Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 12:33 PM:
I'd need to fill out paperwork to distribute it.
Ugh. I do not envy you from that perspective.
It's a 3D model of enzymatic degradation of cellulose. [...] Thus the
hybrid approach.
Hm. That sounds useful for my rhetoric. Is it published or
On 4/19/13 9:56 AM, glen wrote:
Hm. That sounds useful for my rhetoric. Is it published or at least
described anywhere? I can't find it on the SC11 site.
I have to open source some other code, so I'll throw that one on the
list too. It was an exhibit, not part of the technical program.
Ok,
Marcus -
Hm. That sounds useful for my rhetoric. Is it published or at least
described anywhere? I can't find it on the SC11 site.
I have to open source some other code, so I'll throw that one on the
list too. It was an exhibit, not part of the technical program.
Back in my day, we had to
On 4/19/13 11:11 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
Back in my day, we had to LA-UR the posters that went along with the
presentations at SC... do you have at least *that* level of
description released? I know that is usually just enough info to get
the saliva flowing, but sometimes those posters have
Marcus -
Usually it's programs related to stuff from papers (already LA-UR'ed),
but on several occasions I've sat down a few weeks ahead of time and
banged out new code (sometimes with vendor involvement). And on this
occasion it was well into the wee hours of the night before the show
in
On 4/19/13 11:59 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
I didn't know you were working on the Biofuels project... very
interesting work...
I'm barely involved, but it is cool. An amazing thing to me about this
the empirical side. For example, the center of integrated
nanotechnologies can actually show
Marcus -
I didn't know you were working on the Biofuels project... very
interesting work...
I'm barely involved, but it is cool. An amazing thing to me about
this the empirical side. For example, the center of integrated
nanotechnologies can actually show individuals enzymes at work. Want
Steve Smith wrote at 04/19/2013 11:55 AM:
And circling back to circular reasoning, how do we classify the Great
Yogi's many circular but dead-nuts-on aphorisms like the one above?
# It ain't over till it's over. http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12128
# You wouldn't have won if we had beaten
Glen -
1) "It ain't over till it's over." http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12128
2) "You wouldn't have won if we had beaten you."
http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12129
3) "If you're feeling good, don't worry. You'll get over it."
http://www.quoteworld.org/quotes/12132
4)
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/19/2013 09:32 AM:
I'm contrasting compile-time assertions against run-time assertions, and
claiming the former is better when it can be achieved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence
That's awesome! Thanks for that link. It proves
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/17/2013 10:51 PM:
There's a question of why a set must be mixed in the first place. With
some restructuring it may be possible to treat homogeneous sets (or even
compresses the set into a prototype and count), rather than treating
individuals in an independent
On 4/18/13 10:16 AM, glen wrote:
When you pick up a rock and use it as a hammer, what is the satisfied
predicate? It's certainly not hammer(x), because rocks are usually
nothing like hammers.
An object with high mass and volume, low acceleration vs. low mass, low
volume, and high acceleration?
That's exactly my point, of course. Reduction from requirements to
physics is rarely logically abstracted. In other words, while you and I
may be interested in some of the physical properties of hammers and
rocks (namely, the ones that facilitate crushing), someone like Andy
Warhol might be
On 4/18/13 12:19 PM, glen wrote:
If you logically abstract the physics engine, you can swap it out, at
will (in principle, anyway), replace a coarse one with a finer one or
one that implements an entirely different physics.
Even though we _speculate_ that this can be done in principle, how
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 11:39 AM:
Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface
of Bullet physics to Haskell.
Nice. Is it open? Or lost in some well of secrecy somewhere?
The increasingly irrelevant point was that
choosing strong or weak typing in a
On 4/18/13 1:05 PM, glen wrote:
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/18/2013 11:39 AM:
Well, I've done this before on a real problem using a monadic interface
of Bullet physics to Haskell.
Nice. Is it open? Or lost in some well of secrecy somewhere?
Um, err, it was a SC11 demo, so it's been shown,
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/16/2013 07:55 PM:
A more important issue is whether a model has referential
transparency. Are all the possible ways an object can change or
reveal state made evident, or are they hidden away in obscure ways
due to implementation issues?
[...] The issue is
switch S and take it to have the value V?
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:52 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms
I'm not a good example of the computer community. But I can suggest
that the concept is related, but not identical to yours. To me,
referential opacity would imply a loss of control over what happened
when a reference was used (accessed or modified). It's a kind of fire
and forget operation.
