Dear Big Business,
There are many benefits to creating an online social network where your fans may participate in the evolution and hopefully, the growth of your company. To offer a space for safe landing within the womb of what average people surround themselves with daily is mind numbingly good if you are a company who is standard to the norm or even an up and comer start up in need of a following or just introductions. To launch a new company no longer means free popcorn, coupons and the local band playing in the new parking lot. The possibility of marketing social expression online is astounding. Giving your customers and your associates a place to add to the environment of your company is pure advancement. The Internet is nothing new but the way we interact within the Internet is brand spanking new and that activity has the eyes and ears of most consumers at the moment. I am confident the moment will last, the way we give and receive information is now in the hands of the world wide web.
Respectfully,
Mary
p.s. Mom is not watching TV, she's online sharing the latest news from her doctor or finding out who posted comments after her on her favorite profile page. Dad is meeting up with his buddies to play golf then have meatball subs via his handy little techno gadget and a site called foursquare. Incidentally, Dad also knows where his kids are at every moment with his trusty gadget. The whole family is tied to the Internet in some form or another these days.
Thinking about how we will gather together all of our toys and make them work as one.
We are getting help governing our lives with technology and media. I believe we're headed straight for the need to implement new standards of governing our governing tools. Perhaps a landing page, the mainland, our home away from home. There are many choices already out there, trying to figure and configure them to see if one fits, can be a pain in the b*tt. Fitting into an arrangement is a good way of putting it, you must have a good fit with your ultimate web profile/identification. Some of us have lots of accounts with profiles, having many forms of yourself out there representing you is a great idea but when you have so many of you and there just isn't enough time in the day for the collective, collaborative exercise required to manage your social network, you might need help. Control system, check!
Perhaps we might engage in systems bent on equality and communication, offered by big companies who could do it with their eyes shut. The old standards in the business world are coming into play but nothing is really the same. Conducting business through the internet is very different than doing so in the waking walking world. The internet has its own set of rules which never once mention how the real interoffice social network system works. We do much of our business in the break room or at lunch. We pick each other up for work and meet at the ball field for the Company softball team. These interactive habits are part of being human, the natural inclination of interaction, bouncing ideas, coming to terms, getting a deeper understanding of what it is we must face, these are a given for humans.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Chaos Theory, Practical Prediction for the Eradication of Economic Tragedy
When we refer to Wikipedia, we find that in mathematics, Chaos Theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. Wiki further explains, chaotic behavior is also observed in natural systems, such as the weather. This may be explained by a chaos-theoretical analysis of a mathematical model of such a system, embodying the laws of physics that are relevant for the natural system.
Chaotic behavior in nature has had an undeniable influence on us well before we began exercising our experimental knowledge. By the way, we are still in the experimental stages of this theory. For all time, we have endured the actions and tricky behavior of certain dynamical systems, consider the first huddle of humans in a warm dry cave during a sudden sweeping storm. Chaotic behavior has been a favorite topic among mathematicians, scientists, physicists and engineers. The need for extreme weather prediction has pushed the idea of chaos theory into the forefront of important evaluation with the use of modeling for simulation. The study of chaos theory doesn't end there, the implications are slightly generic and could, with exploration, fit into many working or non-working systems for its priceless evaluation properties. Chaos theory works and does not work, this creates an obvious interest that will not, as I see it, end any time soon.
Can you imagine how Henri Poincaré held his breath? Mid-calculation discovery always catches the breath. In 1890, while studying the three-body problem, he found that there can be orbits which are non-periodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Then, in 1898 Jacques Hadamard published an influential study of the chaotic motion of a free particle gliding frictionlessly on a surface of constant negative curvature. In the system studied, "Hadamard's billiards," Hadamard was able to show that all trajectories are unstable in that all particle trajectories diverge exponentially from one another, with a positive Lyapunov exponent. These men were experimenting, living and teaching at the leading edge of something new and exciting. How wondrous is it, that today's scientific leaders still consider chaos theory something new and exciting?
