tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43938892659061559202024-03-12T19:21:33.528-07:00The Lost Art of ThinkingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-80382948206738453172015-12-17T01:39:00.000-08:002015-12-17T01:39:19.356-08:00When your life is not profitable<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Coral_009.jpg/800px-Coral_009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="355" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Coral_009.jpg/800px-Coral_009.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
For those who believe that market competition is the best thing for science, I hope you never get bitten by a coral snake:</div>
<br />
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>"Antivenom shortage</i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The bite of a coral snake may soon be more dangerous, in part because bites are so uncommon. Production of coral snake antivenom in the United States ceased because it is not profitable. According to Pfizer, the owner of the company that used to make Coralmyn, it would take over $5–$10 million to put toward researching a new synthetic antivenom. The cost was too large for the small number of cases presented each year. The American antivenom stock expired in 2008, but the U.S.Food and Drug Administration has extended the expiration date every year through at least 2013. Foreign pharmaceutical manufacturers have produced other coral snake antivenoms, but the costs of licensing them in the United States have stalled availability (see above). Instituto Bioclon is developing a coral snake antivenom. In 2013, Pfizer was reportedly working on a new batch of antivenom but had not announced when it would become available." </i>- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_snake#Antivenom_shortage">Wikipedia</a></blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-54015064230416700322014-08-29T00:24:00.000-07:002014-08-29T00:24:08.645-07:00LEGO Pirate Hit With Super Rogue Wave<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/u0psJp6I2Z0" width="480"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-81518033850088984962014-07-26T07:16:00.000-07:002014-08-18T08:05:44.659-07:00Randomly Infinite<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Wd_mAGpgKTxqIc6b3hyBAwbFpdHP3AL03shstx_7BBArENRpIOefNKgOC5GHFr7yML9fVtcC0-D0W8ib55IKPdmY0dr49g0RZgqGmjTC7-XTK2RYj4kE2AyAic06g1RtBJqh0Cq4hI43/s1600/pi-symbol-md.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Wd_mAGpgKTxqIc6b3hyBAwbFpdHP3AL03shstx_7BBArENRpIOefNKgOC5GHFr7yML9fVtcC0-D0W8ib55IKPdmY0dr49g0RZgqGmjTC7-XTK2RYj4kE2AyAic06g1RtBJqh0Cq4hI43/s1600/pi-symbol-md.png" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As some of you might know, I am writing a popular book about Bayesian probabilities and science. The first draft, which is a work in progress, can be found for download here and I appreciate any feedback:</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://alamino.org/the-probable-universe/">The Probable Universe</a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am working on a revised version right now and I decided to expand the sections on randomness and make them a whole chapter. The problem is to know when to stop. Randomness is such an interesting and intriguing topic that one can write a whole book only on it. There are many things that I would like to say about randomness, but I have to leave out otherwise it would change the main theme of the book. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will consider writing a book only on randomness in the future, but I still have some consolation on the fact that I can at least share with you those things that, at present, will be left out. One of those things is related to the mind-boggling things you get when you mix the two dangerous concepts of randomness and infinity.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
SPOILER ALERT. If you haven't read <b><i><a href="http://amzn.to/1po0Obt">Contact</a></i></b> by Carl Sagan yet, be aware that I will be talking about something that happens literally at the end of the book. Be warned. At the very end, the main character is running a program to find a message that has been left hidden in the digits of the number Pi by the supposed 'designers of the universe'. The program suddenly spills out a sequence of numbers that somehow form the picture of a circle. Now, you might be very truly amazed to know that Carl is right: there is indeed such a sequence hidden in the digits of Pi! That exact sequence, by the way! Have I just changed your life? Before you starting twitting about these amazing news, let me tell you a couple of things about Pi.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, everybody knows that Pi is a number which is a result of dividing the length of a circle by its diameter. In flat Eulidean space, which is the one obeying the geometric properties you have learned in the school, this works for every circle. But Pi is a very interesting number in many other aspects. One of them is the fact that it is an irrational number. This means that there is no way to write Pi as a fraction, or a rate, between two other integer numbers. A consequence of this is that the decimal digits of Pi cannot (ever, never) be periodic. What does that mean?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A periodic sequence is one that repeats itself after a certain amount of time. Examples are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
11111111111...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
121212121212...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
123567123567123567...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am assuming these sequences repeat forever (I call the last one the 'Mambo Sequence' by the way). The first sequence has period one, the second has period 2 and the Mambo Sequence has period 6. The period is then, clearly, the number of digits that are repeating. A rational number, one that can be written as a fraction between two integers, always finishes with a periodic sequence. It can take a while to reach that sequence, but it is always there. For instance:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.234566666666....</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
where the last digit '6' repeats forever is a rational number. In irrational numbers, like Pi, this never happens. The odd consequence behind this is that the digits of Pi, which start like:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3.141592653...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
have all the properties of an infinite sequence of randomly distributed integers from 0 to 9! Each one with equal probability. If you are skeptical, take a look at the two graphs below.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZh4KqInzskP9zyXRrQ8U9mz5eD7NXdkM13k0xWylJ6dllk99FxF7Lmy_SW9J5dg77xSzf5dKrR9Lv1L-y-L1vvPyvSysGCUbMUiTxqaUauBnzo6DwkE-f-T4g2oJ1H2lho6lMkSimdGFG/s1600/Pi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZh4KqInzskP9zyXRrQ8U9mz5eD7NXdkM13k0xWylJ6dllk99FxF7Lmy_SW9J5dg77xSzf5dKrR9Lv1L-y-L1vvPyvSysGCUbMUiTxqaUauBnzo6DwkE-f-T4g2oJ1H2lho6lMkSimdGFG/s1600/Pi.jpg" height="255" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyJATgSAhFOdL21yspdFMN4_mwhLtERkhSi2X3aUIYmnLbvzo6lEWjsfn5qSu3wGW3EL_6j2icfunbO_RRWuMo1lekXGFa_4RonaEewAcdvb6fOGCANm5cQBRKH7-JG_E9KArueZt_onbK/s1600/Random.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyJATgSAhFOdL21yspdFMN4_mwhLtERkhSi2X3aUIYmnLbvzo6lEWjsfn5qSu3wGW3EL_6j2icfunbO_RRWuMo1lekXGFa_4RonaEewAcdvb6fOGCANm5cQBRKH7-JG_E9KArueZt_onbK/s1600/Random.jpg" height="255" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
These two graphs appear in my book. They represent two sequences of digits from 0 to 9 with a total of 100 digits. Can you see the difference between them? There is no regularity in any of the two graphs, but one of the above sequences is the digits of the number Pi and the other is a sequence of digits randomly generated by a computer program. Try to identify which one is Pi. There is a way, but it is definitely not by looking at their overall appearance.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another detail is that the number of decimal digits in Pi is infinite. That is because any number whose sequence of decimal digits is finite IS a rational number. All you need to do to find its representation as a fraction is to multiply it by an appropriate power of ten until it becomes an integer. The number is then that integer divided by the power of ten.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many of you must know Jorge Luis Borges' story The Library of Babel. In it, Borges imagine a library containing books in which every combination of the letters of the alphabet are present, in a random order. This means that, if you only look at the books with say 400 pages, the library contains all stories and all scientific books that have been ever written or that will one day be written as long as they fit in 400 pages! Even things that haven't been discovered yet! Even stories that nobody wrote yet, but that one day someone will! In fact, because the library is infinite, it contains all books that have ever been written or that will ever be.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although Borges' library is fictional, it illustrates a truly amazing property of the infinite. When you put together infinity and randomness, you get something even more amazing. It can be proved that in an infinite random sequence, ANY <i>finite</i> sequence of characters appears an infinite number of times! Now, the punchline:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Every finite sequence of numbers appears an infinite number of times</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>in the sequence of decimal digits of Pi.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And so what? Think about this. In the same way as you can encode computer files in binary form, you can also encode any information in <i>decimal form</i>. If you doubt, just write down the binary representation of any file. That is an integer number. Write that integer in decimal base and voila! This means that every text that has ever been written or that will ever be written can be found somewhere in the sequence of decimal digits of Pi! An infinite number of times! This means that, whatever Sagan's character found in the sequence of digits of Pi, it is not a message from another race, but simply the result of good and old randomness!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are worried that there is so much information hidden in Pi or maybe trying to devise a plan to extract future information from it like the Bible Code, be aware that this is useless. Because the digits are random, there is no way to know where the information is before hand, or even which information is correct or not, because the same information appears with all possible mistakes!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reading the text above again, I cannot stop being amazed myself. I am having second thoughts if I include this in the book or not already...<br />
<br />
<b>Update: </b>Some friends are telling me that it's not proved that the digits of Pi are random. Maybe I should have been more cautious when I wrote it. It is absolutely true that there is no proof that the digits of Pi are random and, in fact, there seems to be evidence that it is actually pseudo-random, in the sense that one might predict them if we have a certain formula that was found by a couple of mathematicians.<br />
<br />
