Time for Topologists To Fess Up: Deep Down Don't You _Reall

[Han de Bruijn]

On Jun 13, 5:12 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:48 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right out and
admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more lucrative than
topology.

Not to mention the bio sphere _needs_ you to be doing something
useful.

Why limit it to topology?  Why not any theoretical math?  Unless it
has practical applications.

Correction: unless it's _possible_ that it has practical applications.

Han de Bruijn

 

[Han de Bruijn]

On Jun 13, 3:32 pm, "Dave L. Renfro" <renfr...@cmich.edu> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right
out and admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more
lucrative than topology.

http://www.google.com/search?q=topology+chemistry[over 4 million
hits]

Dave L. Renfro

There are several flavors in topology. I think the OP is referring to
point set topology.

Han de Bruijn

 

[Han de Bruijn]

On Jun 13, 5:41 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer

donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 9:48 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right out and
admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more lucrative than
topology.

Not to mention the bio sphere _needs_ you to be doing something
useful.

Why limit it to topology?  Why not any theoretical math?  Unless it
has practical applications.

Trivial issue. The real problem is that the majority of potential
useful college grads - what few there are - are being sucked up by the
financial services industry, where they do more harm than good. Not to
mention useless social networking outfits glomming onto programmers.

But really, is "applied math" any more useful to society than
topology?

John

Sci.math is the internet coffeeshop where mathematics is the drug.
Can't imagine anything more useful

Han de Bruijn

 

[Bob Masta]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 21:58:31 -0400, "Jonathan"
<Johnm@yahou.net> wrote:

"Bob Masta" <N0Spam@daqarta.com> wrote in message
news:4df755de.406459@news.eternal-september.org...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:39:50 -0400, "Jonathan"
Email@Yahou.net> wrote:


Has it occurred to anyone that math can be applied to the
subjective disciplines also? All those messy real world
disciplines that have always been 'more art than science'?
The other half of the equation of reality, which is currently
handled by a thousand narrow specialties, one for each
type of 'thing'. Whether sociology, philosophy, art
and so on.

Yeah, right... I still laugh when I recall my Economics
class: They were quite concerned about being accepted as a
"real" science, so the textbook was full of equations. Of
course, the variables in those equations were things like
"Supply", "Demand", "Productivity" and other ill-defined
terms. Result: Scientific paint on the same old goat
entrails.

Best regards,


Like I'm trying to say, things have changed in the last few years.
An entirely new field of math has evolved.

The root problem in trying to apply math to economics is not
the math (although that may be important), it's the data.
No matter what math you use, you still need raw data to feed
it. This is particularly a problem with ill-defined (and/or
poorly-measured) variables, which is pretty much all that
economics has to work with.

Behold the new field of Complexity Economics. Where all is defined
in terms of the well-established mathematics of static and chaotic
attractors.

Complexity economics

"The "nearly archetypal example" is an artificial stock market model
created by the Santa Fe Institute in 1989.[2] The model shows two
different outcomes, one where "agents do not search much for
predictors and there is convergence on a homogeneous rational
expectations outcome" and another where "all kinds of technical
trading strategies appearing and remaining and periods of bubbles
and crashes occurring".[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics


ALL disciplines dealing with the messy real world can now
be dealt with in the same way. All up to and including
the universe, life and spirit.

These are *models*, which only work with the data they are
given. If you want to make a useful prediction about a
system, you need to know something about that system ahead
of time. That involves messy real-world measurements.
The fact that the general behavior of the model has some
similarity to the general behavior of the real-world system
may be a clue that you are getting close, but it's
definitely not a sign you've arrived.

Modelers typically claim success when they feed historical
data into their model and get historical results. Even
though that may sound convincing, the fact is that complex
systems have lots of degrees of freedom that the modelers
can tweak... sometimes there can be more variables than
there are measurements. As you probably know, it's easy to
compute a curve that fits all the data points when you have
a similar number of variables. Caveat emptor!

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v6.02
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
Science with your sound card!

