An Essay On The Psychology Of Invention In The Mathematical Field...

[Joe Gwinn]

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard>

 

[Martin Brown]

On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again if
large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/12/20 16:19, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be used to
form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some satellite
probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

And in IS95 CDMA cellphones. They are used to create the
64 separate channels/users available at each base station.

 

[server]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:10:01 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Cool. Thanks. I ordered the paperback.

He does distinguish between discovery and invention. I guess there is
a diminishing number of possible mathematical discoveries, and they
keep getting harder to find and prove and get accepted. There\'s no
limit on circuits that can be designed, and the possibilities keep
increasing, and you don\'t have to convince some bunch of skeptics that
something works.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 12/15/20 11:10 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

George Polya wrote a number of books on what he called Heuristics,
including a short extract called \"How To Solve It.\"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:20:05 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard
Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again if
large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Maybe- but Hadamard had absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:58:14 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:10:01 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard
Cool. Thanks. I ordered the paperback.

It\'s available as a free PDF of the 1945 edition. Just a little 145 page pamphlet. Plain talking, doesn\'t seem abstruse, lots of repetition, don\'t know why he even wrote it. Maybe you can find some inspiration there.

He does distinguish between discovery and invention. I guess there is
a diminishing number of possible mathematical discoveries, and they
keep getting harder to find and prove and get accepted. There\'s no
limit on circuits that can be designed, and the possibilities keep
increasing, and you don\'t have to convince some bunch of skeptics that
something works.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

 

[bitrex]

On 12/15/2020 11:19 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again if
large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.

Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

<mathematician rage level increases>

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 12:23:44 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 12/15/20 11:10 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard


George Polya wrote a number of books on what he called Heuristics,
including a short extract called \"How To Solve It.\"

Yes. I have that too. It\'s excellent.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 15/12/20 19:34, bitrex wrote:

On 12/15/2020 11:19 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be used to
form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some satellite
probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again if large
scale quantum computing ever really takes off.


Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics with talk
of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

Having known a lot of mathematicians, that is an exaggeration
in the same vein as claiming that electronic engineers fume
when people ask why they need 8.5 digit voltmeters.

But you know that.

 

[bitrex]

On 12/15/2020 7:25 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 15/12/20 19:34, bitrex wrote:
On 12/15/2020 11:19 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again
if large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.


Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

Having known a lot of mathematicians, that is an exaggeration
in the same vein as claiming that electronic engineers fume
when people ask why they need 8.5 digit voltmeters.

But you know that.

<https://mastergir.tumblr.com/image/160435285585>

 

[bitrex]

On 12/15/2020 7:25 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 15/12/20 19:34, bitrex wrote:
On 12/15/2020 11:19 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again
if large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.


Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

Having known a lot of mathematicians, that is an exaggeration
in the same vein as claiming that electronic engineers fume
when people ask why they need 8.5 digit voltmeters.

But you know that.

I studied computer science at art school, which is where the dilettante
children of the wealthy and privileged go to learn to throw a streak of
paint on a canvas and call it \"art\" while the classes are entirely about
indoctrinating 18 year olds to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and there is no
material difference between men marrying women, women marrying women,
women marrying dolphins, or men marrying an 807 radio valve.

This is true and false in equal measure depending upon what subset of
the \"art school community\" one tends to associate with, except for the
part about throwing a streak of Krylon or one\'s old urine or bat guano
on a canvas and calling it \"art.\" This is extremely legitimate art to my
mind, not in scare quotes. And it also tends to annoy the bejesus out of
authoritarians of all types and American conservatives particularly,
which is an excellent value for the money.

I suggest a starting bid for the piece \"Untitled, matte acrylic & poop
on canvas\" of $7000.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:34:36 -0500) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <hd8CH.10002$Ji2.6354@fx14.iad>:

Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

These days neural nets
Maybe one day neural nets will do better math and ...find
better mathematical ?ways?
I say after all we are neural nets, math is just a model in a small sub-circuit of neurons,
that has been shown with MRI.

I am not denying math, use it all the time (more or less)
and the code systems it found are cool (see GPS for example).

But the application of it is what counts.

For solutions.. to catch the ball.. the mama-ticion needs so many parameters,
the computah crunches away .. time passes by, as does the ball.
And the small neural net in the head of the sea lion makes it catch the ball with - and balance it on its nose.
So much for relativity


Each day one more field seems taken by AI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215142218.htm

It is HARD to describe the AI reasoning from math POV beyond the smallest nets.