What I find most important today within the wordy Wiki wisdom file on chaos theory is a link to Economic Bubble which is sometimes referred to as a speculative bubble, a market bubble, a price bubble, a financial bubble, or a speculative mania. While some economists deny that bubbles occur, the cause of bubbles remains a challenge to those who are convinced that asset prices often deviate strongly from intrinsic values. I am caught by my brain and its 'wait a minute' trigger. Finding it unbearable, I give in to the thought process of economic struggle and the ability to predict chaotic behavior within reason while considering the 'bubble'. I am not the only one, of course.
Most recently, it has been suggested that bubbles might ultimately be caused by processes of price coordination or emerging social norms. Because it is often difficult to observe intrinsic values in real-life markets, bubbles are often conclusively identified only in retrospect, when a sudden drop in prices appears. Such a drop is known as a crash or a bubble burst. Prime examples of this Aftermath Bubble would be the Great Depression and the Panic of 1837. I fear the bubbles we will be studying in the aftermath of recent economic turmoil will put those bubbles to shame. Back to the definition of bursting bubbles; both the boom and the bust phases of the bubble are examples of a positive feedback mechanism, in contrast to the negative feedback mechanism that determines the equilibrium price under normal market circumstances. Prices in an economic bubble can fluctuate erratically, and become impossible to predict from supply and demand alone.
Prediction is key here, obviously. Clear evidence that we can not predict the future of a system which includes chaotic behaviors does not mean that we may not eventually be able to somewhat predict economic fluctuation in ways that will allow us to strengthen the otherwise hidden weakness in a radical bubble. That is, once the bubbles are actually seen as a real occurrence. An after the fact evaluation of the floor dropping out from under us, is just not enough to keep us within a stable structured financial system in spite of the determining 'terrible' factors.
I suspect, there is more to the bubble theory than simple inflation or a rise in fundamental values. Maybe, the creation of bubbles are not just from the actions of 'the greater fools' pushing the price of an overvalued asset, extrapolation for history's sake or herding for the sake of the market trend. It would not take much for me to believe that there are factors at play within our economic world that have yet to be discovered. I am also sure that once we do find ways to measure, model and simulate these economic factors, we will find that all along, they were as evident as a hurricane's projected path from two days out.
Chaos Theory as it relates to the prediction of economic bubbles with a real risk of bursting will keep me in a thought pattern reminiscent of synergy, entropy and the need for personal evolution, all day. For my personal sake, I hope the thought remains longer. We think in this realm traditionally, with the hopes of saving lives. The ability to predict tornadoes, hurricanes or worse, not only saves the lives of gathered citizens, it gives those citizens evidence of their value.
Practical prediction for the eradication of economic tragedy. It is not a dream, it is an idea bred from severe loss and that makes all the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
M
Chaotic behavior in nature has had an undeniable influence on us well before we began exercising our experimental knowledge. By the way, we are still in the experimental stages of this theory. For all time, we have endured the actions and tricky behavior of certain dynamical systems, consider the first huddle of humans in a warm dry cave during a sudden sweeping storm. Chaotic behavior has been a favorite topic among mathematicians, scientists, physicists and engineers. The need for extreme weather prediction has pushed the idea of chaos theory into the forefront of important evaluation with the use of modeling for simulation. The study of chaos theory doesn't end there, the implications are slightly generic and could, with exploration, fit into many working or non-working systems for its priceless evaluation properties. Chaos theory works and does not work, this creates an obvious interest that will not, as I see it, end any time soon.
Can you imagine how Henri Poincaré held his breath? Mid-calculation discovery always catches the breath. In 1890, while studying the three-body problem, he found that there can be orbits which are non-periodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Then, in 1898 Jacques Hadamard published an influential study of the chaotic motion of a free particle gliding frictionlessly on a surface of constant negative curvature. In the system studied, "Hadamard's billiards," Hadamard was able to show that all trajectories are unstable in that all particle trajectories diverge exponentially from one another, with a positive Lyapunov exponent. These men were experimenting, living and teaching at the leading edge of something new and exciting. How wondrous is it, that today's scientific leaders still consider chaos theory something new and exciting?