Still, the possibly pseudo-random sequence of digits of Pi continues to satisfy most tests of randomicity, which although is not a proof that they are random, makes it more probable that it satisfies the most interesting properties, specially the one of having every other sequence written in it. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-79211429273253386832014-07-18T15:40:00.003-07:002014-07-27T07:13:01.005-07:00The Circle of Life<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiowOE3FoRV8XkvG6ZHL7AY_1WYuUIYx8_vDj1NQJuM1QkgrZewcVGXsSkl9CvDyJ7NfSG7vq0TIDO0SgCJ5TPYlWe0Q6CAgeOianPnJQVZFsOOQ-qNN4vpHnSq02AgCpGKuc9GUaIgVL9O/s1600/image013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiowOE3FoRV8XkvG6ZHL7AY_1WYuUIYx8_vDj1NQJuM1QkgrZewcVGXsSkl9CvDyJ7NfSG7vq0TIDO0SgCJ5TPYlWe0Q6CAgeOianPnJQVZFsOOQ-qNN4vpHnSq02AgCpGKuc9GUaIgVL9O/s1600/image013.jpg" height="346" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I have just read this funny circular definition of life on June's Scientific American:<br />
<br />
"(...) would be strong evidence of life, widely defined: a biological system that encodes information and uses this information to build complex molecules."<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'll leave to the reader to find out why it is circular.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-41525412144039432302014-07-16T06:07:00.002-07:002014-07-16T06:07:09.250-07:00The (New) Meaning of Science<div style="text-align: justify;">
Every word, in every language has a life cycle. Words are used by humans in their daily affairs and humans are complicated creatures whose decisions are affected by a complex interplay between reason and emotion. Because of this, words evolve in such a way that, with time, their meanings go through “mutations” which might eventually lead to such a radical change that they cannot be used anymore within their original scope. The word “science” is not different.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most modern discussions concerning what science actually is, end up falling in the semantic category. The reason for that is the fact that, at some point, the meaning of ‘true knowledge’ was attached to the word science. The study of methods to discern what kind of knowledge is ‘true’ and what is ‘false’ ended up being associated to the word and, as these methods became successful, the word science acquired a respected status. Humans are attracted by reputation as this result in better chances of satisfying emotional goals. Therefore, the importance of guaranteeing being associated with the word and the status it provides.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The original meaning of the word “science” seems to have been very little ambitious, simply meaning any kind of knowledge. Greek philosophers seem to be responsible of seeking a way to separate knowledge that would actually describe how the world works from that which would not. This was when the word science started to acquire its respectability. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
The S-Method</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let us forget the word “science” for now and consider the following problem. It is undeniable that there are repeating patterns in nature. That is a trivial observation whose simplest example is the fact that the sun rises with some predictable regularity every single day. In fact, that creates the basis on which we define what a ‘day’ is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The fact that patterns exist allows us to write down sets of rules for these patterns. The problem I want to propose is that of checking if a pattern we think we found is really there or not. This can be thought in terms of a competition. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The competition consists in the judges writing down a set of rules that generates a sequence of numbers. The judges hire a programmer to create an app that uses the rules to generate the required sequence of numbers. Using that program, the judges generate a dataset which is then given for different groups of people and their task is to find the original pattern, the judges’ rules, that generated the data. Once each group has prepared their entry to the contest, one has to decide which one is the winner. In this case, of course, all that is needed is to check which group gave the correct rules.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The way it is, it is easy to decide who is the winner. Suppose now that, somehow, the judges lost the original rules and cannot remember then. All they still have is the app, but the programmer has already gone on holiday and cannot be contacted. They need to decide which group is the winner. Can they do that?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, there is a way to select the winner and we will call this the S-Method (‘s’ for ‘selection’). The S-Method is an elimination method. The judges start to generate additional numbers beyond the original dataset and ask the groups to do the same with their rules. Each time a group generates a number which is different from the one generated by the app, the group is eliminated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unless two groups have equivalent rules, which means that they always generate exactly the same numbers, the S-Method guarantees that at some point one will find a winner. This can take time, but will eventually happen. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But there is still one limitation of the S-Method. It serves the objective of finding a winner, but it cannot guarantee that the rule given by the winner corresponds to the correct one. No matter how long you test, although you might be able to catch a failure and debunk the winner’s method based on its predicted next number, one will never be able to tell if the generated numbers will always work for sure. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Notice that there is one key idea of the S-Method: it requires each group to make predictions about the next number. That is because one wants to check if the rules, or in other words the inferred pattern, are indeed the correct ones.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is no way to check if the rules work without testing them against the data. If one of the groups simply created a fancy story that would generate only the original dataset but could not be used to generate additional numbers, they would not have identified the original rules. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The possibility of generating a prediction that can be checked against data generated by the original rule has the name of falsifiability. Entries to the contest which are not falsifiable, cannot be judged. In the case of the contest, they are automatically wrong as the original rules do generate more numbers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Consider now that we are dealing with nature. We do not really know if there are indeed patterns in every phenomenon. Experience indicates that there is by the simple observation that we were able to find many up to this day. If our guesses about a phenomenon are falsifiable, then we can apply the S-Method to select the best guess and even to eliminate all of them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, it might be possible that in nature there are phenomena to which we cannot find a pattern in principle. In those cases, the phenomenon cannot be attacked using the S-Method. It is out of its reach. Fortunately, those situations are rare and do not affect our lives significantly, only emotionally.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
The Certified Scientist </h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can appreciate that both the effectiveness and the limits of applicability of the S-Method are well established above. It turns out that, at some point in history, the word ‘science’ started to be associated only with knowledge that could be checked using the S-Method.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because the S-Method is clear, objective and powerful, it started to yield results. Those who dedicated themselves to check which of those guessed patterns up to that point were valid or not using the S-Method succeeded in selecting the rules that actually worked.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It did not take long for people to see that explanations in terms of gods and spiritual entities for the natural phenomena were not falsifiable. This would not be too critical in principle, the greatest problem is that people started to actually find falsifiable descriptions for those phenomena.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Those people who started to dedicate themselves to tailor falsifiable models for natural phenomena then became the new ‘scientists’. They gathered together and started to teach others. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The success of this new meaning of ‘science’ made the title of ‘scientist’ a desirable one. Desirable because of the credibility associated with it. And then the scientists started to give certifications for those who studied with them. They created the ‘certified scientists’ and this was the beginning of a new change in meaning.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem with certifications is that, at some point, they stop being about the original qualities of the product and become a matter of politics. Those who receive a certification that cannot be revoked will tend to ignore the very rules that allowed them to earn it in the first place when those rules are against their personal beliefs. Because the individuals themselves have the power of certifying others, the certifications start to become degenerate with time.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The unintended effect is that the original meaning of the very words that defined the certification start to drift away. Because now you have ‘certified scientists’ that will not admit losing their certification, they will lobby to include in the meaning of ‘science’ whatever they personally do or think that they should do.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
New Science</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, the term ‘science’ starts to be associated not with the S-Method anymore, but is now used to describe a profession whose definition bends according to the wills and necessities of those who have the power to give certifications.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here lies the kernel of all modern discussions about what is ‘science’. Discussing the validity of the S-Method is not an issue, the issue became whether give or not the ‘certified scientist’ title even when one ignores the S-Method. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Model Engineering</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The S-Method, as powerful as it is, is just a selection procedure. It requires models to select. This guaranteed ‘model engineering’ as an important part of what became known as science.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As more data about natural phenomena accumulated and models of the simpler ones were selected, model engineering became more complex. Whenever complexity increases in an area, specialisation naturally follows. This resulted in many certified scientists becoming specialised in model engineering.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Today’s model engineering is a very sophisticated process and mathematics plays a key role on it. Mathematics allows us to concisely describe patterns in natural phenomena, including the ones used by humans to reason. Once these patterns are codified and selected as valid ones, they can be trusted until a reason appears not to do so.