<Insert destructive comments here, for example \"Einstein Sucked\">

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:43:50 -0500) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <GveCH.10651$R82.3347@fx46.iad>:

On 12/15/2020 7:25 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 15/12/20 19:34, bitrex wrote:
On 12/15/2020 11:19 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design.  It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard?  Let me put it this way:  He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard

Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again
if large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.


Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

Having known a lot of mathematicians, that is an exaggeration
in the same vein as claiming that electronic engineers fume
when people ask why they need 8.5 digit voltmeters.

But you know that.

I studied computer science at art school, which is where the dilettante
children of the wealthy and privileged go to learn to throw a streak of
paint on a canvas and call it \"art\" while the classes are entirely about
indoctrinating 18 year olds to believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and there is no
material difference between men marrying women, women marrying women,
women marrying dolphins, or men marrying an 807 radio valve.

This is true and false in equal measure depending upon what subset of
the \"art school community\" one tends to associate with, except for the
part about throwing a streak of Krylon or one\'s old urine or bat guano
on a canvas and calling it \"art.\" This is extremely legitimate art to my
mind, not in scare quotes. And it also tends to annoy the bejesus out of
authoritarians of all types and American conservatives particularly,
which is an excellent value for the money.

I suggest a starting bid for the piece \"Untitled, matte acrylic & poop
on canvas\" of $7000.

+1

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:15:57 -0800 (PST)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<645a17c9-1afe-4328-b655-a4fbad330bcan@googlegroups.com>:

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:20:05 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
On 15/12/2020 16:10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard
Best known for the Hadamard transform patterns of 0 and 1 that can be
used to form an orthogonal basis set also called Walsh functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform

Used in lossless image compression and error correction on some
satellite probes. I first encountered them as Walsh transforms.

His work in this field could yet become fantastically important again if
large scale quantum computing ever really takes off.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Maybe- but Hadamard had absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

I say the wheel was invented first, PI came later
often mama-ticians claim the reverse for many things.
I do not really blame them,
after all they went in their early school days through the horror of having to divide by zero!
This seems to have caused lasting damage for some;
\"re-normalization\" was a cure?

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/12/2020 07:34, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:34:36 -0500) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <hd8CH.10002$Ji2.6354@fx14.iad>:

Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

These days neural nets
Maybe one day neural nets will do better math and ...find
better mathematical ?ways?

They can be used as tools to do grunt work that humans would find way
too tedious to enumerate all the possibilities. The four colour map
theorem was the first serious problem to fall to computer aided proof in
1976. That is quite along time ago.

Neural nets may well allow computers to see patterns in mathematics that
we as humans cannot (or at cannot until someone discovers and documents
it and then it may well be obvious and taught at school). eg calculus

I say after all we are neural nets, math is just a model in a small sub-circuit of neurons,
that has been shown with MRI.

+1

but we are rather complex NNs. It will be a while before computer
simulations of AI surpass a human brain in terms of number of nodes and
uinterconnects. But they may still have a win if they can simulate that
part of the brain that deals with abstract thought and reasoning.

I am not denying math, use it all the time (more or less)
and the code systems it found are cool (see GPS for example).

But the application of it is what counts.

For solutions.. to catch the ball.. the mama-ticion needs so many parameters,
the computah crunches away .. time passes by, as does the ball.
And the small neural net in the head of the sea lion makes it catch the ball with - and balance it on its nose.
So much for relativity

Relativity is one of the most fully tested and verified physical
theories on the planet. Errors in major computer programs have been
found by looking at deviations from the predictions of the programs and
observations of distant pulsars in close proximity to Jupiter or Saturn.

Each day one more field seems taken by AI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215142218.htm

It is HARD to describe the AI reasoning from math POV beyond the smallest nets.

You cannot ask a neural network why or how it has come to a conclusion -
that is a big disadvantage but if it finds the right answer you can
check that in other ways. Sometimes knowing where to look is half the
battle and computers don\'t give up so easily as humans.

> <Insert destructive comments here, for example \"Einstein Sucked\">

You don\'t understand it - that is a different thing entirely.

I am not sure why but this seems to be endemic with electronics
engineers. I presume it stems from the bad teaching of it in university
engineering courses. Either you accept Maxwell\'s equations and from that
those axioms that relativity is right or you are on a hiding to nothing.

Relativity was inevitable from the moment that Maxwell derived the wave
equation for electromagnetic radiation, but it took Einstein to unify
the whole thing into a coherent self consistent world view.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 16/12/20 09:08, Martin Brown wrote:

On 16/12/2020 07:34, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:34:36 -0500) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <hd8CH.10002$Ji2.6354@fx14.iad>:

Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

These days neural nets
Maybe one day neural nets will do better math and ...find
better mathematical ?ways?

