REVIEWS. — WITH COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS. ... [ Word count: 1.700 ~ 7 PAGES | Revised: 2018.8.10 ]

in science •  last month


 

Text reviews. Books. Papers. Fiction. Nonfiction. Let's have fun.

(And experimenting with a new use case for distributed persistent data structures platforms.)

 

      Word count: 1.700 ~ 7 PAGES   |   Revised: 2018.8.10

 

— 〈  1  〉—

MOTIVATION

 
Another standardized format post.

You can observe, after some foraging, that most books and papers aren't really worth reading. Why they were even published is a complete mystery. — And it cannot be otherwise. (Knowledge is fragmented and distributed.)

So the chances are that what you read was an utter waste of time.

If you read slowly ... then maybe you shouldn't read ... The cost will exceed the benefits ... So it shouldn't be surprising that most people today don't read.

The costs exceed the benefits apparently. Surprise.

We can see that people don't like that which they are not good at. Meanwhile those good at something do it more and become better at it. Slight differences in skill often eventually diverge — possibly enormously [WHE29,40].

Then specialized people exchange. — Or they share.

Let's share.

Why not?

Some people like me do read. We read a lot. We're less risk averse. We like the thrill of gambling. And why not? It doesn't cost us much. We're good at it. We read quickly. We like it. It's great entertainment. Especially considering I must read anyway to get an advantage as a scientist.

It's far less costly, if you read quickly, to learn as much as possible by the experience of others. The result of the few useful books and papers that you do read is a set of mental tools by whose use you may easily avoid the dead ends and ditches and potholes and impenetrable forests with nothing in them except a swamp at the center. You may also deflect wrong arguments that may lead you off the right path should you chance upon it.

All that requires a vast knowledge of the literature however. Even a proper subset of something vast is most likely something something vast too.

My standardized references list is getting too long. — Or that's what I think.

Furthermore what is the case is that I'm often away from computers where I can update my organized references writeups. Decentralized blockchains to the rescue.

I'd still like to post my thoughts regarding literature I've read recently. — As my thoughts should come to me. — In real time. — Meanwhile contributing also some kind of commentary. (There's an old tradition of doing that in the East. Not a bad idea really.)

Maybe. Something like that. — And why not?

I read for you. — So you don't have to. — There's a game plan; why not? (I'm going to read anyway. May as well channel and magnify any positive externalities resulting from that.)

I'll continue to link to the latest standardized references list in each text. Meanwhile those references I don't strictly discuss on Steemit or Discord or don't (yet) intend to discuss will go in posts like these. Some of these will be merged with my longer standardized reference lists, which I update during each week.

 

— 〈  2  〉—

REVIEWS MARKS

 
The nonrepeating letters in the review marks are mostly arbitrary. Rather they're only such that many typos must be made in order to accidentally produce a transition from an intended review mark to another. — Which makes it far less likely. — Less frequent.

bp  >   ix  >  gd  >  su  >   er  >  pt
 ⇊       ⇊       ⇊        ⇊        ⇊        ⇊
  3   >   2   >   1   >   0   >  –1   >  –2

Only a –2 is properly a bad review. Each –1 review is really a neutral review. Rather time reading has a cost: — therefore neutral reviews are negatives. Time reading is budgeted; this cost — the next best opportunity foregone — are the other things not read only because these things were read. — So everything 0, 1, 2, 3 is basically recommended.

 

standardizedreferencesBANNER.jpg

 
— 〈  3  〉—

REVIEWS — ADDED: 6

\NONFICTION: \section{B}: 2

 
gd   [BRU83]   Jerome BRUNER, Child's talk: learning to use language, Oxford: University Press, 1983.

su   [BRU90]   Jerome BRUNER, Acts of meaning, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

\NONFICTION: \section{H}: 2

 
bp   [HAK77]   Hermann HAKEN, Synergetics, Berlin: Springer, 1977.

su   [HOPF37]   Eberhard HOPF, Ergodentheorie, Berlin: Springer, 1937.