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Model engineering is a very difficult area and requires a lot of ingenuity and creativity. In modern times, it also requires a good knowledge of mathematics and a certain ability to work with it. Many of the most famous certified scientists are theoretical physicists because their mathematical ability is recognised outstanding.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The use of mathematics provided a means to build models that go beyond the practical reaches of the S-Model in terms of economic and technological feasibility. There is no known limits to the kind of models that can be engineered, the only constraint being that they should agree with collected data and not contradict those which have already been selected by the S-Method within their limits of applicability.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many certified scientists will only concentrate on model engineering and leave the task of selecting models to other specialists. There is nothing wrong with that in terms of profession as long as they remember that the fact that a model has been engineered using valid methods still does not mean that the model is the correct rule to describe some natural phenomenon.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Science without the S-Method </h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What happens if we keep model engineering and discard the S-Method? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many people today are lured into believing that, as long as a model involves mathematics, it is a good model, but model engineering can be completely detached from the S-Method. As a consequence, using mathematics does not per se provide any extra credibility to a model.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Religion and mysticism contain many examples of models which can even be based on mathematics, but nevertheless would either not be vindicated by the S-Method or even not falling under the scope of its application. Model engineering, without the S-Method, falls into the same category. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">
Questioning is not Enough</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rebellion against rigid impositions is a good practice. It is by questioning traditional rules that reasoning flaws can be found. However, rebellion for the sake of rebellion is as useless as conformism. One must question things with a reason, otherwise the questioning becomes senseless.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Critics attack the S-Method, or the falsifiability principle, as being too rigid, but ignore what is the original objective that led to it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If one wants to change the meaning of science once again from a method to find correct models to describe nature’s patterns to a list of professional obligations, there is very little to do to prevent this. What cannot be tolerated is that this new meaning of science still demands to be recognised as something that achieves this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-71990221199591279412014-07-15T14:51:00.000-07:002014-07-15T14:51:14.634-07:00Game of Life<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGITdpDos1GqGSMrs2BB3mqvJpXlvCj8gBuGRAjPxiIcJ4JYFcBppeQtbaPmCyAuImS4W7X_AalNCdKn2_B0kCEXY89Nz5kqiDB5BImlmvka8l_QkzDz4vwI7mjyVg-XOhkX7X1J4V0mJi/s1600/mac-fire.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGITdpDos1GqGSMrs2BB3mqvJpXlvCj8gBuGRAjPxiIcJ4JYFcBppeQtbaPmCyAuImS4W7X_AalNCdKn2_B0kCEXY89Nz5kqiDB5BImlmvka8l_QkzDz4vwI7mjyVg-XOhkX7X1J4V0mJi/s1600/mac-fire.png" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I have just found this application that allows you to simulate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life">Conway's Game of Life</a> and other cellular automata:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://golly.sourceforge.net/">Golly</a></div>
<br />
It's an open source program that allows you to change the update rules for two dimensional automata. I have been playing with it a bit and seems very simple and potentially very useful (not mentioning very entertaining). The picture in the beginning is a screenshot of one of the rules.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-26134302240769890752014-07-11T15:02:00.001-07:002014-07-11T15:02:58.977-07:00Post-Empiricism and Data Tables<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9_hkAFS6usqxucGFCscR6bWudmNYySi6ViR6VlTyAPvSoppiGCvvP5RFPZ7i5-EGsq_Vm__1ghjvxPQpb9fd-rg1HVn0yk9yjqVOszC9RNX25yXFiJpUeRoW87sAbw3MutHig4yY_4BS-/s1600/ghost-156969_640.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9_hkAFS6usqxucGFCscR6bWudmNYySi6ViR6VlTyAPvSoppiGCvvP5RFPZ7i5-EGsq_Vm__1ghjvxPQpb9fd-rg1HVn0yk9yjqVOszC9RNX25yXFiJpUeRoW87sAbw3MutHig4yY_4BS-/s1600/ghost-156969_640.png" height="313" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was reading Peter Woit's blog and stumbled with this post-modern word: post-empiricism. Apparently, a guy named Richard Dawid, said to be a physicist-turned-philosopher whatever that means, wrote a book about this and String Theory. I haven't read the book and I doubt I will, because I have already read one thousand similar arguments and not even one of them had anything new to add to the discussion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But to give you an idea of what Dawid means by "post-empiricism", I will reproduce part of an interview given by him which Woit put in his blog:</div>
<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think that those critics make two mistakes. First, they implicitly presume that there is an unchanging conception of theory confirmation that can serve as an eternal criterion for sound scientific reasoning. If this were the case, showing that a certain group violates that criterion would per se refute that group’s line of reasoning. But we have no god-given principles of theory confirmation. The principles we have are themselves a product of the scientific process. They vary from context to context and they change with time based on scientific progress. This means that, in order to criticize a strategy of theory assessment, it’s not enough to point out that the strategy doesn’t agree with a particular more traditional notion.</blockquote>
<br /><div style="text-align: justify;">
Let me start by saying that, as Sokal has made explicit, the fact that you find an intellectually good looking word for something does not make that true. In particular, although attaching the suffix 'post-' to a word gives to it an air of modernity and rebellion, that also doesn't give any extra credibility to the concept.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Okay, as I am not reading the book, I have to extract what I understand by Dawid's post-empiricism from the post. It seems to me is that he is simply rephrasing in the most Sokal-like fashion the argument that we have to relax the condition that theories should be testable. He talks about 'god-given principles', principles that 'change with time' and 'traditional notion'. All this, of course, are discourse techniques which mean nothing concrete.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I really, really understand the desperation of string theorists to defend their line of research given the fact that people cannot give credit for theoretical exploration of ideas, but that's not reason to turn to religion and mysticism or starting believing in ghosts, which is exactly what happens when one argues that one does not need to test if something works or not as long as it is interesting. Of course, not all evidence comes from direct experiments. A theory can be tested by comparing it with other tested theories to see if there is any inconsistent, but ultimately, a theory that does not make any testable prediction is nothing more than a data table. It can be a beautifully decorated table, but it is still just a table. I will explain myself. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Think about the following toy phenomenon: a ball is in a field divided in two sides and it changes sides once in a while. My data set consists of the times at which the ball passes through the central line that divides the field. Suppose now that I have five data points: t = 1, 5, 6, 11, 20. Now, I say to you that I have a theory describing this data. My theory is </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
-6600 + 9950 t - 3941 t^2 + 633 t^3 - 43 t^4 + t^5 = 0.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In other words, my theory is that the times at which the ball passes the central line are the zeros of the above polynomial. There is only one problem: there are only five zeros for the above equation and they are exactly the data in my data set. This means that the above equation, even being <i>an equation</i>, is nothing more than the list of points I had before written in a different way.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Any reasonable person will then complain: wait! But you are making the prediction that the ball is never going to cross the line again! And then I say to you: don't worry, it's such a nice-looking equation! Be more of a post-empiricist and give less importance to predictions. Who needs to test such a beautiful theory? Besides, do you have a better theory to describe this data?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I rest my case.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-58090696178791549822014-06-30T15:04:00.002-07:002014-06-30T15:04:46.712-07:00The "Real World" Delusion<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYAsL_HmIK6Yj4btJalyzeqR8-NnXa44Yv6bvtss528vkO7L9G-ILlQMHJprkeRzrXkdzdOU-WecPAbWql0I0IqovILln6CwI4tOflCXm1HlQxGrPUkr9XervqCJ9zmHjbGx8EHdyAshg5/s1600/icon-36881_640.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYAsL_HmIK6Yj4btJalyzeqR8-NnXa44Yv6bvtss528vkO7L9G-ILlQMHJprkeRzrXkdzdOU-WecPAbWql0I0IqovILln6CwI4tOflCXm1HlQxGrPUkr9XervqCJ9zmHjbGx8EHdyAshg5/s1600/icon-36881_640.png" height="400" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If you are a professional of any of those areas that are concerned with human development instead of generating money, you must have heard many times the question 'What is the real life application of your research/work?'</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is an interesting comment about that in the book</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://amzn.to/1pQZoYP"><b>What are universities for?</b></a> <i>by Stefan Collini</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I will reproduce that here:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
And talking of literature, it’s usually at about this point in the argument that an appearance is made by one of the more bizarre and exotic products of the human imagination, namely a wholly fictive place called ‘the real world’. This sumptuously improbable fantasy is quite unlike the actual world you and I live in. In the actual world that we’re familiar with, there are all kinds of different people doing all kinds of different things – sometimes taking pleasure in their work, sometimes expressing themselves aesthetically, sometimes falling in love, sometimes telling themselves that if they didn’t laugh they’d cry, sometimes wondering what it all means, and so on. But this invented entity called ‘the real world’ is inhabited exclusively by hard-faced robots who devote themselves single-mindedly to the task of making money. They work and then they die. Actually, in the fictional accounts of ‘the real world’ that I’ve read, they don’t ever seem to mention dying, perhaps because they’re afraid that if they did it might cause the robots to stop working for a bit and to start expressing themselves, falling in love, wondering what it all means, and so on, and once that happened, of course, ‘the real world’ wouldn’t seem so special any more, but would be real world’ wouldn’t seem so special any more, but would be just like the ordinary old world we’re used to. Personally, I’ve never been able to take this so-called ‘real world’ very seriously. It’s obviously the brainchild of cloistered businessmen, living in their ivory factories and out of touch with the kinds of things that matter to ordinary people like you and me. They should get out more.</blockquote>
Of course, when faced with the 'real world' question asked by a friend, one has to make a hard choice: either succumb to the temptation of of preaching about the importance of developing the human mind and losing the friend or breathing deeply, giving a smile and changing the subject. I, usually influenced by my wife who has much better social skills than me, choose the latter. However, I still have the hopes that she wouldn't be there one day to prevent me from asking questions like:<br />
<br />
<b>So, you are going to have a child. What is the 'real world' application of that?</b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-11245573084283916852014-06-27T15:27:00.000-07:002014-06-27T15:27:38.384-07:00The Probable Universe<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwO2Nzw3KVXXddjFl-WPvip8Oyd9-AoTZmd2khNufykmHMblGbnHIbXQWP5YUPvvVhFhrgiM7NzvnA6lmoUuKqmE_RYrE0iqvd1BsUMm4L4n5Ocic3EaFwEar0p6eIO__MHEQnZ112VVbx/s1600/dice-game-56678_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwO2Nzw3KVXXddjFl-WPvip8Oyd9-AoTZmd2khNufykmHMblGbnHIbXQWP5YUPvvVhFhrgiM7NzvnA6lmoUuKqmE_RYrE0iqvd1BsUMm4L4n5Ocic3EaFwEar0p6eIO__MHEQnZ112VVbx/s1600/dice-game-56678_640.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I'm writing a popular book on Bayesian probability called provisionally <i><b>The Probable Universe</b></i>. I will leave the <b>draft</b> (remember, it's a draft!) available as a PDF file on my website via the link:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://alamino.org/the-probable-universe/">http://alamino.org/the-probable-universe/</a><br />
<br />
Feel free to download and read it. Notice that some parts are incomplete, drafted, with typos and all other mess that appear in drafts.<br />
<br />
Please leave comments, suggestions, requests, corrections and criticisms. Maybe one day I end up even publishing it if it becomes good enough.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-84233794779923376442014-06-25T13:16:00.000-07:002014-06-25T13:16:32.045-07:00Non-Science Poster Guide<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1BzuV2lN-UCAk9PpR_gBw5IDaXJle6ZyU4S7_3nN59Gu0TxyoIpWHJj0XiH-Kg2kjS2a2iFic6WaSCQQtPLC_dx9CTI0wL2EivW5q7EJJ2mObjflvzG4I4xOAwvzYlbygOhhxUMwyhKxO/s1600/b1GK8WG.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1BzuV2lN-UCAk9PpR_gBw5IDaXJle6ZyU4S7_3nN59Gu0TxyoIpWHJj0XiH-Kg2kjS2a2iFic6WaSCQQtPLC_dx9CTI0wL2EivW5q7EJJ2mObjflvzG4I4xOAwvzYlbygOhhxUMwyhKxO/s1600/b1GK8WG.png" height="640" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Latest updated version:</b> <a href="http://imgur.com/a/knILO">http://imgur.com/a/knILO</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-9799379823613586772014-06-24T14:36:00.000-07:002014-06-24T14:36:13.076-07:00Defending Philosophy, the Right Way<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6tWpHznfQQ6KyZ99XdvQ2ICdHQnRSOgISEiTtWM6_EEQfNioepsJERBPT3Eds56W0HGmytuL1loc5Pur3VFUpWNU_mGXzN59Wn5YYQ3ACJTy6zvn9q0-K79KetYmC4QyevxemdqipXX1W/s1600/woman-241329_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6tWpHznfQQ6KyZ99XdvQ2ICdHQnRSOgISEiTtWM6_EEQfNioepsJERBPT3Eds56W0HGmytuL1loc5Pur3VFUpWNU_mGXzN59Wn5YYQ3ACJTy6zvn9q0-K79KetYmC4QyevxemdqipXX1W/s1600/woman-241329_640.jpg" height="400" width="265" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have just read a blog post from the always eloquent Lubos Motl:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/philosophy-became-euphemism-for.html">Philosophy became a euphemism for crackpot physics</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In this post he argues that philosophy is basically bullshit and philosophers don't do anything useful. Also, that 'shut up and calculate' is <i>the</i> way to go in physics. Of course his completely wrong. It doesn't matter that physicists like Hawking, Weinberg or even Feynman agree with him. They are wrong too.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
All of them are wrong in the same way as the rest of people in the world are wrong when they say that theoretical physicists are useless and theoretical physics, in its great majority, is just a waste of taxpayer money.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The argument against philosophy is that it is the wrong way to understand how the world works because it does not stick to science's fundamental principle of falsifiability. There are other criticisms, like the over reliance on non-mathematical language and a melancholy preference for classical physics over quantum mechanics. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, all those criticisms miss the point of what philosophy really is concerned about. Understanding how the world works is just part of philosophy, and that's the part that serves as foundation and gave origin to science. But it goes beyond that. Philosophy is a whole thinking endeavour that is concerned with the most important sentence in the universe: WHY? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Philosophy goes beyond science as it allows itself to ask questions and consider situations which are out of the scope of science. What is 'real'? Is there a meaning to 'truth'? And my favourite: is it possible that there is nothing else in the universe but my mind?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most arguments against philosophy in that article are simply the result of assuming that just because someone has a philosophy diploma, whatever this person says is philosophy. In the same way that science is not what scientists do, philosophy is also not what philosophers do. Just rambling stupid things without sense is not philosophy. Using a fallacies to support your arguments is also not philosophy, it's gibberish. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
One of the greatest problem of academia is this stupid habit of one area of knowledge to completely ignore and ridicularize the other without thinking deeply enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just a last word about 'shut up and calculate'. Never 'shut up' when doing science. Ever. No matter what people say to you. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-50453203688803841462014-06-09T14:12:00.001-07:002014-06-09T14:12:27.909-07:00Science is NOT what scientists do<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCIvpiioHLIDdOTdT_CjB2k4U3DJe1fhlO8EbGVcw5j2UWWLB5smV_3YxGhs4qWBwn1kARnGukoeyzz7ybF_YmlShnftlrQPjfRbBzl5Ays4AoSZe2vvW0FNDLNZOnR-iioy22DHz3MT9W/s1600/experiment-220023_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCIvpiioHLIDdOTdT_CjB2k4U3DJe1fhlO8EbGVcw5j2UWWLB5smV_3YxGhs4qWBwn1kARnGukoeyzz7ybF_YmlShnftlrQPjfRbBzl5Ays4AoSZe2vvW0FNDLNZOnR-iioy22DHz3MT9W/s1600/experiment-220023_640.jpg" height="400" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
I was going to keep this for the book I'm writing about Foundations of Science, but I have just read a blog post from Sabine Hossenfelder and I could not stay quiet:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/is-science-only-way-of-knowing.html">Is Science the Only Way of Knowing?</a><br />
<br />
I will have to respectfully, but harshly and completely disagree with almost everything she says in the article. To start with, she says the dreadful sentence that I heard many times:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Science is what scientists do."</blockquote>
<br />
This is a definition that not only is not true, but also useless. Let me justify it. Let us suppose that we accept this as a definition of science. Where do we draw the line? I mean, is everything that scientists do science? When I (I am considered a scientist, by the way) fry an egg, is that science? As some can argue that it is, when I swear because something fell on my thumb, is that science? I am not exaggerating, I'm just showing that there should be a specification of what part of what scientists do is science.<br />
<br />
Let us now assume that we can somehow say that some things are not science. Consider Sir Isaac Newton. Was it science when he was trying to draw a map of Hell? When a Nobel Prize winner starts to talk seriously about paranormal things, is that science?<br />
<br />
You might argue that we can decide what is science by consensus, but that is more arbitrary. Consensus is a logical fallacy and although it might be evidence of the right direction, it's never a proof. Let us say that somehow most of the scientific community becomes corrupt (that can happen, just consider governments...). The leaders then start to decide what is science and what is not according to what THEY do. Those who don't agree, are not doing science by convention. If you are still doubt that this can happen, I suggest you to look for articles about the present situation in academia in the UK. Check authors like Stefano Colini and Thomas Docherty.<br />
<br />
There is another catch: Who decides who will be a scientist? Other scientists, of course. How? By consensus. But how is this consensus achieved? Well, they need to agree on a minimum of knowledge and skills that the person needs to have. They need to agree on a minimum definition of science. If you defined science as what scientists do, you have just achieved nothing. It's a circular definition.<br />
<br />
If all science was based in a circular consensus, it would be in very fragile grounds indeed. The point is that it is not. You can construct a definition of science on very rational grounds. The key to that is concepts like consistency, probability theory and Bayesian inference. <br />
<br />
Science is a process of gradually incorporating information into models to describe phenomena. It doesn't matter if it's done by "scientists" or by "artists" as long as it is done correctly. By 'done correctly' I mean that information should be incorporated in the model in an unbiased way and that the final model NEEDS to be consistent. What we identify as 'truth' and 'understanding' are very subtle things to define, but the closest we can get to them is consistency. That is the key to science and consistency can hardly be achieved by consensus as thousands of years of politics has showed to us.<br />
<br />
So, if one asks me if "science is what scientists do", my answer is a definitely NO. What scientists do is only science when they do it right and 'right' here CAN be mathematically defined. I already wrote a bit about that here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1635">http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1635</a><br />
<br />
That document has many missing links, but I am preparing a larger one as I said. I will post things here as I write it.<br />
<br />
Should you believe me or Sabine? None. This is not a question of consensus. As in science, you have to search for information and update your opinion accordingly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-37069033926274659432014-06-05T13:09:00.000-07:002014-06-05T13:09:21.219-07:00Slender Man cannot be guilty: Because he does not exist! <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slenderman#mediaviewer/File:Slender_Man_graffitti.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXrK-NzW4sEr-F-9xITcCoQDFTsg1TSUwofE13TFbuqajQfeGrK8BQedLbgo-WU0UMI6G2xYopHYTfVE-M7bTLM6_X95VJJuex0cuadkNxwz4H8GKpFaql3JxDwtaEeq9AdiQkyq2mgWam/s1600/800px-Slender_Man_graffitti.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slenderman#mediaviewer/File:Slender_Man_graffitti.jpg">Source: Wikipedia</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One of the many other things I'm interested in besides physics is mythology. Every kind. I am interested in that since I was a kid. When I became a teenager, I played RPG also because I enjoyed the great variety mythologies in so many different universes. When I say mythology, I am also including religion.<br />