They can be used as tools to do grunt work that humans would find way too
tedious to enumerate all the possibilities. The four colour map theorem was the
first serious problem to fall to computer aided proof in 1976. That is quite
along time ago.

Neural nets may well allow computers to see patterns in mathematics that we as
humans cannot (or at cannot until someone discovers and documents it and then it
may well be obvious and taught at school). eg calculus

I say after all we are neural nets, math is just a model in a small
sub-circuit of neurons,
that has been shown with MRI.

+1

but we are rather complex NNs. It will be a while before computer simulations of
AI surpass a human brain in terms of number of nodes and uinterconnects. But
they may still have a win if they can simulate that part of the brain that deals
with abstract thought and reasoning.

It is HARD to describe the AI reasoning from math POV beyond the smallest nets.

You cannot ask a neural network why or how it has come to a conclusion - that is
a big disadvantage but if it finds the right answer you can check that in other
ways.

That was a problem with the four-colour proof, and even with
human generated proofs where only a small number of people
worked in the field.

Of course that won\'t prevent corporations and politicians
using such tools to assess people and even jail them (see
comp.risks for examples).

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:08:47 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <rrciqv$1pfo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 16/12/2020 07:34, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:34:36 -0500) it happened bitrex
user@example.net> wrote in <hd8CH.10002$Ji2.6354@fx14.iad>:

Way to offend a mathematician, mucking up their beautiful mathematics
with talk of pedestrian stuff like \"applications.\"

\"Nice equation, but what is it _good_ for?\"

mathematician rage level increases

These days neural nets
Maybe one day neural nets will do better math and ...find
better mathematical ?ways?

They can be used as tools to do grunt work that humans would find way
too tedious to enumerate all the possibilities. The four colour map
theorem was the first serious problem to fall to computer aided proof in
1976. That is quite along time ago.

Neural nets may well allow computers to see patterns in mathematics that
we as humans cannot (or at cannot until someone discovers and documents
it and then it may well be obvious and taught at school). eg calculus

I say after all we are neural nets, math is just a model in a small sub-circuit of neurons,
that has been shown with MRI.

+1

but we are rather complex NNs. It will be a while before computer
simulations of AI surpass a human brain in terms of number of nodes and
uinterconnects. But they may still have a win if they can simulate that
part of the brain that deals with abstract thought and reasoning.

I am not denying math, use it all the time (more or less)
and the code systems it found are cool (see GPS for example).

But the application of it is what counts.

For solutions.. to catch the ball.. the mama-ticion needs so many parameters,
the computah crunches away .. time passes by, as does the ball.
And the small neural net in the head of the sea lion makes it catch the ball with - and balance it on its nose.
So much for relativity


Relativity is one of the most fully tested and verified physical
theories on the planet. Errors in major computer programs have been
found by looking at deviations from the predictions of the programs and
observations of distant pulsars in close proximity to Jupiter or Saturn.

Each day one more field seems taken by AI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215142218.htm

It is HARD to describe the AI reasoning from math POV beyond the smallest nets.

You cannot ask a neural network why or how it has come to a conclusion -
that is a big disadvantage but if it finds the right answer you can
check that in other ways. Sometimes knowing where to look is half the
battle and computers don\'t give up so easily as humans.

Insert destructive comments here, for example \"Einstein Sucked\"

You don\'t understand it - that is a different thing entirely.

Sorry Martin, that was meant as a joke.

I am not sure why but this seems to be endemic with electronics
engineers. I presume it stems from the bad teaching of it in university
engineering courses. Either you accept Maxwell\'s equations and from that
those axioms that relativity is right or you are on a hiding to nothing.

Relativity was inevitable from the moment that Maxwell derived the wave
equation for electromagnetic radiation, but it took Einstein to unify
the whole thing into a coherent self consistent world view.

As to relativity, Einstein\'s has little meaning to me without a MECHANISM.

