collatz, loose ends

as mentioned in the last post, am zooming in on the “power iteration” algorithm. it is explained as, “if you want to find the dominant eigenvector, use the power iteration”. in my case, found it by discovering that “if you use the power iteration, it will lead to the dominant eigenvector”. kind of subtle right? maybe reminds me of that old saying “all paths lead to rome”. and then ofc, the classic, “rome wasnt built in a day”.

here is the code that compares the (normalized) current state vector to the dominant eigenvector, which apparently ruby organizes it as the leftmost column of the left eigen-decomposition matrix. it uses/ selects the 95th/100th density iteration which tends to lead to a longer trajectory. am in good company, as wikipedia notes the power iteration is used at the core of Google pagerank algorithm! 😀 😎 💡 ⭐ ❗ ❤

Continue reading

Advertisements

cybersecurity 2017, epic saga, russian angle, hacking etc

hi all. this is now a complicated/ fast paced/ multidimensional subj to track. cybersecurity used to be a bit more arcane but the topic has expanded dramatically in only the last year based on russian hacking/ collusion accusations by our govt.

years ago read books on “infowarfare” or “cyberwarfare” predicting this exotic new aspect of international intrigue and interrelations. here it is now on our doorstep in 2017 and its having massive impact on politics and govt at this point.

Continue reading

collatz perplexity

hi all, last month collatz installment made some progress, but unf have been a bit tied up with work, where a fiscal year transition/ boundary tends to lead to some crunch-like dynamics, leaving less time for one of my favorite side projects, namely this one, bummer/ ouch.

but, here is a small trickle/ dribble of some newer ideas, mainly benefitting from google searches and maybe a little algebra.

Continue reading

big data summer 2017, revolution + firehose

hi all, have blogging up a storm for years now, coming up on the ½ decade anniversary. at times as far as topics its been like “kid in a candy store” for me. as the chinese say “may you live in interesting times”. there is so much going on these days, so many moving parts. we seem to be in the middle of major simultaneous revolutions in multiple fields, some of my favorites like CS+ physics. CS advancements in particular are rippling across many fields. CS is historically the field of infotech. but as noted in this blog, science is becoming increasingly about analysis of info/ data. a hybrid of CS+ statistical science is leading the way in analyzing Big Data. Big Data covers many areas and for years there was mostly a lot of focus on the hardware aspects. theres been huge innovation there and weve got awesome capabilities, systems, libraries for stuff like that, like nosql and graph databases. very impressive!

so now with those solid foundations in place, some of the applications/ advances/ breakthrus can commence. and we’re already seeing the “early” fruits all over the place. yet my feeling is that wrt the “long run” all of this is maybe only in 2nd gear.

have been tracking Big Data in my massive bookmark/ link piles. as you can imagine, thats a very difficult challenge, but am largely up to it with my hardcore cybersurfing and hacker tools eg bookmark export. and so a “huge” ~215 link list is just a drop in the bucket…!

made a conscious decision to hold off on writing up the links “for awhile” because AI has been taking center stage with deep learning and its largely merged with a lot of the cutting edge big data field. its getting increasingly hard to separate/ draw boundaries between them. but then, holy cow! THREE YEARS flew by in a flash. have been tracking a few big data related links in AI posts otherwise, but now my big data links runneth over and time to unleash/ release them. was somewhat waiting for a headline-grabbing event, but in a way they are happening constantly…

Continue reading

latest on killing copenhagen interpretation via fluid dynamics

⭐ ❗ 💡 😎 😮 ❤ hi all. bohr was transfixed by so-called "complementarity"; its said schroedingers cat is both alive and dead, and curiosity killed the cat. wikipedia states[n6]

In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the wave function is the most complete description that can be given of a physical system.

but wait, if that is against inquiring deeper, isnt that nearly an anti-curiosity-investigation-research position/ pov? and isnt anti-curiosity-investigation-research nearly anti-science? 😮

copenhagen interpretation is sometimes referred to as the shut up and calculate ideology by questioners/ challengers/ critics in a statement originating with one of them, Mermin, an adept popsci writer and fan of Bells work. here is a famous quote that sounds like a near restatement of the copenhagen interpretation by Feynman:

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?” because you will get “down the drain”, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

now how about a somewhat radical quote/ response from Daniel Sank, Phd working for Google QM labs?