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/17/2013 02:22 PM:
In short, referential opacity BAD; referential transparency GOOD. Are we
on the same page here, or are the values flipped in compsci.
Depends on who we is. In some contexts, it's bad. In some, it's good.
--
== glen e. p. ropella
Neolithic
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/17/2013 02:51 PM:
It's an example of referential opacity.
No, I think it's an example of a response to an incomplete question, or
trying to evaluate a function without binding all the variables. If you
leave out too much context, the answer is always it depends.
In my (leetle) world, referential opacity refers to ambiguities that arise
in intentional utterances ... utterances of the form, Jones believes
(wants, thinks, hopes, etc.) that X is the case. They are opaque in that
they tell us nothing about the truth of X. So, for instance, Jones
On 4/17/13 10:52 AM, glen wrote:
It's not entirely clear to me where type fits (at least not the
specific sense of type we use in programming).
Starlogo TNG illustrates types.
http://education.mit.edu/starlogo-tng/tutorial-pics/slblocks.jpeg
That `say' and `play sound' have the same
:41 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
In my (leetle) world, referential opacity refers to ambiguities that
arise in intentional utterances ... utterances of the form, Jones
believes (wants, thinks
On 4/17/13 10:52 AM, glen wrote:
Type seems like a state-oriented conception, whereas predicate
seems like a process-oriented conception. We talk about things being
of a type. But we talk about satisfying a predicate.
There's a question of why a set must be mixed in the first place. With
some
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 04/13/2013 07:42 PM:
Iteration is a special case of recursion
Well, more generically, they're duals, meaning that either can be
(thought of as) a special case of the other.
But, more to the point, this goes back to the original discussion of
circular reasoning, but
On 4/16/13 12:41 PM, glen wrote:
But, more to the point, this goes back to the original discussion of
circular reasoning, but not in the merely syntactic sense of using
terms in their own definition. It goes very deep into the foundations
of how we think about the ambience around us. It seems
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
Oh shit. Nick's in a state again.
On Apr 12, 2013 9:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I have a terrible time with the word state; how about
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.*
***
** **
Oh shit. Nick's in a state again.
On Apr 12, 2013 9:23 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
wrote:
I have a terrible time with the word state; how about analytical output?
Otherwise
Output not a good word for that at all. We can go back to conclusion, in the
sense of the transformation has stopped. I'm OK with that.
Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
I have a terrible time with the word state; how about analytical
output?
Otherwise we're good.
Nick
On 4/12/13 5:40 PM, glen wrote:
Iteration is most aligned with stateful repetition. Recursion is most
aligned with stateless repetition.
Purely functional constructs can capture iteration, though.
$ cat foo.hs
import Control.Monad.State
import Control.Monad.Loops
inc :: State Int Bool
inc =
On 4/13/13 2:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Can anybody translate this for a non programmer person?
A state may be a complex graph, or a high dimensional space, but it is
still useful to recognize it can be represented by a value and that
(formal) transformations can be made either as a
this for a non programmer person?
N
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 1:10 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
On 4/12/13 5:40 PM, glen
] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
Roberts
*Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:02 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.*
***
** **
Nick,
** **
I surprised that you are not more conversant
On 4/13/13 3:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Now that that is behind us, what did the message mean?
Iteration is a special case of recursion, namely tail recursion.
Specifically, Glen's description of memory in the behavior of an oil
filter can be handled by passing and returning an oil filter
Arlo, Glen, and Frank,
I would like us to come to some sort of common understanding of how to use
the word, tautology, because I think the definitional issue is keeping us
from making progress on more substantive matters.
See how much of the following you both can agree with:
(1) We are
Ah. Thanks glen. This is super helpful. Larding below.
-Original Message-
From: glen [mailto:g...@ropella.name]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 4:01 PM
To: Nicholas Thompson
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/12
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/12/2013 03:51 PM:
[NST ==[...] Am I correct that you want to exclude for
tautological sequences of reasoning where the conclusion is entailed the
premises (or the answer in the question) but the path is so complex that we
cannot anticipate it? ==NST]
Yes. On
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/12/2013 03:51 PM:
[NST ==[...] Am I correct that you want to exclude for tautological
sequences of reasoning where the conclusion is entailed the premises
(or the answer in the question
] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Tautologies and other forms of circular reasoning.
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 04/12/2013 03:51 PM:
[NST ==[...] Am I correct that you want to exclude
40 matches
Mail list logo
