Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Saint: A dead sinner revised and edited. -- Ambrose Bierce


tech / sci.math / More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

SubjectAuthor
* More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..Amine Moulay Ramdane
+- Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..Quantum Bubbles
`- Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some areProstetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council

1
More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

<4175a8a0-ec1e-440e-9551-b6d6ee07e417n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=60701&group=sci.math#60701

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a37:418d:: with SMTP id o135mr5782469qka.418.1622236563841; Fri, 28 May 2021 14:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:f05:: with SMTP id x5mr14891735ybr.425.1622236563611; Fri, 28 May 2021 14:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 14:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.178.84.155; posting-account=R-6XjwoAAACnHXTO3L-lyPW6wRsSmYW9
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.178.84.155
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4175a8a0-ec1e-440e-9551-b6d6ee07e417n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..
From: amine...@gmail.com (Amine Moulay Ramdane)
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 21:16:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 416
 by: Amine Moulay Ramdane - Fri, 28 May 2021 21:16 UTC

Hello...

More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to read the following interesting article of Daniel Lemire,
he is a PhD researcher in in Engineering Mathematics and MSc in Mathematics:

All models are wrong

https://lemire.me/blog/2021/05/26/all-models-are-wrong/

You can read more about Daniel Lemire here(he is also a professor):

https://lemire.me/en/

So notice that the PhD above must be smart at around 140 or 145 IQ.

So i think i am smart and the PhD researcher above in Engineering Mathematics is is also saying the following:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

So since i think i am smart i have just read rapidly the above article and i will right now rapidly find a pattern with my fluid intelligence, and it is the following:

Notice that a mathematical model can be a static system, and this
mathematical model can give a prediction and a result that is an approximation that is useful, so i can say that i can like measure it
relatively or absolutely, i mean i can say like locally that since the result of a mathematical model can be an approximation that is not the exact result of the result of the reality, so then i can say that locally i can say that a mathematical model is wrong on the exactitude of the calculation of the result, but i can say more globally that since the mathematical model can give a "useful" result that is a useful approximation that permits us to predict, so then the functionality that is predictive of the mathematical model is not wrong, so i can then say globally that the mathematical model is not wrong. And this proves that the following saying is wrong:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"

Other than that he is saying in the above article the following:

"Pure logic, pure mathematics only works locally. It does not scale. It does not mean that pure logic is ‘bad’, only that its application is limited."

I then say that even if it Pure logic, pure mathematics doesn't scale,
we have to look at its weight of importance and usefulness,
so it can be that even if the mathematical model doesn't scale,
it can have a great weight of importance and a great usefulness.

Yet more philosophy about composability and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and more..

I invite you to read the following article about composability:

On Composability

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2020/05/22/on-composability/

I think the above article is not taking into account the following
new discovery about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

Evading the uncertainty principle in quantum physics

New technique gets around 100-year-old rule of quantum physics for the first time

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that the position and speed of an object cannot both be known fully precisely at the same time. Researchers now show that two vibrating drumheads, the size of a human hair, can be prepared in a quantum state which evades the uncertainty principle.

Read more here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210506142138.htm

And read the following interesting article about it:

Scientist find a loophole in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
https://www.livescience.com/quantum-drum-duet-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

More of my philosophy about inductive logic and more..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to read the following article about Hume’s on inductive logic:

Problem of induction

https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-induction

Read about David Hume philosopher here:

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

And i invite you to also read the following article about inductive
reasoning:

Be Humble: Black Swans and the Limits of Inductive Reasoning

https://www.datarobot.com/blog/be-humble-black-swans-and-the-limits-of-inductive-reasoning/

I will say that i am not in accordance with David Hume philosopher on inductive logic, since notice that the above article is saying the following about David Hume views on inductive reasoning:

"It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs on the basis of induction; he denied only that people have any reason to hold such beliefs (therefore, also, no one can know that any such belief is true)"

So i think that we have not to be "pessimistic" as David Hume philosopher about inductive reasoning, since we have to distinguish between the inductive reasoning that work and the inductive reasoning
that doesn't work correctly, so let me show you an example of inductive reasoning that works, here it is: So to give an interesting example of science of computing, we can ask: What is the time complexity of the following binary search algorithm:

https://www.guru99.com/binary-search.html

And here is my mathematical calculations of its time complexity, so notice that it uses inductive reasoning that works:

Recurrence relation of a binary search algorithm is: T(n)=T(n/2)+1

Because the "1" is like a comparison that we do in each step of
the divide and conquer method of the binary search algorithm.

So the calculation of the recurrence equation gives:

1st step=> T(n)=T(n/2) + 1

2nd step=> T(n/2)=T(n/4) + 1 ……[ T(n/4)= T(n/2^2) ]

3rd step=> T(n/4)=T(n/8) + 1 ……[ T(n/8)= T(n/2^3) ]

..

..

kth step=> T(n/2^k-1)=T(n/2^k) + 1*(k times)

Adding all the equations we get, T(n) = T(n/2^k) + k times 1

This is the final equation.

So how many times we need to divide by 2 until we have only one element left?

So it must be:

n/2^k= 1

This gives: n=2^k

this give: log n=k [taken log(base 2) on both sides ]

Put k= log n in the final equation above and it gives:

T(n) = T(1) + log n

T(n) = 1 + log n [we know that T(1) = 1 , because it’s a base condition as we are left with only one element in the array and that is the element to be searched so we return 1]

So it gives:

T(n) = O(log n) [taking dominant polynomial, which is n here)

This is how we got “log n” time complexity for binary search.

