough encounters with these kind of guys to not be in awe of them. I didn’t assume I was at fault in not understanding, and not smart enough it “get what they are promoting”.  They were just as ignorant as I was.

And, Stupid, as me.  So when I was watching one of Geoffrey Hinton’s youtube talks…

carl_hewitt_stupid

I had interacted this “professor” before, in that seminar.   And I had listened to some of his other conference talks, he is very very very smart and accomplished.  So smart, these days, he is a distinguished emeritus faculty member, at the institution he got his BS and PhD at.  He has never had to move out of Massachusetts, or MIT.  No, this guy wasn’t Marvin Minsky, but his student.  So when Hinton told his offhand story, about Professor Carl Hewitt, I had to laugh.  Deja vu, all over again.

“Indeed, in their later years (after finding out that most others are faking an understanding of the laws of nature), INTPs [Architect Rationals] are likely to think of themselves as the master organizers who must pit themselves against nature and society in an unending effort to create organization out of the raw materials of nature.” – Please Understand Me II,  Keirsey, David. Please Understand Me II (Kindle Locations 4099-4107). Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kindle Edition.

As scientists, we all are struggling with understanding:

Formatics: Precise Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison. Precise Analogy and Precise Metaphor: how does one do that, and what does one mean by these two phrases? This is an essay, in the form of an ebook, on the nature of reality, measure, modeling, reference, and reasoning in an effort to move towards the development of Comparative Science and Relational Complexity. In some sense, this ebook explores the involution and envolution of ideas, particularly focusing on mathematics and reality as two “opposing” and “fixed points” in that “very” abstract space. As Robert Rosen has implied there has been (and still is going on) a war in Science. Essentially you can view that war as a battle between the “formalists” and the “informalists” — but make no mistake the participants of this war are united against “nature” — both are interested in understanding the world and sometimes predicting what can and will happen, whether that be real or imagined. So… I will ask the questions, for example, of “what could one mean” precisely by the words: “in,” “out,” “large,” and “small.” The problem is both Science and Mathematics are imprecise — but this sentence contains fighting words and is impredicative, to say the least. In my father‘s terms, it is important to distinguish between order and organization, and understand the difference. Lastly, for now, the concepts and their relations, in the circle of ideas of “dimensions of time” and dimensions of energy along with the dimensions of space and dimensions of mass will be explicated, as I evolve (involute and envolute) this ebook. SO WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT? Let me try to explain.

Formatics

Other Architect Rationals include:  James MadisonSrinivasa RamanujanEmmy NoetherPaul DiracRobert RosenDavid KeirseyAlbert EinsteinLonnie AthensDavid Bohm

Prime

Partitions: Exact Approximations

… there is something strange going on with Primes
Paul Erdös

champagne_bubbles

Never mind the mock theta, Ramanujan’s gap, Namagiri dreams.

ramanujan_book

When Srinivasa Ramanujan wrote to G. H. Hardy in the 16th of January 1913, he had some remarkable formulas in that letter.  So remarkable are some of his formulas that mathematicians have been studying Ramanujan’s notebooks of formulas for new mathematical insights to this day, more than a hundred years later.
I beg to introduce myself to you as a clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust Office at Madras… I have no University education but I have undergone the ordinary school course. After leaving school I have been employing the spare time at my disposal to work at Mathematics. I have not trodden through the conventional regular course which is followed in a University course, but I am striking out a new path for myself. I have made a special investigation of divergent series in general and the results I get are termed by the local mathematicians as “startling”. 
Hardy invited him to England because some of the formulas “had to be true, because no one could have the imagination to make them up”.   But there were no proofs.  However, when this poor vegetarian Indian Hindu came to England, eventually Hardy showed Ramanujan (thru Littlewood) that his formula on Primes was not EXACTLY correct. So Ramanujan had to bend to Hardy and work on his proofs of some of his formulas, so when they tackled the function of Partitions P(n), Ramanujan with the help of Hardy got to point where they “cracked” Partitions (and could prove it). They developed a direct formula that computed the number of partitions pretty accurately, and at the limit (infinity) it was “perfect” — and, could by truncating the number for high partition number to an integer could guarantee to be exact: since the number of partitions of integers is an whole number (i.e., the real number series “formula” converges with an deceasing error rate). Together they “cracked” the problem where neither man could do it alone. Ramanujan supplied the “intuition” (the finding of the hidden pattern) and Hardy provided the rigor to explain why the pattern is true.  The method they created, in this instance, was called the “circle method” — and it has been used ever since by numerous mathematicians for various other results.

Continue reading

Thanks, I needed that.

Seasons change with the scenery
Weaving time in a tapestry

I was surprised.

I was just eating lunch by myself in the cafeteria.  I am attentive, not expressive, kind of guy.  Besides this was the first time I was visiting MIT, as a part of Artificial Intelligence (AI) conference.  No, my SATs were not good enough to get into CalTech (or MIT), and I am a west coast guy, anyway.

But, lo and behold.  He sat down next to me.  Obviously, to strike up a conversation.

Marvin Minsky.

Ok, now I wasn’t a kid anymore.  I was industry-based AI researcher (Hughes Research Labs, HRL) working at the time on Autonomous Vehicle research.   Minsky didn’t know me, but, I knew a fair amount about him.