He was basically a \'field theory\' person, there is HIS description of reality.
Alain Aspect\'s
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123

Einstein, in his last days, acknowledged he failed to unite gravity with the other forces.
And we still do not have a mechanism,

This all is incomplete, just this morning I was reading about the farthest away galaxy
and how they measured the redshift:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215104322.htm
it is IMO very dangerous to use an incomplete model (in this case the propagation of EM waves)
to make claims.
Are all those constants (speed of light etc) fixed since the bang or whatever it was?
I do not want to go into endless threads like sci.physics once had, but some, what\'s the word?
CAUTION would be in place to accept ANY modern quantum(for example) crap (it largely is in my opinion)
as reality.
Here back to our neural nets, go back just a few thousand years, earth wind and fire were the basic elements
if I remember my history lessons well....
Would be cool to read about our _current_ models of reality a few thousand years from now.
What would be left of it.
I have one experiment I want to try (after tritium decay that I stopped now) related to \'dark matter\',
There was an other article a while ago that attributes the effect of the orbits of outer stars in galaxies not to \'dark matter\'
but to the pull of other neighboring galaxies:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/new-hubble-data-explains-missing-dark-matter

We are still learning
As to math in all this, applied to it, we observe something, then use math to make a model so we can predict things
say Volta found I = U / R, and then find that for R is infinite there was still current flowing in a vacuum tube.
and then all of the sudden had a mechanism with electrons quantized at that.
So I take what we have now at the very very most as an incomplete or even completely wrong description of reality.
CAN we have proof? Sure we can confirm our models of reality (that is what it is) to some point by experiment.
OUR experiments, in THIS time and space, with OUR equipment,
We are no more than the ant creeping up a wall, it has no notion of the builder, architect, composition,
probably just follows the smell of the scout ant that went before it, or smell of food.
A huge amount of papers about QM has as the last line; \"and this will bring the quantum computer much closer\"
fundraising <ant food>. Or \"and Einstein was so proven right again\" need to get past peer review, scout ants.
Same for claiming putting out less CO2 will stop warming.
As to all that science; it is as corrupt as things get,
Maybe wars are the way to clear it all out,
we have seen in WW2 how it gave us missiles (Von Braun) Radar (UK) etc etc and in fact allowed us to leave earth and walk on the moon.
In wars what works is used, UK scientists claimed V1 V2 could never work because gunpowder did not heave enough energy to carry those missiles all the way to the UK.
To bad for the UK those missiles did not use gunpowder for propulsion.
Better stop here...

 

[Martin Brown]

On 16/12/2020 10:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Dec 2020 09:08:47 +0000) it happened Martin
Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote in
rrciqv$1pfo$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

On 16/12/2020 07:34, Jan Panteltje wrote:

For solutions.. to catch the ball.. the mama-ticion needs so many
parameters, the computah crunches away .. time passes by, as does
the ball. And the small neural net in the head of the sea lion
makes it catch the ball with - and balance it on its nose. So
much for relativity

Relativity is one of the most fully tested and verified physical
theories on the planet. Errors in major computer programs have
been found by looking at deviations from the predictions of the
programs and observations of distant pulsars in close proximity to
Jupiter or Saturn.

Each day one more field seems taken by AI
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215142218.htm

It is HARD to describe the AI reasoning from math POV beyond the
smallest nets.

You cannot ask a neural network why or how it has come to a
conclusion - that is a big disadvantage but if it finds the right
answer you can check that in other ways. Sometimes knowing where to
look is half the battle and computers don\'t give up so easily as
humans.

Insert destructive comments here, for example \"Einstein
Sucked\"

You don\'t understand it - that is a different thing entirely.

Sorry Martin, that was meant as a joke.

I am not sure why but this seems to be endemic with electronics
engineers. I presume it stems from the bad teaching of it in
university engineering courses. Either you accept Maxwell\'s
equations and from that those axioms that relativity is right or
you are on a hiding to nothing.

Relativity was inevitable from the moment that Maxwell derived the
wave equation for electromagnetic radiation, but it took Einstein
to unify the whole thing into a coherent self consistent world
view.

As to relativity, Einstein\'s has little meaning to me without a
MECHANISM.

The mechanism is that it makes the laws of physics the same for all
observers in an inertial reference frame and with a bit of cunning
algebra it can be derived from the mutual events of two metre rules
passing each other at velocity v using only high school algebra.

He was basically a \'field theory\' person, there is HIS description of
reality. Alain Aspect\'s https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/123

Einstein, in his last days, acknowledged he failed to unite gravity
with the other forces. And we still do not have a mechanism,

And everybody since has failed to do this.
One day we may understand why and have better grand unified theory that
encompasses everything we know so far as a weak field limiting case. I
am not holding my breath. One of my contemporaries is a world leading
string theorist and a brilliant mathematician.