More philosophy of what is philosophy..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so i will explain what is philosophy, philosophy is by logical analogy like software engineering
(and read about software engineering in my thoughts below), i mean that it is a high level knowledge and a high level view of the "way", for example philosophy is the "way" of how do we have to behave as a society or a global world, also you will notice that philosophy doesn't get into the details as is getting science into the the much details, so this proves that it is a high level knowledge, but more than that philosophy can also give the high level way to science so that science gets into the much details, so i think i am a philosopher that is smart and i am like feeling more deeply philosophy and finding patterns of philosophy with my fluid intelligence, so i am still inventing thoughts of philosophy, so i invite you to read all my thoughts of my philosophy below so that to understand my philosophy:

More philosophy about software engineering and about computer science..

I will ask a philosophical question of:

What is software engineering and what is computer science ?

I think i am smart and i will answer that it is related to abstract thinking and pattern recognition of human fluid intelligence,
since software engineering is about the high level knowledge,
i mean that it deals with such high level things as concepts
and there relationships, connections, and context..., so in software engineering the most important thing is like abstract thinking , but
it can use sophisticated pattern recognition of fluid intelligence, so it also uses high pure smartness, and this abstract thinking of software engineering doesn't get into the "details" as is getting computer science, so computer science gets into the much details, so software engineering is like mathematical modeling that is also a science, but computer science is "hard" science.

And to know more about mathematical modeling, i invite you to
look at my following software project of PDQ for Delphi and Freepascal
and it is my port of PDQ version 6.2.0 to Delphi on Windows and to Freepascal on both Windows and Linux, i have also provided you with two demos, one queuing MM1 demo, and another Jackson network demo. Also i have provided you with my html tutorial on how to solve analytically(by using mathematical modeling) the Jackson network problem provided to you as a PDQ demo, and here it is so that to know what is mathematical modeling:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/pdq-for-delphi-and-freepascal

More of my explanation of my just new proverb about fluid intelligence and smartness..

Here is my just new proverb:

"Human smartness is finding a small number of tools that permit to
solve a great number of problems, so when you look carefully at what is human smartness you will notice that it is not about great quantity, it is about a small quantity of good quality that permits us to be so powerful. Being smart is not about quantity, it is much more about quality."

So i think i am smart and i will explain my new proverb above:

With pattern recognition of fluid intelligence we are finding
patterns that are the tools, and we are understanding and applying those patterns that we are finding with fluid intelligence to
other many other new problems, so then we are not finding the patterns again and again, so then we are not finding the tools that are those patterns again and again, so pattern recognition of fluid intelligence is a minimization process that permits to find a small number of tools that permit to solve great number of problems. I think i am smart, and I have to be more precise, so you have to understand that the minimization process above is on the "finding", so when i say in my proverb above: "Human smartness is finding a small number of tools that permit to solve a great number of problems", the "finding a small number" is my good abstract thinking and it means that it is a minimization process on the "finding", since we are not "finding" the tools that are the patterns again and again.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

<1621ae23-d1bb-47f9-ae7c-cdc3f2d13c73n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=60703&group=sci.math#60703

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ef55:: with SMTP id d82mr5883139qkg.3.1622237214740;
Fri, 28 May 2021 14:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7a02:: with SMTP id v2mr14789846ybc.514.1622237214543;
Fri, 28 May 2021 14:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!usenet.pasdenom.info!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 14:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4175a8a0-ec1e-440e-9551-b6d6ee07e417n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=51.7.233.47; posting-account=yGRO2woAAADshLPG1OucG7f_VEogoNIn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 51.7.233.47
References: <4175a8a0-ec1e-440e-9551-b6d6ee07e417n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1621ae23-d1bb-47f9-ae7c-cdc3f2d13c73n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..
From: ross.pro...@gmx.com (Quantum Bubbles)
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 21:26:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Quantum Bubbles - Fri, 28 May 2021 21:26 UTC

On Friday, May 28, 2021 at 10:16:09 PM UTC+1, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
"So notice that the PhD above must be smart at around 140 or 145 IQ. "

IQ, if thought of as a general measure of a person's intellectual potential is probably more of a pseudo-scientific idea than a proper scientific idea.. A rather nice skeptical work on the subject is the book:

Genes, Brains & Human Potential, by Ken Richardson

I think it goes a bit too far at times, but on the whole I thought it was a rather convincing book. I think its probably better to think of IQ as a measure of the extent to which someone has received and processed a good middle-class education by the standards of developed countries.

As for fluid intelligence; given the high dependency of human cognition on long term memory I doubt the distinction between crystalized and fluid intelligence really means much in practice. PhD holders in particular are smart because of the level of expert knowledge they have in their chosen area, which seems more like 'crystalized' intelligence.

Kind Regards.

Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are useful"..

<s8rok0$1f2b$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=60705&group=sci.math#60705

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Vtk7yCnLbgxxL06hzNbeMQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: forty...@yourbottom.net (Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council)
<fortytwo@yourbottom.net>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: More philosophy about "All models are wrong, but some are
useful"..
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 14:51:01 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <s8rok0$1f2b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <4175a8a0-ec1e-440e-9551-b6d6ee07e417n@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: fortytwo@yourbottom.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: Vtk7yCnLbgxxL06hzNbeMQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.10.2
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Prostetnic Vogon Jel - Fri, 28 May 2021 21:51 UTC

On 5/28/2021 2:16 PM, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> Hello...
>
> I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

Shut up idiot.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor