Gauge FIELDS, Knots and Gravity. Sorry. On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:16 AM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matrices that have no inverse are called "singular". Would that word work > in this context? > > The treatment of fibers, bundles, connections, etc. that I am familiar > with is in Baez's book Gauge Theory, Knots and Gravity. > > Frank > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: >> > Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/. >> >> Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to >> bundles/sheaf, what it evokes in my head seems coherent. >> >> > With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could >> use more >> > clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that >> sorting is >> > not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling >> algorithm >> > does not require Ord < >> http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class >> constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting. >> >> I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean >> by "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations >> about free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just >> ordered mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics. >> >> > If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic >> surface is >> > complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At >> the end >> > of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological >> status of >> > information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this? >> If our >> > holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better >> analogy? >> >> To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think >> we do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the >> right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could >> get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in >> that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and >> yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to >> inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too >> ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a >> lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible >> and uninvertible transforms. >> >> That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more* >> than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then >> I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify >> privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as >> behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them. >> >> But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate >> the believability of the steelman. >> >> > If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic >> ambiguity than >> > the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an >> others >> > language, [...] >> >> I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated >> by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was >> "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm >> shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become >> cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related >> (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y. >> As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the >> landscape. >> >> This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely >> epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you >> are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry >> about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone. >> >> I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order >> privacy (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with >> the decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and >> the description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I >> thought that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they >> reject the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, >> groups, and codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†]. >> >> [†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be >> over my head. >> >> >> -- >> ☣ uǝlƃ >> >> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . >> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> >> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> > > > -- > Frank Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > 505 670-9918 > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
-- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