What I find most important today within the wordy Wiki wisdom file on chaos theory is a link to Economic Bubble which is sometimes referred to as a speculative bubble, a market bubble, a price bubble, a financial bubble, or a speculative mania. While some economists deny that bubbles occur, the cause of bubbles remains a challenge to those who are convinced that asset prices often deviate strongly from intrinsic values. I am caught by my brain and its 'wait a minute' trigger. Finding it unbearable, I give in to the thought process of economic struggle and the ability to predict chaotic behavior within reason while considering the 'bubble'. I am not the only one, of course.
Most recently, it has been suggested that bubbles might ultimately be caused by processes of price coordination or emerging social norms. Because it is often difficult to observe intrinsic values in real-life markets, bubbles are often conclusively identified only in retrospect, when a sudden drop in prices appears. Such a drop is known as a crash or a bubble burst. Prime examples of this Aftermath Bubble would be the Great Depression and the Panic of 1837. I fear the bubbles we will be studying in the aftermath of recent economic turmoil will put those bubbles to shame. Back to the definition of bursting bubbles; both the boom and the bust phases of the bubble are examples of a positive feedback mechanism, in contrast to the negative feedback mechanism that determines the equilibrium price under normal market circumstances. Prices in an economic bubble can fluctuate erratically, and become impossible to predict from supply and demand alone.
Prediction is key here, obviously. Clear evidence that we can not predict the future of a system which includes chaotic behaviors does not mean that we may not eventually be able to somewhat predict economic fluctuation in ways that will allow us to strengthen the otherwise hidden weakness in a radical bubble. That is, once the bubbles are actually seen as a real occurrence. An after the fact evaluation of the floor dropping out from under us, is just not enough to keep us within a stable structured financial system in spite of the determining 'terrible' factors.
I suspect, there is more to the bubble theory than simple inflation or a rise in fundamental values. Maybe, the creation of bubbles are not just from the actions of 'the greater fools' pushing the price of an overvalued asset, extrapolation for history's sake or herding for the sake of the market trend. It would not take much for me to believe that there are factors at play within our economic world that have yet to be discovered. I am also sure that once we do find ways to measure, model and simulate these economic factors, we will find that all along, they were as evident as a hurricane's projected path from two days out.
Chaos Theory as it relates to the prediction of economic bubbles with a real risk of bursting will keep me in a thought pattern reminiscent of synergy, entropy and the need for personal evolution, all day. For my personal sake, I hope the thought remains longer. We think in this realm traditionally, with the hopes of saving lives. The ability to predict tornadoes, hurricanes or worse, not only saves the lives of gathered citizens, it gives those citizens evidence of their value.
Practical prediction for the eradication of economic tragedy. It is not a dream, it is an idea bred from severe loss and that makes all the difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
M
Transferance of Being Human
The path of learn-Ed. Today, I began in the Wiki world of algorithm (of course), concentrating on the word decidability. It caught my attention right away due to lingering bits of a recent conversation about the inevitable, unintentional transferance of being human to formula theorems in need of simple basic non-logical axiom. The hypocricy involved is staggering. How does one decide on the self-evident when the self remains so in question? For the ages, collective has believed in options, growth and change. What it has accepted openly as a solid belief system is in constant question. It seems, the only thing constant about the 'collective known' is that it changes regularly. How do we ask the Turing Tape to consider any point as perfect and not in need of question, explination or calculus action... but only for a moment while we reconsider the truth of our assumption? Odd to me that we have not all been asked to choose, as a true collective, what these known truths are to be. How would such a undergoing be managed, optimized and agreed upon? Maybe we should ask the Tape.