Marvin Minsky, full professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and “one of fathers of Artificial Intelligence”, came to my table clearly because he was curious.  Minsky, a Fieldmarshal Rational, had been very successful in promoting his graduate students to getting academic professorships across the lands. The list of his PhD students is more than impressive. He had government and university funding. MIT is a technological power house.  Money, People, and Companies have been flocking to MIT well before I was born.

I tried to make our conversation as interesting as I could.  Hey, Marvin was a legend in my field: Artificial Intelligence.

After about 5-10 minutes of conversation, me doing most of the talking about the autonomous vehicle project that I had been involved with, Marvin excuse himself, and wandered over to another table with a couple of people and joined in that conversation.

He didn’t get any useful out of me, in his mind, no doubt.
Next.
He moved on.

Thanks, I needed that.

I did get something useful out of the encounter.
A slow idea. But not a fast idea.  A hint on a part of an idea on how the world works.
It was a Kuhnian moment for me, I knew some things that Marvin couldn’t imagine.

Continue reading

An Odd Even Ode Log Rhythm

“There is geometry in the humming of the strings,
there is music in the spacing of the spheres.”
— Pythagoras

Find Structured Constant: A Ode to Wolfgang

in-form == 1

ex-form == 0

form == -1

Now Moufang it and Emmy ring it two. Make Lise Bind. Oh, Dedekind bother, it’s a unReal hard cut.

But,
Never mind, Hilbert doesn’t bother. Such a Dehn mine-d vater.

MJ Golay to the re-scue, the Hamiltons and Hamming to rearrange and recode, the 23th Prime Poincaré to re-solder.

 

Two notes of the chord, that’s our poor scope,
And to reach the chord is our life’s hope.
And to name the chord is important to some,
So they give it a word, and the word is:

Di-vision

To Subquotient, or Not Subquotient,
That is the question!

The divisor status, of the lattice, oh my, Times, Rudvalis.

Crack the Dirac, Landau beseech the damp Leech.

It’s a Monster Conway Mesh, Mathieu‘s Stretch, Jacques‘ Mess, Janko‘s Sprains, and Einstein‘s Strain.

Never mind the mock theta, Ramanujan‘s gap, Namagiri dreams.

No Tegmark or Linde, but Verlinde in name. It’s all but Feynman‘s streams,
and weigh.

Such a Prime rank, any such Milnor‘s exotic sank.

No mess, no Stress, but Strain. Tensors Bohm and Bain.

It’s Held together. Dr. Keirsey is here to re-frame.

It Works! Much to lose and A Gain.

It’s Life Itself, More AND Less, a game.

Towards Quantum Formatics

bubbles

Gravity is a discrete form process in context.

Quan-tum:  qua – “in the capacity of”,  quan -“shortening”, quant-ity – “amount

Form-atics: form – “shape“, atics – ending for making adjectives or nouns, reification

Quantum Formatics:  the study of discrete form processes within context: a wholistic physical in-formation and ex-formation theory.

How and Why the World Works.

General Relativity(GR) and Quantum Mechanics(QM) have been the most successful science enterprises ever.   Discovering phenomena like black holes, the tau particle, gravity waves, and predicting precisely the orbit of Mercury, bending of light, the Teller-Jahn effect, the electron neutrino, and countless other effects.

On the other hand,

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” — attributed to Albert Einstein.

Intriguely, Eric Verlinde has proposed emergent gravity.  However, at this moment there seems to be no test that can include, preclude, or exclude his idea.  The concept of Gravity, whether emergent gravity, hoped for quantum gravity, implicit string theory gravity, or Einsteinian statistical gravity [in the form of General Relativity] essentially assumes some form of mathematical continuity, unspecified and under-defined.  Because there are at least six forms of continuity, for example, the following four: Continuously differentiable ⊆ Lipschitz continuousα-Hölder continuousuniformly continuous = continuous ; The real question becomes: which kinds of “continuity” is physically at the “quantum foam” levels?– and what are the relations between concepts (qualities) of various “spins”, “charges”, “spaces”, “energies”, “masses”, “distances”, and “forces”, with different kinds of “times”.

It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. — Paul Dirac

Moreover, Quantum Mechanics (QM), using the crutch of Born-Schrödinger probabilities in the guise of Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, is a very very very precise, but incomplete.  Although probabilistic unitary quadratic forms (a “real” scalar product or action of a linear functional on a vector in a complex vector space) can help in calculating measures, there is no “definite qualities”.    At the quantum levels, one does not have separable “qualities” — just postulated mixed measures denoted by “quantum numbers” and “probabilitic measures” in the form of “real” and/or “complex numbers”.

Adding the two statistical conceptions: GR and QM has not and will not work.   A non-statistical methodology is needed to Relate phenonema at the scales of large (GR) and the phenonema at the scales of small (QM).  That methodology needs Relational Forms Frameworks.

Information Momentum and Latent Exformation: On the Involution and Envolution of the Universe.

sporadic_framework

symmetry_monster

Re-Imagining, and Booking Thru Life

To be continued…

Other Architect Rationals include:  James MadisonSrinivasa RamanujanEmmy NoetherPaul DiracRobert RosenDavid KeirseyAlbert EinsteinLonnie AthensDavid Bohm