 

[Bret Cahill]

Has it occurred to anyone that math can be applied to the
subjective disciplines also?  All those messy real world
disciplines that have always been 'more art than science'?
The other half of the equation of reality, which is currently
handled by a thousand narrow specialties, one for each
type of 'thing'. Whether sociology, philosophy, art
and so on.

Yeah, right... I still laugh when I recall my Economics
class:  They were quite concerned about being accepted as a
"real" science, so the textbook was full of equations. Of
course, the variables in those equations were things like
"Supply", "Demand", "Productivity" and other ill-defined
terms.  Result:  Scientific paint on the same old goat
entrails.

Best regards,

Like I'm trying to say, things have changed in the last few years.
An entirely new field of math has evolved.

The root problem in trying to apply math to economics is not
the math (although that may be important), it's the data.
No matter what math you use, you still need raw data to feed
it.  This is particularly a problem with ill-defined (and/or
poorly-measured) variables, which is pretty much all that
economics has to work with.

A couple years ago _Scientific American_ ran a scholarly article
saying that the entire field was based on a false assumption from the
19th Century. Scholarship is kind of silly here -- like using a
cannon to kill a fly -- when a line or two will discredit the entire
field.

Their biggest hurdle, however, isn't that the field was based on a
false assumption. That might be true for physics where some
courageous types are saying they need a different way to understand
the law of gravity.

The problem with calling "economics" a "science" is that they _don't_
have any generally agreed upon assumptions _period_.

Even the most liberally construed meaning of the word "science" would
exclude any "field" where there is no general agreement, i.e. the 97%
concensus on AGW, on _anything_ (other than, of course, making a
career of dodging questions).

Behold the new field of Complexity Economics.

If that isn't self parody what is?

Where all is defined
in terms of the well-established mathematics of static and chaotic
attractors.
Complexity economics

"The "nearly archetypal example" is an artificial stock market model
created by the Santa Fe Institute in 1989.[2] The model shows two
different outcomes, one where "agents do not search much for
predictors and there is convergence on a homogeneous rational
expectations outcome" and another where "all kinds of technical
trading strategies appearing and remaining and periods of bubbles
and crashes occurring".[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics

ALL disciplines dealing with the messy real world can now
be dealt with in the same way. All up to and including
the universe, life and spirit.

These are *models*, which only work with the data they are
given.  If you want to make a useful prediction about a
system, you need to know something about that system ahead
of time.  That involves messy real-world measurements.
The fact that the general behavior of the model has some
similarity to the general behavior of the real-world system
may be a clue that you are getting close, but it's
definitely not a sign you've arrived.

Their hope is that they can dodge every last basic question about
their "field" by hiding behind the last refuge of every scammer who
suspects he is about to be exposed. The ol' smoke screen of
"complexity."

Modelers typically claim success when they feed historical
data into their model and get historical results.   Even
though that may sound convincing, the fact is that complex
systems have lots of degrees of freedom that the modelers
can tweak... sometimes there can be more variables than
there are measurements.  As you probably know, it's easy to
compute a curve that fits all the data points when you have
a similar number of variables.  Caveat emptor!

The Nat'l Academy of Science has always been very open minded and
receptive to radical new developments, quantum mechanics, climate
modeling, etc. Indeed, nowadays they are probably desperately
_hoping_ for them.

Does the NAS recognize anything in economics involving anything
resembling _any_ calculations in _any_ science?

If the NAS doesn't want their sorry excuse for justifying their
existence then why would anyone else?

Best regards,

Bob Masta

              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
             www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
          Science with your sound card!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Bret Cahill]

Has it occurred to anyone that math can be applied to the
subjective disciplines also?  All those messy real world
disciplines that have always been 'more art than science'?
The other half of the equation of reality, which is currently
handled by a thousand narrow specialties, one for each
type of 'thing'. Whether sociology, philosophy, art
and so on.

Yeah, right... I still laugh when I recall my Economics
class:  They were quite concerned about being accepted as a
"real" science, so the textbook was full of equations. Of
course, the variables in those equations were things like
"Supply", "Demand", "Productivity" and other ill-defined
terms.  Result:  Scientific paint on the same old goat
entrails.

Best regards,

Like I'm trying to say, things have changed in the last few years.
An entirely new field of math has evolved.