This all is incomplete, just this morning I was reading about the
farthest away galaxy and how they measured the redshift:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201215104322.htm it is
IMO very dangerous to use an incomplete model (in this case the
propagation of EM waves) to make claims. Are all those constants
(speed of light etc) fixed since the bang or whatever it was? I do

Funnily enough people have conjectured that the constants of nature
might change with time but tests of that have shown that they don\'t
change appreciably on any scale or distance that we can observe.

It is even considered (and then rejected) in Astrophysics textbooks like
Harwit\'s Astrophysical Concepts (ISTR Dirac first made the conjecture).
I remembered correctly here is his 1938 paper I think free access:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1938.0053

not want to go into endless threads like sci.physics once had, but
some, what\'s the word? CAUTION would be in place to accept ANY modern
quantum(for example) crap (it largely is in my opinion) as reality.
Here back to our neural nets, go back just a few thousand years,
earth wind and fire were the basic elements if I remember my history
lessons well.... Would be cool to read about our _current_ models of
reality a few thousand years from now. What would be left of it. I

They would almost certainly have a much more complicated mathematical
model to describe more of reality but it would still have to encompass
everything that relativity and QCD predicts just as relativity reduces
to Galilean/Newtonian dynamics when v<<c.

have one experiment I want to try (after tritium decay that I stopped
now) related to \'dark matter\', There was an other article a while ago
that attributes the effect of the orbits of outer stars in galaxies
not to \'dark matter\' but to the pull of other neighboring galaxies:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/new-hubble-data-explains-missing-dark-matter

Dark matter originally meant anything not emitting light under its own
steam (ie non-stars). Observational techniques have no improved so much
that you cannot hide dark matter as planets, sticks of rhubrarb or old
biros or in fact as anything that interracts with electromagnetic waves.

We are still learning As to math in all this, applied to it, we
observe something, then use math to make a model so we can predict
things say Volta found I = U / R, and then find that for R is
infinite there was still current flowing in a vacuum tube. and then
all of the sudden had a mechanism with electrons quantized at that.
So I take what we have now at the very very most as an incomplete or
even completely wrong description of reality. CAN we have proof? Sure

It isn\'t completely wrong any more than Galileo was wrong. It is right
in its applicable domain but you can always hope for a better theory
that is able to give the right answer in the more extreme test cases.

General relativity has done pretty well on that score predicting what a
black hole would look like and what a black hole merger will do to
spacetime. What is truly amazing is that the experimentalists have been
able to make the observations with enough signal to noise to confirm it.

we can confirm our models of reality (that is what it is) to some
point by experiment. OUR experiments, in THIS time and space, with
OUR equipment, We are no more than the ant creeping up a wall, it
has no notion of the builder, architect, composition, probably just
follows the smell of the scout ant that went before it, or smell of
food. A huge amount of papers about QM has as the last line; \"and
this will bring the quantum computer much closer\" fundraising <ant
food>. Or \"and Einstein was so proven right again\" need to get past
peer review, scout ants. Same for claiming putting out less CO2 will
stop warming. As to all that science; it is as corrupt as things
get, Maybe wars are the way to clear it all out, we have seen in WW2
how it gave us missiles (Von Braun) Radar (UK) etc etc and in fact
allowed us to leave earth and walk on the moon. In wars what works is
used, UK scientists claimed V1 V2 could never work because gunpowder
did not heave enough energy to carry those missiles all the way to
the UK. To bad for the UK those missiles did not use gunpowder for
propulsion. Better stop here...

One of my supervisors obituary was \"Ed Shire: a device to destroy the
flying bomb\". He was one of the inventors of the radio proximity fuse.

https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp130771/edward-samuel-shire

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[server]

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:19:04 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 11:58:14 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:10:01 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net
wrote:
Lately, there has been a lot of discussion on the nature of invention
in circuit design. It turns out that the big names in mate and
physics have had similar experiences and use similar approaches.

Jacques Hadamard wrote a book on this, which is available online (see
the first reference in the Wiki).

Who was Hadamard? Let me put it this way: He was an insider at the
Einstein level in the development of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,
and could just call up all the big names of his day on the phone.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Hadamard
Cool. Thanks. I ordered the paperback.

It\'s available as a free PDF of the 1945 edition. Just a little 145 page pamphlet. Plain talking, doesn\'t seem abstruse, lots of repetition, don\'t know why he even wrote it. Maybe you can find some inspiration there.

I like real books.

I was thinking about writing something about invention myself, so I
may as well review other peoples\' thoughts.

There doesn\'t seem to be a lot of introspection in engineering or in
the sciences. Scientists squabble about as much as old hens. Some
engineers think they are the Pope.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.