<br />
These days, there has been news about two 12 year-old girls who stabbed each other to prove worthy to Slender Man. Slender Man is a mythological character that was spread by the internet recently, but seems to have roots in German mythology. The Guardian has an article about the incident:<br />
<br />
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/slender-man-online-character-wisconsin-stabbings<br />
<br />
The obvious reaction of everyone involved was exactly the one we expected: they decided that it's nobody's fault. In fact, they decided it's Slender Man's fault, but as he does not exits, that's the same thing.<br />
<br />
We know that there are many variables involved in cases like this, but we also know that there are clearly two great responsibles for that: the parents and the government.<br />
<br />
I will defend my thesis.<br />
<br />
Twelve years-old persons are definitely, undeniably capable of telling apart reality from fiction unless they have some cognitive limitation. There are two ways for them to be instructed how to do that.<br />
<br />
The first place is, of course, school. Schools HAVE THE OBLIGATION of teaching children that ghosts, fairies, gods (yes, that should be included) and other supernatural beings are creations of human imagination and, although people have the right to believe in them if they want to, the truth is that there is overwhelming evidence contrary to their existence.<br />
<br />
If schools are not teaching that, that's because the curriculum does not include it. After 40 years of my life being a student and half of that teaching, I know very well that it's the GOVERNMENT, not the instructors (teachers, lecturers, professors) which decide what is taught in schools. We, instructors, either have the choice of obeying or being fired AND having our careers trashed by 'disciplinary actions'. Of course, we try to smuggle a little bit of sense into the system, but we are not supported by anyone, including parents.<br />
<br />
So, clearly, if the school did not teach those children that Slender Man DOES NOT EXIST, then it's the politicians' fault. Politicians, of course, never accept the blame for anything and redirect it wherever is easier. In this case, to a NON-EXISTING fictional character.<br />
<br />
Now, even if the school has failed, this is no excuse for parents to try to avoid responsibility. They too have to teach their children the FACT that supernatural beings do not exist. The problem here is that many of them believe that they do! Does this exonerate them of all guilt? Of course not. On the contrary. Parents are responsible for their children independently of what they believe or not. When I was a child and was afraid of ghosts, my father would always say to me that I shouldn't because ghosts do not exist. Many years later, I found out that he believes in ghosts, but he knew rationally that they should not exist and that was what he should taught me.<br />
<br />
Yes, those things can be avoided, but those who can and should do something are those we know will never take the blame and look for a scapegoat. Even one that is not real.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-4096560656011151532014-05-29T07:20:00.001-07:002014-05-29T07:20:14.012-07:00Brains are More than Threshold Units<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp7kDZS-6CEore8gxENlLDkiZyYQXUn6fUl5Z2xRHyEEf-aQCck-RV6pkte0XWxoq3jlIo2-3uGEeJiBeBNpiGeS8mnk5XUabgt0zPsxCxUEjExt946tc9s82ovTKikx-v56AEMZdxl3V-/s1600/star-209371_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp7kDZS-6CEore8gxENlLDkiZyYQXUn6fUl5Z2xRHyEEf-aQCck-RV6pkte0XWxoq3jlIo2-3uGEeJiBeBNpiGeS8mnk5XUabgt0zPsxCxUEjExt946tc9s82ovTKikx-v56AEMZdxl3V-/s1600/star-209371_640.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I was reading the following article yesterday:<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/may/19/laser-mimics-biological-neurons-using-light">Laser mimics biological neurons using light</a></b><br />
<br />
The article is about a component that can emit a laser depending on the intensity of light hitting it. In technical language, this is called a <b>threshold unit</b>. In fact, a threshold unit is a concept. It is a name used to describe any kind of material/device/stuff which can receive some kind of input, be it in the form of energy, information or anything else, and emit something else whenever the input amount exceeds some threshold value.<br />
<br />
The connection of threshold units with the brain is that neurons are a kind of threshold unit. There are many different kinds of neurons. Some of them are constantly emitting pulses of electricity at a certain frequency, while others remain "silent" until they become excited. An "excited" neuron changes its firing frequency whenever the amount of electricity it receives from other neurons to which it is connected goes above some value. As you can easily notice, this value is the threshold in a threshold unit.<br />
<br />
The simplest threshold unit is the famous <b>perceptron</b>. The perceptron is not an object, it is a mathematical model that was developed to mimic the main function of the neuron. The perceptron is a mathematical structure with a certain number of "boxes" that work as input entries and one output box that spills out a number whenever the inputs get larger than some value. These models date back to the 1950's.<br />
<br />
Because the perceptron is a mathematical model, one can fit any threshold unit to something similar to a perceptron. During decades, perceptrons and other kinds of neural networks created by connecting perceptrons in many different ways have been studied. They are capable of memorization and learning under certain limits.<br />
<br />
Then, might ask, why am I being picky and saying that the brain is more than threshold units? Neurons are threshold units and threshold units <i>can be used</i> to construct neural networks, but what makes a network learn is the pattern of connections of its units, not the units themselves. The point is that knowledge is not stored in the units, it's stored in the links they form with each other. If you put trillions of threshold units in a regular square network, nothing will ever happens in terms of learning. Without learning, thinking is not that great... So, what is missing?<br />
<br />
The answer receives the name of <b>plasticity</b>. This is the capacity that neurons possess of creating new connections and cutting old ones. This is what changes the patterns and makes memorization and generalization (the two pillars of learning) possible. Although faster threshold units like the ones in the article might improve the speed of information transmission, that is not a guarantee that it will improve higher abilities like creativity and understanding. It might lead to faster reflexes, for instance, but not faster learning as it has nothing to do with creating and severing connections.<br />
<br />
It is not that the article does not describe an interesting work. It is, but one needs to be very careful with the actual implications of each line of research when we read about a new 'big breakthrough' every week...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-63643334999801985432014-05-23T06:48:00.003-07:002014-05-23T06:48:42.679-07:00Nobody Likes Serious Research, People Like Easy RulesI read this article on The Guardian these days:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/healthy-eating-tesco-sweets-contradictory-lines-eat-well">A big, juicy burger to anyone who knows what healthy eating is any more</a><br />
<br />
The article is about how there are many contradictory recommendations about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article is not very good and does not have many useful information. It is another of those thousands of articles trying to sound smart and sarcastic and achieving very little. Too bad too many people love this kind of article.<br />
<br />
Anyway, what bothered me more was one of the comments of some readers saying that more 'serious research' on the subject was needed. Let me state something concerning this: the general public don't like serious research. The one thing that people want is someone to tell them rules like 'you have to eat six tomatoes per day' or 'never eat sugar'.<br />
<br />
Serious research will not give you those rules because they simply do not exist. It is not difficult to understand that the amount of nutrients one should or should not eat depends heavily on a huge number of variables. It depends on genetics, health conditions, on how much exercise you do and even on the weather features of the place you live. All of that can affect the way your body metabolizes food and how much of each nutrient is needed.<br />
<br />
All those articles that you see in the news about correlations between a certain amount of food and healthy problems are interesting, but their limitations should be considered. Usually they only represent correlations, not cause and effect. They are also difficult to analyse because many variables, which are themselves hard to control, might be affecting the results. Also, samples are usually small, which does not help in the statistical analysis, especially when they rely on wrong techniques.<br />
<br />
The reason we have lots of this kind of articles with great repercussion is because that's exactly what people want. If there is one thing that I've learned in my academic career is that people do not want to support serious research, they want to support research that have a 'clear conclusion', that is fast and that will give them a rule they can follow and then blame others if it doesn't work. That is, surely, not serious research.<br />
<br />
That's, unfortunately, how most research today works. It's not the scientist's fault. A scientist has to survive and has to do whatever there is money to do. We live in a world in which people don't mind lending their money for free to bankers and at the same time think that scientists are robbing society's money when they try to understand something deeply.<br />
<br />