The root problem in trying to apply math to economics is not
the math (although that may be important), it's the data.
No matter what math you use, you still need raw data to feed
it.  This is particularly a problem with ill-defined (and/or
poorly-measured) variables, which is pretty much all that
economics has to work with.

A couple years ago _Scientific American_ ran a scholarly article
saying that the entire field was based on a false assumption from the
19th Century.  Scholarship is kind of silly here -- like using a
cannon to kill a fly -- when a line or two will discredit the entire
field.

Their biggest hurdle, however, isn't that the field was based on a
false assumption.  That might be true for physics where some
courageous types are saying they need a different way to understand
the law of gravity.

The problem with calling "economics" a "science" is that they _don't_
have any generally agreed upon assumptions _period_.

Even the most liberally construed meaning of the word "science" would
exclude any "field" where there is no general agreement, i.e. the 97%
concensus on AGW, on _anything_ (other than, of course, making a
career of dodging questions).

Behold the new field of Complexity Economics.

If that isn't self parody what is?





Where all is defined
in terms of the well-established mathematics of static and chaotic
attractors.
Complexity economics

"The "nearly archetypal example" is an artificial stock market model
created by the Santa Fe Institute in 1989.[2] The model shows two
different outcomes, one where "agents do not search much for
predictors and there is convergence on a homogeneous rational
expectations outcome" and another where "all kinds of technical
trading strategies appearing and remaining and periods of bubbles
and crashes occurring".[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_economics

ALL disciplines dealing with the messy real world can now
be dealt with in the same way. All up to and including
the universe, life and spirit.

These are *models*, which only work with the data they are
given.  If you want to make a useful prediction about a
system, you need to know something about that system ahead
of time.  That involves messy real-world measurements.
The fact that the general behavior of the model has some
similarity to the general behavior of the real-world system
may be a clue that you are getting close, but it's
definitely not a sign you've arrived.

Their hope is that they can dodge every last basic question about
their "field" by hiding behind the last refuge of every scammer who
suspects he is about to be exposed.  The ol' smoke screen of
"complexity."

Modelers typically claim success when they feed historical
data into their model and get historical results.   Even
though that may sound convincing, the fact is that complex
systems have lots of degrees of freedom that the modelers
can tweak... sometimes there can be more variables than
there are measurements.  As you probably know, it's easy to
compute a curve that fits all the data points when you have
a similar number of variables.  Caveat emptor!

The Nat'l Academy of Science has always been very open minded and
receptive to radical new developments, quantum mechanics, climate
modeling, etc.   Indeed, nowadays they are probably desperately
_hoping_ for them.

Does the NAS recognize anything in economics involving anything
resembling _any_ calculations in _any_ science?

Or, for that matter, anything in economics _period_?

No wikipeding. We'll use the honor system.

If the NAS doesn't want their sorry excuse for justifying their
existence then why would anyone else?



Best regards,

Bob Masta

              DAQARTA  v6.02
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
             www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, FREE Signal Generator
           Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
          Science with your sound card!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Han de Bruijn]

On Jun 15, 5:29 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

[ .. a lot .. ]

The main problem with common economics is that its quite difficult for
its practitioners to distinguish sober thinking from filling their own
pockets. There is less of such a problem with some other sciences. The
truth with common economics is grim, rather than elegant:

http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/www/programs/interest.htm

Han de Bruijn

 

[Bret Cahill]

The main problem with common economics is that its quite difficult for
its practitioners to distinguish sober thinking from filling their own
pockets.

Applying Milton Friedman's reasoning to Milton Friedman:

"If moneyed interests pay market economists to dodge issues
fundamental to free marketry, next thing you know, you have a lot of
market economists dodging issues fundamental to free marketry."

There is less of such a problem with some other sciences. The
truth with common economics is grim, rather than elegant:

Actually political science is the happy science. Thermo is the dismal
science.

http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/www/programs/interest.htm

Han de Bruijn

 

[Bret Cahill]

The main problem with common economics is that its quite difficult for
its practitioners to distinguish sober thinking from filling their own
pockets.

Very few read _Democracy In America_ with the full understanding of
the work -- Tocqueville was trying to persuade the remnants of the
ancien regime and other French politicians to be more pro freedom --
but at the most fundamental level the book is about interests and
their effect on behaviour.

The most interesting passage in all of political science is about T.
meeting a former French Revolutionary who had acquired money and an
estate in Pennsylvania and was, as T writes, "talking like a [lowly]
economist."

The descendant of guillotined aristocrats was astounded at the flip
flop.

"What a feeble thing is human reason. A thing is either true or
false. Before I was poor and now I am rich. I don't care if money
changes my behaviour but, please, leave my judgement alone."

There is less of such a problem with some other sciences.

Honest "economists" like Krugman ought to, like the National Academy
of the Sciences, abandon the field altogether and leave it to the
shills and just go into political science. That wouldn't eliminate
the frauds but it would enhance the Enlightenment era philosophers who
introduced the most enlightened, most egalitarian, most prosperous
nation on earth.

After all, T. mentioned the Keynesian effect almost a century before
Keynes.


Bret Cahill

 

[Jonathan]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:95d75609-f416-4410-ae07-489f1502d481@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

In other words these economists have as much credibility with
mainstream mathematicians as Lyndon LaRouche, creationists, birthers
and truthers.

Complexity Science is mainstream now. And spreading rapidly.
The 'Harvard' of economics might be the London School of
Economics. They have a very well known Complexity program.
It's Phd level mathematics.

It only sounds like pseudo-science because it's such a
dramatic change in observing reality. The subjective
world is now open to a formal mathematics.

A few complexity science program links, and below a list
of US govt agencies with their own Complexity Science
programs. When looking at the list of agencies, it should
be noted how this math applies to all kinds of entirely
....different fields. From nuclear bombs to the arts.

That's what's so exciting about this new field.
It's universal. And it's essentially the abstract
math of the Darwinian evolution we all know
and love.

The most complex the universe has to offer...life
is the true source of the Fundamental Laws of the
Universe.

Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true?
What if all of the universe is simply less complex
versions of a living system?

That realization will change everything.


LSE
http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/research.html

Univ of Mich
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/

Univ of Illinois
http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/

Indiani State
http://cnets.indiana.edu/

Arizona State
http://csdc.asu.edu/

Sante Fe
http://www.santafe.edu/


The Use of Complexity Science

"In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education asked the Washington
Center for Complexity and Public Policy to look at how complexity
science is being used -throughout the federal government, in
private foundations, universities, and in independent education
and research centers-"
http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf

Research Findings

A. United States Congress

13 1. Congressional Research Service
13 2. House Science Committee
13 B. Executive Office of the President
13 1. Office of Science and Technology Policy
13 RAND/Science and Technology Policy Institute
14 C. Executive Departments
15 1. Department of Agriculture
15 USDA Forest Service
15 Agricultural Research Service
16 2. Department of Commerce
16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
16 National Institute of Standards and Technology
17 3. Department of Defense
18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
19 National Defense University
20 4. Department of Education
21 5. Department of Energy
21 Office of Science
21 National Laboratories
23 Argonne National Laboratory
23 Los Alamos National Laboratory
25 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
26 Sandia National Laboratories
27
2 National Nuclear Security Administration
29 6. Department of Health and Human Services
30 7. Department of Homeland Security
31 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development
31 9. Department of the Interior
32 US Geological Survey
32 10. Department of Justice
32 Federal Bureau of Investigation
32 11. Department of Labor
33 12. Department of State
34 Foreign Service Institute
34 English Teaching Forum
34 13. Department of Transportation
35 Planning in Air Traffic Control
35 Application of Agent Technology to Traffic Simulation
35 14. Department of the Treasury
35 15. Department of Veterans Affairs