\NONFICTION: \section{L}: 1

 
bp   [LET89]   Jerome LETTVIN, Warren MCCULLOCH and Walter PITTS, Collected works of Warren McCulloch, Salinas: Intersystems, 1989.

\NONFICTION: \section{R}: 1

 
gd   [ROGE07]   Alice ROGERS, Supermanifolds, Singapore : World, 2007.

 

— 〈  4  〉—

UNORGANIZED COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS

 

\section{COMMENT # 4}

[BRU90] discusses some topics around the theme of considering intentional mental states as basically computer programs following the publication of [MCCU43] — who showed that neural nets can compute anything that can be computed in finite steps, that is, anything a turing machine may compute, and therefore that looking how pieces of a neural network such as the brain and how they are connected say very little about what it's doing, and predicting behavior, much like predicting what a computer will output to the screen is not possible based on which slot the video card is plugged into, the one rather than the others [LET89].

\section{COMMENT # 3}

``Books are like mountaintops jutting out of the sea. Self contained islands though they may seem, they are upthrusts of an underling geography that is at once local and, for all that, a part of a (deeper) universal pattern. While they inevitably reflect a time and a place, they are part of a more general intellectual geography.'' [BRU90]

Yes. Definitely.

\section{COMMENT # 2}

Extended manifold. The chart that connects pieces by identifying some coordinates on one patch with coordinates on another patch does so randomly. It depends on a parameter, which is the probability (to be realized as a frequency) that a typical random walk on one patch will encounter (intersect or approach sufficiently near) another such random walk, for a given set of data. We consider the data, if input by an intelligent system, as themselves stochastic processes. They are nonrepetitive, nonhabitual [LASH29, KUB58].

This can lead to a model for considering or analyzing emergence of "well organized" structures out of smaller, simpler ones or random processes and disorder and chaos, instability, as discussed by [HAK77].

\section{COMMENT # 1}

[BRU83] argues that a system that does not know a language learning a language is defined as being able to make utterances or records that conform to some constraints or rules of grammar. Making "well formed" utterances or records. Whereas before it made utterances and records that we not so well formed.

(According to [MIL81] grammar constrains the forming of utterances or records to have predictable redundancy. That in turn allows corrupted or partial utterances or records to be more often than not correctly guessed at or reconstructed.)

[BRU83] finds that invitations to join action, invitational requests, have several different forms for learning systems. This may be useful for composing communicating programs. Seems to be useful for humans who are learning. Now imagine different programs communicating but using not quite the same languages and capable of pattern matching. Hmmm.

ABOUT ME

I'm a scientist who writes fantasy and science fiction under various names.

                         ◕ ‿‿ ◕ つ

 

UPVOTE !     FOLLOW !

 
|   SCIENCE FICTION & FANTASY   |   TOOLS & TECHNOLOGY   |
|   PRACTICAL THINKING — LATESTRECENT POPULAR   |

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License  . . .   . . .   . . .    Text and images: ©tibra. @communicate on minds.com

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Somewhere at the very top of the text above I put a tag: — Revised: Date.

I'll often, later, significantly enlarge the text which I wrote.

Leave comments below, with suggestions.
              Maybe points to discuss. — As time permits.

Finished reading? Really? Well, then, come back at a later time.

Guess what? Meanwhile the length may've doubled . . . ¯\ _ (ツ) _ /¯ . . .


2018.8.10 — POSTED — WORDS: 1.650
2018.8.10 — ADDED — WORDS: 50
 

·

Will have to work on the format. Probably should enclose the "motivation" in <sub> and </sub> and move that to the end. Would be better. Later.

Nice write-up

·

Your observation of we voracious readers as being "less risk averse" really made me smile. :)

Hello @tibra, thank you for sharing this creative work! We just stopped by to say that you've been upvoted by the @creativecrypto magazine. The Creative Crypto is all about art on the blockchain and learning from creatives like you. Looking forward to crossing paths again soon. Steem on!

·