If you really want to understand what constitutes 'healthy eating' you should be prepared to support research that will probably take decades and will not result in a recipe book. For most things in life there are no simple rules.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-8813840162612647722014-05-23T06:08:00.002-07:002014-05-23T06:08:18.449-07:00Stating the Obvious AgainGood to find that I am not the only one to see that. By the way, before you smile and nod your head agreeing with the words, take a moment to reflect if that is not the way you actually see education.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7ur_Xgn_aq9PnnojP_gH28M_c1ZdX14zj5o-QMqWD2H0trWUetWDdzWIkMP6zmGV-lrCtRlLm9LlNn1k9Sec4Xz9wSSOwdM_AAu8moN4CrI2c7clm4SxEM3pyTlhwUQQSKUYvGySgnuAW/s1600/10402528_289157917919276_6429407384486457300_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7ur_Xgn_aq9PnnojP_gH28M_c1ZdX14zj5o-QMqWD2H0trWUetWDdzWIkMP6zmGV-lrCtRlLm9LlNn1k9Sec4Xz9wSSOwdM_AAu8moN4CrI2c7clm4SxEM3pyTlhwUQQSKUYvGySgnuAW/s1600/10402528_289157917919276_6429407384486457300_n.jpg" height="400" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-61395243403877765652014-01-09T14:12:00.000-08:002014-01-09T14:12:17.899-08:00The Number of Neurons in the Brain<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's a nice TED talk circulating on the Internet by a fellow Brazilian scientist about the number of neurons in the brain. Here it is.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/cIJCYLo4c2I" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The talk is quite interesting, but if you have ever read anything here on my blog (which I confess I update once every 6 months) you know that I do not like unjustified hypes and what I've been reading on the Internet seems to be characterizable as such.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I can understand well why the talk has been so popular. She starts by saying that there is a number in science, the number of neurons in the brain, which she looked everywhere to know where it comes from and she couldn't find. That's popular. People love when someone says that. It's like 'those old scientists were so full of them that they didn't bother to check if that was true or not!' She says that nobody could tell her the origin of the number. The number, by the way, is that that the brain has about 100 billions neurons.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then she proceeds to talk about brain size in different animals and how the size of the brain is not a determinant in the level of intelligence. After a while, she describes her work on an experimental method to count the neurons with a higher precision than before. She finds that the previous number was wrong. It's not 100 billions, it's 86 billions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, comes the twist. She first says that the neuron density in the primate brain is higher than in other classes, but is almost constant among the primates. If it's the same, what differs us from the other primates? She talks about the amount of energy that the brains consumes and finally concludes, for the surprise of everyone, that cooking is what makes humans different! That's because by cooking we can digest the food better and we liberate time for our brains to develop other activities! We are humans because we cook! </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not being sarcastic, I did enjoy the lecture. However, I must make some harsh observations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
First of all, let me talk about the number of neurons in the brain. 100 billion neurons is not an exact number. Never was. It was an ESTIMATE. If you are not a scientist, than you are excused of not knowing what we mean by an estimate. When we scientists estimate a number, we are mainly worried with something which is called order of magnitude. This is roughly to estimate how close to a power of 10 is the true result. If you pay attention, 100 billion IS the same order of magnitude of 86 billion because 100 is very close to 86. In fact, it's amazingly close! It could be any number, but it's almost the correct one. This cannot be a coincidence. A number so close to the real one MUST have some explanation, otherwise it would be extremely lucky to get it!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
I suggest you to read the following book:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://amzn.to/1ksu2sY"><b>How many licks? Or how to estimate damn near everything</b></a><br />
by Aaron Santos<br />
<br />
This will help you to understand that an <b>estimate</b> is different from a <b>precise measurement</b>. They serve different objectives.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's one thing that I dislike in the talk. The speaker says that she looked everywhere in the literature to find where that number came from, but she couldn't find and no one knew. Well, I decided to try my own literature review. I went to Wikipedia and looked for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron">neuron</a>. If you click the link and go to that page, you will see that reference number 27 is the article:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.nervenet.org/papers/NUMBER_REV_1988.html#1">The Control of Neuron Number</a>, by Williams and Herrup</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By clicking the above link, you can read the HTML version of the paper for free. There, under the section 'Total Neuron Number in Different Species', you will find a list of references to experimental work that estimate the number of neurons in the brain to be, guess what, around 100 billion. In fact, there is the following reference from 1975</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lange, W. 1975 Cell number and cell density in the cerebellar cortex of man and other mammals. Cell Tiss. Res. 157: 115–24<br />
<br />
This reference (have I said it was from 1975?) estimates the number of neurons to be... around 85 billion. I am not sure what she meant exactly when she said that she couldn't find in the literature where the number came from, but the above search took me around 10 minutes including the time to browse the papers.<br />
<br />
Once again, don't get me wrong. I'm not criticizing her work. I think that measuring things with higher precision is extremely important and I'm sure her work must be extremely good, but facts are facts.<br />
<br />
Finally, although the talk does not say that explicitly, it makes you think that what makes humans different from other species is cooking. That is definitely not true. If it was, why the other primates have not copied us during all this time? Cooking requires the use of tools. Requires the use of fire. It seems reasonable to say that cooking brought us an evolutive advantage. Other things did that as well. Still, there is more to the human brain than cooking and it seems clear that there was something different even before cooking. Cooking might have helped to increase this difference. Writing did that as well. Don't even talk about science.<br />
<br />
I feel obliged to repeat one thing here. Question everything. Always. Especially things that are nice to hear. Those are the ones which will probably be too good to be true. No matter who says that. Especially me.<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-19506780815859181462013-08-09T14:04:00.000-07:002013-08-09T14:04:18.168-07:00The Russell's Principles of Critical Thinking<div style="text-align: justify;">
Time and again my friends inquire me about how to think critically. How can we do that? Is it complicated? What's the secret? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
My attempts to a long answer usually result in my friends totally losing interest in the subject. Sometimes, they even try to get me in some contradiction.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To answer this question in a simple way, I decided to summarise the requirements in two simple principles, which I name in honor of Bertrand Russel for obvious reasons. Also, for reasons which are obvious for those who watched Karate Kid II, I had to resist the urge to call them the Russel-Miyagi Principles.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, here they are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqo0T4G20Uf11Xy68isumjaUDFgulyulEwoDbNIXfdeFYnM3Ic81QRj4HbF03KxMBjX_gei2q8MGFEwHhRGJUXhxWPDLQOC42z1X3RSvjuTWb_droKg0cj_68VGhcw4L4dhB3RcQVO3fMh/s1600/RPCT.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqo0T4G20Uf11Xy68isumjaUDFgulyulEwoDbNIXfdeFYnM3Ic81QRj4HbF03KxMBjX_gei2q8MGFEwHhRGJUXhxWPDLQOC42z1X3RSvjuTWb_droKg0cj_68VGhcw4L4dhB3RcQVO3fMh/s400/RPCT.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Do this and you are a critical thinker.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-35263695455142827672013-07-10T13:26:00.000-07:002013-07-10T13:26:21.028-07:00DuckDuckGo: The Anti-Spying Search Engine<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM_GchauYlPMSORbuyU5HOTnR6-iwSUH28ttJcLjmWBbBpqQc3hQL_a9iZvbl2O3ZwOGX8iK5LwTd-elcebkXItW-Xh5IYQMeLR1WwBK8Q48bMWkH0hAShEF573KCqJhTmDejk_hfaVL3q/s1600/DuckDuckGo.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM_GchauYlPMSORbuyU5HOTnR6-iwSUH28ttJcLjmWBbBpqQc3hQL_a9iZvbl2O3ZwOGX8iK5LwTd-elcebkXItW-Xh5IYQMeLR1WwBK8Q48bMWkH0hAShEF573KCqJhTmDejk_hfaVL3q/s320/DuckDuckGo.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If you've got pissed by the fact that both the US and the UK government not only have been collecting your data on the internet and on your mobile phone, but also are trying to convince everybody that it's okay and it's for our own good, this search engine is for you! According to <b><i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/nsa-duckduckgo-gabriel-weinberg-prism">this article from The Guardian</a></i></b>, <b><i><a href="https://duckduckgo.com/">DuckDuckGo</a></i></b> cannot be traced by NSA and GCHQ simply because it doesn't collect any information. If the information is not there, there's nothing to handle.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The search engine is still very basic, but at least is (for now) a tentative. Let's see if it continues like that as the creator, Gabriel Weinberg, starts to get richer...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Any views from anyone about it?</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-15047291592379223222013-06-16T13:05:00.001-07:002013-06-16T13:05:19.403-07:00There's no such a thing as harmless data<div style="text-align: justify;">
After the leak of spying project Prism, one of the many lame excuses given to justify such an immoral thing is that the data which is being collected is not the content of messages, just the sources, destinations and times.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As I have been working with machine learning for quite some time, I feel compelled to explain that even with this apparently harmless amount of data we can discover a lot about someone.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is common place that everywhere you buy things on the internet gives you suggestions based on previous items you have bought. The more you buy, the most accurately the suggestions seem to agree with your taste. In this case, however, you think this is reasonable given that you are actually giving them what seems to be the appropriate information to infer just that.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What you don't really know, and usually probably don't really care, is how this is done. There are many ways, in fact, but let me explain one of them. The one that will make you understand how powerful these methods can be.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, I will explain the one I have worked on two years ago in collaboration with Joerg Reichardt, a colleague from Germany who is a specialist in complex networks. Networks are simply formed by objects that are connected by something. Graphically, the objects are represented by dots and, when they have a connection, we draw a line between them. The graph below is an example taken from Wikipedia:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiowv9bQ0c94efpVY0ltUs7E2UYs4zEoZuf-fCuBY5vDaEmDDWEyUIkgvYGc5H2fftaicz2r2aC85o0_E7_XTKHgWlIrd-CT4B33SCY6wiHHZ9vi80XyM6JJdKLyyjPA7PnTAW9otEEWhTu/s1600/6n-graf.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiowv9bQ0c94efpVY0ltUs7E2UYs4zEoZuf-fCuBY5vDaEmDDWEyUIkgvYGc5H2fftaicz2r2aC85o0_E7_XTKHgWlIrd-CT4B33SCY6wiHHZ9vi80XyM6JJdKLyyjPA7PnTAW9otEEWhTu/s320/6n-graf.svg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For instance, the dots, or in the above case the circles, can be computers and the lines a physical connection between them. The interesting thing is that the concept of connection can be generalised to any kind of relationship between the objects. One example could be a graph where the dots, also called vertices or nodes, can be any kind of real objects and the lines, technically called edges, could connect any two objects that share some colour in common. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A very interesting kind of network, from the commercial point of view, is the one relating consumers to films in sites like Lovefilm or Netflix. This is a special case of a network which is represented by a bipartite graph. By that, we mean a graph with two different kinds of nodes. In this case, we will have nodes which are films and nodes which are consumers. But to be considered bipartite, a graph like that must obey one more condition, that nodes never connect to other nodes of the same kind. For our example, that means that we always connect consumers to films, but never consumers to consumers of films to films. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The ways connections are put are now very clear. If a consumer watches a film, a connection is established. In the end, we have a network like this:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjinloHikZGjmGDwkhHYa6xdnvUx0OKIRUdxJhOcb5_-7MqW71BLZSRoo42IHIOxstiRqI9hzVKDGtu5J0AHIaZtCV93ykiCu-Yr1jQJGS4ehYGpGptk6LJqI6pPy9j3y-6gEqXoLhvwQ21/s1600/bipartite.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjinloHikZGjmGDwkhHYa6xdnvUx0OKIRUdxJhOcb5_-7MqW71BLZSRoo42IHIOxstiRqI9hzVKDGtu5J0AHIaZtCV93ykiCu-Yr1jQJGS4ehYGpGptk6LJqI6pPy9j3y-6gEqXoLhvwQ21/s400/bipartite.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