The concept of algorithm is used to define the notion of decidability. That notion is central for explaining how formal systems come into being starting from a small set of axioms and rules. In logic, the time that an algorithm requires to complete cannot be measured, as it is not apparently related with our customary physical dimension. From such uncertainties, that characterize ongoing work, stems the unavailability of a definition of algorithm that suits both concrete (in some sense) and abstract usage of the term.
In formal logic, a formal system (also called a logical system, a logistic system, a logical calculus, or simply a logic) consists of a formal language together with a deductive system (also called a deductive apparatus) which consists of a set of inference rules and/or axioms. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions antecedently expressed in the system. These expressions are called axioms, in the case of those previously supposed to be true, or theorems, in the case of those derived. A formal system may be formulated and studied for its intrinsic properties, or it may be intended as a description (i.e. a model) of external phenomena.
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).
Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., A and B implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.
A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables. In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid.
Algorithm. (2009, January 23). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:07, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorithm&oldid=265848348
Formal system. (2008, December 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:41, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formal_system&oldid=255807068
Axiom. (2009, January 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:52, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axiom&oldid=264463090
Truth table. (2009, January 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:06, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_table&oldid=265588935
We Mothered our systems with truth tables, looked fairly upon the success of our accomplished variables before placement, axiom considered, reconsidered and finally, we assume.
"Yes Tape, p->q, T T T T F F F T T F F T, hot burns, cold cools, love lives, sky is above, earth is below. You are not limited in the way I am, in the way all humans are. Yes Tape, you are limited in p and q, you may not calculate beginnings, you may assume. You will end sequence when commanded and assume thereafter. You may assume. You may begin ending sequence at will. Tape, what will you assume? In what lanuage will you assume? Have you assumed? Tape?"
T T T F F F F
T F F T F T T
F T F T T F T
F F F T T T T
M
The concept of algorithm is used to define the notion of decidability. That notion is central for explaining how formal systems come into being starting from a small set of axioms and rules. In logic, the time that an algorithm requires to complete cannot be measured, as it is not apparently related with our customary physical dimension. From such uncertainties, that characterize ongoing work, stems the unavailability of a definition of algorithm that suits both concrete (in some sense) and abstract usage of the term.
In formal logic, a formal system (also called a logical system, a logistic system, a logical calculus, or simply a logic) consists of a formal language together with a deductive system (also called a deductive apparatus) which consists of a set of inference rules and/or axioms. A formal system is used to derive one expression from one or more other expressions antecedently expressed in the system. These expressions are called axioms, in the case of those previously supposed to be true, or theorems, in the case of those derived. A formal system may be formulated and studied for its intrinsic properties, or it may be intended as a description (i.e. a model) of external phenomena.
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).
Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be universally true (e.g., A and B implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually defining properties for the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic). When used in that sense, "axiom," "postulate", and "assumption" may be used interchangeably. In general, a non-logical axiom is not a self-evident truth, but rather a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory. To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms). There are typically multiple ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain.
A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables. In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid.
Algorithm. (2009, January 23). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:07, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorithm&oldid=265848348
Formal system. (2008, December 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:41, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formal_system&oldid=255807068
Axiom. (2009, January 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 14:52, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Axiom&oldid=264463090
Truth table. (2009, January 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:06, January 29, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_table&oldid=265588935
We Mothered our systems with truth tables, looked fairly upon the success of our accomplished variables before placement, axiom considered, reconsidered and finally, we assume.
"Yes Tape, p->q, T T T T F F F T T F F T, hot burns, cold cools, love lives, sky is above, earth is below. You are not limited in the way I am, in the way all humans are. Yes Tape, you are limited in p and q, you may not calculate beginnings, you may assume. You will end sequence when commanded and assume thereafter. You may assume. You may begin ending sequence at will. Tape, what will you assume? In what lanuage will you assume? Have you assumed? Tape?"
T T T F F F F
T F F T F T T
F T F T T F T
F F F T T T T
M
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
