Value equation transparency [was: PVC Distribution Milestone 2 parallel test]

[Bob Haugen]

I split this very interesting topic out into its own thread.

I'll start with a followup question for Tibi, because I am not sure
what he has in mind.

Tibi, when you think about formal mathematical expressions for value
equations, do you mean:
A. having the value equation explain what it is doing in formal
mathematical expressions, or
B. being able to express value equations in formal mathematical
statements and having the software execute them as written?

A is a lot easier than B.

By the way, I continue to improve that google doc. Probably should put
it somewhere else outside of google docs, but it's still here for now:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hg0q7zNyuM1OM-8OOoZrkCPpB_EUH8YGLLnfoDFopy4/edit?usp=sharing

Just added more about graph traversals, including this link about
making them somewhat more formal, in python no less:
http://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/the-gremlin-traversal-language

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another idea for transparency: logs:
> http://mathbabe.org/2015/09/24/interrogating-algorithms/
>
> "auditable and hard-to-tamper-with logs of how the software is running"
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Bob Haugen <bob.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Tiberius Brastaviceanu
>> <tiberius.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your concerns are valid, but also apply to your spreadsheet, which you
>>>> could not understand yourself.
>>>
>>> ??
>>
>> You could not detect the mistakes in your own spreadsheet. It took
>> Lynn several hours to find and (probably) fix them.
>>
>> In other words, a spreadsheet can pretty easily reach a level of
>> complexity where it is no longer transparent. How many other
>> Sensoricans would have wanted to do that?
>>
>>>> I wrote a bit about the tradeoffs between spreadsheets and the NRP
>>>> value equation here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hg0q7zNyuM1OM-8OOoZrkCPpB_EUH8YGLLnfoDFopy4/edit#heading=h.43lilqbuyu5c
>>>
>>>
>>> I think everybody wants to handle value equations in the NRP-VAS, including
>>> myself. As VE-s are new in the NRP, we continue to run them in parallel in
>>> Spreadsheet.
>>
>> As we're said, we totally agree. Thank you for doing those parallel
>> tests, they are very valuable.
>>
>>>>
>>>> And tried to improve the documentation of what is going on in the NRP
>>>> value equation in that whole document, with more about algorithm and
>>>> math starting here:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hg0q7zNyuM1OM-8OOoZrkCPpB_EUH8YGLLnfoDFopy4/edit#heading=h.ykk2hzjh847n
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice to see the formalism in the NRP, next to the value
>>> equation, after a value equation is implemented.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You had talked about wanting to express the whole value equation in
>>>> mathematical notation, and that section should give you some ideas
>>>> about what you would need to do to accomplish that desire. Short
>>>> version: some of it's ~possibly~ doable, some possibly not.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we need to explore what's doable together and implement as much as
>>> possible.
>>
>> We do want to continue to improve the transparency of the value
>> equations. All of the diagnostic stuff that we've added to the
>> sandbox page has been aimed at helping you (and us) match the results
>> to your spreadsheets. And we want to continue in that direction.
>>
>> The hard part of presenting the value equation in a mathematical
>> formalism is the graph traversals. For example, in the PV project, if
>> the 3D printer is used, that requires a fairly specialized graph
>> traversal to find the people who contributed to buying the printer,
>> and also the materials used.
>>
>> Same for any consumables.
>>
>> Our direction in the future, however, is gestating in the Open Vocab
>> project, which is based on Linked Open Data, which is a graph
>> formalism. That's still a research project. I'd guess a couple of
>> years away from becoming an operational ecosystem tool. But somewhere
>> along that path, the graph traversals should be expressable in formal
>> notation.

[Tiberius Brastaviceanu]

I think both options are necessary. 

The first option is easier to implement. 

For the second one, the user needs to know what mathematical expressions can be used and how. To make it simple, we can define mathematical operators in a list, and chose them to compose the algorithm. 

NOTE: this is not just a mathematical formula, because the value equation mixes software functions (filters of data from the logged contributions), logical operators and mathematical formulas. 

--

t!b! 

co-founder of SENSORICA, 

an open, decentralized and self-organizing

value network (an open enterprise)

founder of Multitude Project

Google Profile

Facebook Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Twitter  @TiberiusB

[Bob Haugen]

Note from the gremlin traversal language cited in this thread and the
google doc, what it takes to express graph traversals.

At some stage here, you would be writing the equivalent of the code in
NRP that does all this stuff in order to write your value equation.

When we get to the stage where all of the nodes in the graph can be
specified by LOD expressions, we will have other possibilities, but
they will all have degrees of difficulty for the person trying to
express the equation.

Composing operators has some potential, though. As in Scratch:
https://scratch.mit.edu/

[Bob Haugen]

P.S. for the claim creation equation applied to every selected event,
we could make it possible use a wide variety of mathematical functions
besides the usual operators, for example:
https://docs.python.org/2/library/math.html

That's if you want to get fancier.

But composition of operators and functions also involves precedence
(e.g. the use of parens), so a list of operators and functions is not
enough for composition.

> --
> Go to SENSORICA home
> https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home
> Go to our Working Space
> https://sites.google.com/site/sensoricahome/home/working-space
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to SENSORICA group.
> To post to this group, send email to Sens...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/Sensorica?hl=en?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SENSORICA" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Sensorica+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.