A bit of advertisement here. This was taken from our work, <i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021282">The Interplay between Microscopic and Mesoscopic Structures in Complex Networks</a></i>, which can also be found in <a href="http://alamino.org/info/scientific-publications/">my website</a>. I will explain the work in a bit, but let me now continue with the graph above. You can clearly see now that the name "bipartite" is really appropriate. Consider that the green lozenges are consumers and the blue circles are films. The red line means that, at least once, consumer number 4 watched film <i>g</i>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
This is a very compact way of visualising this kind of who watched what information. Of course the website can do even better and collect other data like the rating each consumer gives to each film, but we can already do a lot without it.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The next step is now to use it to give recommendations. The cool way in which you can do that is the following. You might think that if someone watch a horror film, then we can recommend another horror film to that person, but that is too simplistic. What if the person watched 10 romantic films and only one horror film? We'd do better by suggesting another romantic film, right? Things would be so easy if people were easy to read like that...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
What usually happens is that people watch dozens, sometimes hundreds, of films and most of them can watch a huge number of different categories of films. Consider that this happens to thousands or millions of consumers and you can understand why we call it a complex network.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But think about the kinds of person you know. Geeks usually watch a lot of science fiction, adventure and even horror, but much less romantic films. Non-geeks usually watch some science fiction, but would watch much more adventure films, for instance. The trick we want to perform is that of, by looking at our bipartite graph, being able to identify something like that, communities of people with similar interests. If we succeed, our recommendations will surely be more appropriate. This is called community detection or clustering in graphs. It's not very easy to see in bipartite graphs, but it's very clear when you look at graphs like the one below:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyiT9LwCnNS8PeBzg81aEMx33m9uI9uStVtnWFTs5043cKVysz3Jq3yEjR5eJdchwnp-EVfuoWH2hmJ9u9IB4gXkyPN4heJgJCThYq6Tml4da7SE4jhKUym0AO_eLdOfaNnpOdt9jyLlS_/s1600/karateclub.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyiT9LwCnNS8PeBzg81aEMx33m9uI9uStVtnWFTs5043cKVysz3Jq3yEjR5eJdchwnp-EVfuoWH2hmJ9u9IB4gXkyPN4heJgJCThYq6Tml4da7SE4jhKUym0AO_eLdOfaNnpOdt9jyLlS_/s400/karateclub.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
This graph was taken from the paper <i><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/23/9564">Mixture models and exploratory analysis in networks</a></i> by Newman and Leicht and represents a network of friendships of members of a karate club which split in two because of internal disputes. You can see that the members are separated in two clusters of nodes. Connections between members are much more frequent inside the clusters than outside. Finding these clusters might be easy for relatively small networks, but is tricky for large ones. The interesting thing is that the authors of the above paper found an algorithm that, given the nodes and edges only, could find the split almost perfectly.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Now you should start to be scared. Imagine that someone constructs this kind of network by connecting two persons if they speak through their mobile phones for, let's say, more than ten minutes. Using the above algorithm, this person can classify people in groups. If this person has some information about the interests inside each group, then a better classification can be achieved. Imagine now that this classification can be geeks, businessmen, religious people or... terrorists. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Let's come back to our films, because now you can understand how that information can allow for a finer classification than the karate club one above. By using the algorithm that I and my friends developed, for instance, you can cluster people in groups relative to their interests in films, books, products and so on. You don't need access to the text of their messages, nor their ratings and even less their reviews. The simple connection information becomes enough.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
The amazing thing about the bipartite example is that people never connect directly with one another, only indirectly by the products. And the algorithm doesn't need to have any prior information about what profile of people buy which product, it can cluster both the persons and the products in groups at the same time!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
If you're a professional in the area and look the papers above, and also others in the field, you will see that the results are very good. The amount of information extracted can be impressive. And that was obtained simply by the information contained in the connections of the graph! Of course the algorithms are not perfect, which is a terrible thing actually, because bureaucrats won't care</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The bottom line is that every private piece of information about you that leaks from websites or mobiles can reveal much more about you than you can imagine. The paper I published appeared on 2011. These things evolve very fast and, if you have enough computer power, you can do amazing things.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, don't believe when the agencies say that the data they are collecting is not very informative. First, it is, second, if it wasn't, either they would not be collecting it, or they would be idiots wasting a lot of money and time. And, believe me, they are not.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-24975008224807341322013-06-10T14:39:00.000-07:002013-06-10T14:39:02.805-07:00Western Democracies through a PRISM<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXXqBSYO5u-9rrbs_8Psck6eURT_v5zSZX0MGT7oXY59vksuq5uenK_y9miXpqtWHZJObfQeblB0QwZpTwi77FlEoQEUogVub2-91MmyWlvunZmsb9tSLET3hkhd9nMCNJBsCHF3JCGhaL/s1600/nsahq.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXXqBSYO5u-9rrbs_8Psck6eURT_v5zSZX0MGT7oXY59vksuq5uenK_y9miXpqtWHZJObfQeblB0QwZpTwi77FlEoQEUogVub2-91MmyWlvunZmsb9tSLET3hkhd9nMCNJBsCHF3JCGhaL/s1600/nsahq.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">The document published by The Guardian</a>, leaked by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, is only shocking for those who had been brainwashed enough to think that governments, specially the western democracies modeled after the USA, are moral entities that protect the rights of their citizens above everything. I'm not saying that they're not law-abiding entities, even because they have enough expertise to circumvent any imaginable law, I'm saying that they should not be blindly trusted about anything. And for those who think I'm saying something new, this is a quote by Thomas Jefferson</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The above quote, ironically by the 3rd president of the USA, appeared around 1810 for the first time. Since then, it seems, a lot of things have changed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The PRISM project, which aims to spy on <i>any</i> citizen through mobile phones and internet without any a priori reason to suspect, is just another piece of evidence that shows that the objective of any government in the world is to retain power. Controlling what people think, or in this case what they are interested in or talking about, is just one way of guaranteeing that everybody is having the correct "mindset" for this to happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the same way that happened with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_assange">Julian Assange</a>, and in a different context with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz">Aaron Swartz</a>, the USA government will do everything it can to get its hands on and try to make an example of Snowden. Surveillance on digital communications is a way to make sure that the example will stick.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fortunately, we still have newspapers like <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a>. Not that I trust them blindly either, but they have enough power not to be censored, and that's something. So much that neither the USA nor the UK, which is also involved, could deny the accusations, entering in the "defense mode". As they cannot deny their deeds, they try to justify on the basis that they are fighting terrorism, with the word "terrorism" meaning whatever they need it to mean to justify their acts. Are you skeptical? So read this piece of dialogue which was also published in The Guardian. Pay attention to the answer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hague">William Hague</a>, the British foreign secretary, gave to the question of an MP:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP, asks if "within the law" always means the same as moral. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hague says "within the law" means for the purposes set out, such as preventing terrorism.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm not impressed that Hague said that, but I would be very impressed if people fail to read all the implications of this answer. First of all, it implies the old the ends justify the means, because Hague is saying that they are allowed to do whatever they want to fulfill an objective and moral plays no role in that. Another thing which is clear is that Hague is saying that the law is whatever they want to do. I'm pretty sure last time I studied democracy, the word <b><i>"accountability"</i></b> was part of it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's laughable that these same democracies constantly criticize authoritarian regimes, China mainly, for trying to do exactly the same thing. It's also interesting that <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html">Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize of Peace </a>some years ago. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is no new lesson here. It's the same old lesson that we all have the duty to pass to the next generations. The lesson of eternal vigilance. The lesson that governments, rulers, are interested in power and power relies on control. Control relies on limiting freedom, spreading fear and censoring. Once this sets in, the governments can take whatever decision they want. And if you really believe that governments will only do what is good for you, seriously, you must be really stupid. Sorry, but I can't find a better word.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-41283240923638347082013-06-07T14:36:00.002-07:002013-06-07T14:36:07.639-07:00Digital Universe<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a project by the <a href="http://www.amnh.org/our-research/hayden-planetarium/digital-universe/"><b><i>American Museum of Natural History</i></b></a>. According to their own words: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Digital Universe, developed by the American Museum of Natural History’s Hayden Planetarium, incorporates data from dozens of organizations worldwide to create the most complete and accurate 3-D atlas of the Universe from the local solar neighborhood out to the edge of the observable Universe."</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object height="315" width="420"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/17jymDn0W6U?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/17jymDn0W6U?version=3&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-83516156262801585102013-06-06T14:46:00.003-07:002013-06-07T02:26:03.978-07:00The Universe is fine, thanks.<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeutYvUI3otiM1cokduakFEQ8wkNZt7msR2Deo9KKwPYep_NkNp8L7RhlH8kiQVwZg7QC-ax9ohuDKAs47KjomEHeQzg0K22qWEzhR_XTs7kKXQwhj7rSISVYiNfi1Op5CsfJx05XFnR0s/s1600/galaxy-10994_640.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeutYvUI3otiM1cokduakFEQ8wkNZt7msR2Deo9KKwPYep_NkNp8L7RhlH8kiQVwZg7QC-ax9ohuDKAs47KjomEHeQzg0K22qWEzhR_XTs7kKXQwhj7rSISVYiNfi1Op5CsfJx05XFnR0s/s640/galaxy-10994_640.jpg" width="600" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I am considered neither a high-profile theoretical physicist nor a leading figure in my area, but I do consider myself a theoretical physicist with enough knowledge to weight in some rational thoughts even against the strongest authority arguments.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You have no idea of why I am moaning like that, so let me explain the reason of my indignation. I have just read the following article from Scientific American, which I consider to be a rather good popular science magazine:</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis">New Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis</a></i></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's true that the article is originally from the Simmons Foundation, but SA published it anyway.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, now I am going to say what pisses me off in this article. A fair summary would be that it is nothing more than a desperate and kind of arrogant attempt to justify something that should not be a worry at all in science: our own ignorance.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The article starts with a quote from Nima Arkani-Hamed, a high-profile theoretical physicist (have I said already that I hate authority arguments?). At a conference he said that the "universe is impossible". In support, some other high-profile physicists (!) give their statements as well.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Their arguments go like that. All accessible experiments up to date confirm the Standard Model in its pre-string/supersymmetry form with reasonable accuracy. There is, however, a lot of unexplained things. Because the only explanations we could think about do not work, we must assume that the only solution is the multiverse hypothesis, where every kind of universe exists and we happen to be in one of them.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I'm being unfair, of course. The arguments are more complicated than that, but the essence is the same.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For instance, they all make a big deal about what we usually call "naturalness". Naturalness is not a rigid principle of nature, it's more like a hope. A hope that quantities appearing in Nature are not too strange for OUR taste. I guess you are all smart enough to recognise that the catch here is the fact that we are judging how Nature should behave by our standards of symmetry, which in the end is to what it boils down.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then it comes a series of things that still are unanswered. For some reason, the argument again is that if we could not find a better solution, than the solution is a multiverse. That sounds like desperation to me. Can't we accept that maybe we still don't have enough data to understand the problems? Can't it be that we are missing something? That some of our ideas have problems and must be substituted to work? Of course it can.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is something even crazier happening. Many versions of the multiverse idea are unfalsifiable. I said this many times and I will repeat it again. One unfalsifiable answer is as good as any other unfalsifiable answer. Be it the multiverse, god or the Matrix. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Even those versions which are marginally falsifiable, if there is such a thing, are simply jokers. Once you postulate that there are any kind of universe, all problems of why the universe is like it is are solved. Here enters the probable human explanation for why this idea might be becoming so attractive to those who spent so much time trying to find a solution but didn't. If everything goes, it's not their fault that they haven't found one.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Like naturalness, the claims rely in even more concepts which are at best disputable. Take the idea that we live in an extremely unlikely universe as very few variations would support life. That is not true. If I put aside the fact that we have no real agreement about what we want to call "life", it would be fair enough to say that a universe in which anything that would look like a computer program could run would be able to support life. I can imagine an infinitude of variations of physics that keep the mathematics necessary for this to happen intact.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course the hypothesis can be true. Solipsism can be true as well. I can be the only thing that exists in the universe. Or maybe you. Shall I say that the current problems of physics support the solipsism idea? It surely can explain physics and a lot more...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Honestly, I didn't like the article at all. A similar thing happened about 110 years ago, although it was in the other side of the spectrum. Around 1900, Lord Kelvin, a high-profile physicist that we all know, said that we had the explanation for everything and that all that remained was some more precise measurements. There were only two insignificant problems to solve. As you know, their solution only reinstated the fact that Nature abhors authority arguments.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
More than one century later, we know science and philosophy enough not to fall in the same kind of trap again. Still, humans have a hard time to admit failure even when it's definitely not their fault.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, the "impossible" universe goes on. Apparently, unworried about all the inconsistencies in all our descriptions of it. Thank you.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-14060174292081172762013-05-31T05:07:00.000-07:002013-05-31T05:07:22.227-07:00What is a University?I'm not going to discuss the even deeper issue of what is education in this post, although I plan to do it in the future. I just want to talk about what a University should be and what it is becoming.<br />
<br />
In principle, the amount of knowledge which is the minimum for a well-educated and conscious citizen finishes when the person is about 18, with some variations among countries. I'm not gonna argue right now why it should be increased to around 21, I am going to concentrate in another aspect: the meaning of being educated beyond that.<br />
<br />
Once this basic education period ended, it is up to the person if he or she wants or not to study more. There comes the University. It's a choice. And we must have very clear in our minds that it MUST continue as a choice. If there's any aspect of education that should not be a choice, it should be included in the basic period, which, if it is too short, should be increased.<br />
<br />
Now, everyone should have the RIGHT to go to the University. But there's a crucial point here. The right to GO to the University is very different of a right to GET A DIPLOMA, no matter what happens. I explain.<br />
<br />
An honest University should explain exactly what kind of title it is going to give to the student. What is the student supposed to learn. That should be VERY clear from the beginning. Second, the student should NOT get a diploma without learning what was agreed. For post-modernist pedago-psychologists that might sound crazy, but if that is not the case, you are actually doing a HARM to the student. A University that allows students to graduate with either a diploma that does not reflect their skills or without really proving that they learned those skills is LYING not only to the student but also to the society.<br />
<br />
Universities are place to create and disseminate knowledge, which is way above short-term economical bullshit. Even in a non-scientific course, let's say, a technical one, learning the correct skills should be above getting the diploma-receipt. When unprepared people leave the University with a diploma saying they are prepared, the harm they can do to society is huge.<br />
<br />
What many pseudo-psychologists must argue is that students should nor be stressed too much. Well, I can guarantee that is overwhelming evidence from many different areas of science, including computer science, that if one doesn't make some effort in learning something, you will not learn it. More than that, we all know that if you don't ask in an exam some subject, the amount of study of the majority of students on that subject will approach zero. Talk to teachers, not to psychologists in this case.<br />
<br />
Other people will say that the students are still children and must be treated like that. If that's true, the University has become simply a hypocritical way of extending the basic education. Politicians love this kind of thing. The only problem is that this is destroying the creation and dissemination of knowledge idea and the ability of people to think critically. Politicians love this as well, believe me.<br />
<br />
In summary, if you go to the University, you've earned the right to TRY to get your diploma, not the right to get it. Good and honest Universities should enforce this, for the good of everyone.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4393889265906155920.post-43430693909666346392013-04-13T07:25:00.000-07:002013-04-13T07:25:49.318-07:00Quicksort Routine<div style="text-align: center;">
<object height="315" width="560"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ywWBy6J5gz8?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ywWBy6J5gz8?version=3&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have learned about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort">Quicksort</a>, an algorithm to order numbers (or with a little bit of adjustment anything else) when I was in my first year of physics... but not this way...</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0