36 D. Independent Agencies and Government Corporations

36 1. Central Intelligence Agency
36 Global Futures Partnership
36 2. Federal Reserve System
36 3. National Science Foundation
38 4. Smithsonian Institution
38 Resident Associates Program
38 E. University-affiliated Research Centers
39 1. Boston University
39 2. Brandeis University
40 3. California Institute of Technology
40 4. Duke University
41 5. Florida Atlantic University
41 6. George Mason University
41 The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies
41 Center for Social Complexity
42 7. Northeastern University
42 8. Notre Dame
43 9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
43 10. UCLA
44 11. University of Illinois
44 12. University of Michigan
45 13. University of Texas
45 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison
46 3

F. Independent Education and Research Centers

46 1. Brookings Institution
46 2. CNA Corporation
46 3. Chaordic Commons
47 4. Institute for Coherence and Emergence
48 5. New England Complex Systems Institute 4
8 6. Plexus Institute
48 7. RAND Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study
of the Longer Range Global Policy and the
Future Human Condition
49 8. Santa Fe Institute
49 9. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy
50 10. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
50 G. Private Foundations
51 1. John E. Fetzer Institute
51 2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
52 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation
53 4. James S. McDonnell Foundation
54 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation
55 6. Pew Charitable Trusts
55 H. Museums and Art Galleries
56 1. The Exploratorium
56 2. The Fine Arts Program of the Federal Reserve Board
56 3. Center for Art and Visual Culture University of Maryland Baltimore
County
57 I. Specific Complexity and Education-related Projects
58 1. American Educational Research Association
58 2. Center for Connected Learning & Computer-based Modeling
58 3. New England Complex Systems Institute
59 J. References Cited 60 K. Selected References
61 L. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy



And yet so few seem to have heard about it, or have
any idea what it's all about. It's nothing short of the
beginning of the end of the scientific dark ages.



> Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

In other words these economists have as much credibility with
mainstream mathematicians as Lyndon LaRouche, creationists, birthers
and truthers.

Complexity Science is mainstream now.

Why don't you tell the Nat'l Academy of the Sciences that "economists
are now in the process of trying to salvage their sorry reputations by
invoking something called 'complexity science'?"

Just don't mention my name.


Bret Cahill

 

[mike3]

On Jun 12, 8:48 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right out and
admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more lucrative than
topology.

Not to mention the bio sphere _needs_ you to be doing something
useful.

Bret Cahill

Since topology _can_ be "applied" in the real world (in a LOT of
things),
I don't know at all what your point is.

http://people.rit.edu/wfbsma/topology_and_its_applications/links.html

Read & weep.

"... protein/cell structures ..."

Which may be useful in medicine. Which means that topology may,
someday,
help save your life.

"... applications to chaos ..."

And a great deal of "real world" phenomena are chaotic. Hmm.

 

[mike3]

On Jun 13, 9:41 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer

donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 9:48 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right out and
admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more lucrative than
topology.

Not to mention the bio sphere _needs_ you to be doing something
useful.

Why limit it to topology?  Why not any theoretical math?  Unless it
has practical applications.

Trivial issue. The real problem is that the majority of potential
useful college grads - what few there are - are being sucked up by the
financial services industry, where they do more harm than good. Not to
mention useless social networking outfits glomming onto programmers.

But really, is "applied math" any more useful to society than
topology?

Oh, most definitely! Considering that probably most of the
technologies
you use every day involved math at some point in their construction...

And where would you want that "brain power" to go, exactly?

 

[aruzinsky]

On Jun 13, 10:53 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 13, 10:41 am, John Larkin





jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:12:02 -0700 (PDT), Don Stockbauer

donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 12, 9:48 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't try to bs your way out of this one.  Just come right out and
admit it:  applied math is more fun as well as more lucrative than
topology.

Not to mention the bio sphere _needs_ you to be doing something
useful.

Why limit it to topology?  Why not any theoretical math?  Unless it
has practical applications.

Trivial issue. The real problem is that the majority of potential
useful college grads - what few there are - are being sucked up by the
financial services industry, where they do more harm than good. Not to
mention useless social networking outfits glomming onto programmers.

But really, is "applied math" any more useful to society than
topology?

Well, one way to look at it is that everything is useful, even
theoretical math and contradictions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In that sense, a rock is useful for pounding nails into a board, but,
in another sense, a rock is useless for that purpose when a hammer is
available. In the latter sense, the first sense is useless.