The other day someone from the WSJ asked me to explain why quantum mechanics is weird.

I went off on a rather well-reasoned and carefully articulated rant about how it’s not weird and that people only say that to sound cool.

I even went so far as to say that Feynman’s famous statement that {anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics is wrong} is destructive, stupid, and should not be repeated.

whoa, strong words there! however maybe somewhat unexpectedly, both somewhat agree/ disagree! yet, alas, somehow think DS is not really intending to challenge the copenhagen interpretation with his dramatic excoriation of feynman!* DS is also on the (chat) record as averse to/ strongly rejecting “alternative interpretations”. which to me is not really scientific, where to me conceptual evolution/ scientific progress inherently entails/ involves never stopping/ ceasing questioning how can it be like that?

oh, coincidentally right around writing all this, just ran into another striking quote by John Rennie a very high ranking member of physics stack exchange on the “1st Law,” with high ranking mod ACuriousMind immediately agreeing:

no physicist shall discuss interpretations of quantum mechanics or by inaction allow interpretations of quantum mechanics to be discussed.

lol and now this seems to reach/ degenerate to the absurd levels of Epimenides paradox when one asks the simple question, are Bohr/ Heisenberg, the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, physicists? …so is this physics or fight club? 😮 o_O 🙄

* further search jujitsu by me, managed to turn up another striking quote by DS expressly rejecting Copenhagen interpretation… more strong words!

Listen to me very closely: I am a quantum computing professional and I think the Copenhagen interpretation is not even self-consistent and therefore entirely inadmissible as a theory of Nature.

and to finish on a different note, think this captures something relevant/ accurate/ typically unspoken “between the lines” by mod ACuriousMind, a sort of “non-interpretation” approach at least )( admitted openly/ candidly/ honestly:

Of those named, Copenhagen is the most popular, but my impression is that a significant number of people actually doing quantum physics every day share my personal disdain for all the squabbles around “interpretations”.

(so then, bottom line/ in conclusion… Copenhagen and/ or interpretations as taboo, that which shall not be named? aka scientific omerta, “code of silence”) 😳 😮 🙄

⭐ ⭐ ⭐

have been collecting physics links on a diverse set of topics that are not unified yet but think will someday be unified. the general area is now sometimes known as Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics (PWH) also aka/ known as “oil drop dynamics experiments”. the Bohmian pilot wave was speculated on for many decades, and soliton theory combined with new experimental findings has given rise to a new reality, science, and growing research area/ program/ paradigm! but it exists alongside in a tension right now with “standard” quantum mechanics.

the stage has been set! its two large plates shearing against each other. when will the inevitable top/ pivotal showdown/ confrontation/ conflict/ earthquake occur? think its just a matter of time! (admittedly 1 is far much smaller than the other right now, but relatively shortly, predict that will flip-flop.) my feeling/ estimate/ prediction is there is at least 1 nobel to be won in the next 5-10 yrs in this area, and several in store over several decades!* signifying/ corresponding with an imminent genuine physics paradigm shift/ revolution in the 21st century at least on the scale of QM in the 20th.

* 😳 o_O (note, however, some fineprint/ hedging/ reality check on this superficially bold-appearing claim! nobels are clearly not comprehensive/ thorough/ totally evenhanded, eg Einstein did not win one for relativity! also, they are often awarded up to decades after the date of the actual accomplishment! therefore to thoroughly invalidate the claim might take decades!)

would like to write a comprehensive survey based on several years of juicy links but thats a herculean task. even just collecting/ writing up the latest batch is a formidable task. these are some of the big highlights for me.

there are a lot of boundary-pushing experiments in qm lately.[a]

Continue reading