New Scientist Article (was: Too many know-it-alls)
John R Ramsden
latest issue of New Scientist. The article can be found on-line at:
http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns22273
Replying to Ray, I remarked on the inverse-square law which the authors
discovered. But unfortunately this was lost among the noise (Ray droning
on about so-called know-alls), and I was wondering if anyone else who had
read the article might care to comment on that aspect. Here is the relevant
extract:
The latest issue of New Scientist contains an article on this very topic.
It explains how one can cook up regular patterns and self-sustaining large
values from a matrix of small random values combined in suitable ways. The
method even generates a kind of inverse square law for values in the matrix,
although I suspect this is ultimately due to the fact that the matrix itself
is 2-d rather than some deep intrinsic property of random numbers, which the
authors apparently claim.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (j...@redmink.demon.co.uk)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new is in the old concealed, the old is in the new revealed.
St Augustine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Quinn
>In a recent post, Rajarshi Ray mentioned an interesting article in the
>latest issue of New Scientist. The article can be found on-line at:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns22273
>
>Replying to Ray, I remarked on the inverse-square law which the authors
>discovered. But unfortunately this was lost among the noise (Ray droning
>on about so-called know-alls), and I was wondering if anyone else who had
>read the article might care to comment on that aspect. Here is the relevant
>extract:
>
> The latest issue of New Scientist contains an article on this very topic.
> It explains how one can cook up regular patterns and self-sustaining large
> values from a matrix of small random values combined in suitable ways. The
> method even generates a kind of inverse square law for values in the matrix,
> although I suspect this is ultimately due to the fact that the matrix itself
> is 2-d rather than some deep intrinsic property of random numbers, which the
> authors apparently claim.
>
The thought occurred to me too, and I don't know the answer.
However, the 2D matrix is pretty legitimate, because it really
represents connections between pairs of the fundamental entities, which
is an obvious starting point. You could add triplet connections, but
then you'd probably want to go all the way to infinity, dividing by some
parameter that grows exponentially with the number of entities in each
transaction. I don't know whether space would stay 3D if you did this,
though in principle it shouldn't be difficult to test computationally.
In any case, the 2D matrix is one of the more obvious things to do.
I find the general concept of what they are doing fairly credible, but
somehow I don't believe a word of the specific solution they have come
up with...
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>I would like to see the original article if it's available on the net.
>-Anybody got a URL?
>
>Keith Marshall
>
http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns22273
That's pretty much it - I read the paper original, but the net article
doesn't appear to be abridged in any way.
- Gerry Quinn
Keegs
I normally just lurk on this group because I'm not a scientist and I
have no ability to express my ideas symbolically. However, after reading
that NS article (which leaves out a lot of detail), I thought that it
might be fruitful for someone who's better at this than me to consider
fractal theory and how it might be related to the concept outlined in
the NS article.
What I mean is that the article talked about "'trees' of strong
connections, and a lot of much weaker links". Now I see an analogy
between a 'strong' connection and what I call 'engagement'. For example
if the difference between the fractal coefficient of a surface (say,
mud) and the fractal coefficient of another surface (say, a spinning car
tyre) fall outside a certain range, then they fail to engage and the car
has no traction. Similarly with two gears where the cogs don't match, or
where quantum effects are no longer significant because the differing
scale prevents 'engagement'.
In addition, the decription of the 'matrix' in the article reminded me
of turbulence, and how it could occasionally produce 'large numbers'.
I'd like to find out what the purpose of the matrix-inverse matrix was
as well as how they developed the concept of pseudo-objects.
Maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there, but they're using
non-linear terms in the matrices and talking about tree structures. BTW,
aren't the tree form and the sphere (inverse cube law) two different
fundamental forms of energy optimisation? (Getting the most 'bang' for
your buck?)
I would like to see the original article if it's available on the net.
-Anybody got a URL?
Keith Marshall
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <38bb9eb2...@news.demon.co.uk>, j...@redmink.demon.co.uk
> (John R Ramsden) wrote:
> >In a recent post, Rajarshi Ray mentioned an interesting article in the
> >latest issue of New Scientist. The article can be found on-line at:
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns22273
> >
<snip>
Rajarshi Ray
>
> In a recent post, Rajarshi Ray mentioned an interesting article in the
> latest issue of New Scientist. The article can be found on-line at:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns22273
>
> discovered. But unfortunately this was lost among the noise (Ray droning
> on about so-called know-alls),
Yes, and having a blast too! You really ought to try it sometime!!
--
"Till now man has been up against Nature;
from now on he will be up against his own nature."
DENNIS GABOR Inventing the future
Keegs
and Klinger's theory, not the New Scientist article.
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <1e6sl9i.1a6u21oth7vzgN%mars...@zipworld.com.au>,
> mars...@zipworld.com.au (Keegs) wrote:
>
> >I would like to see the original article if it's available on the net.
> >-Anybody got a URL?
> >
> >Keith Marshall
> >
>
Science Hobbyist
>
> might be fruitful for someone who's better at this than me to consider
> fractal theory and how it might be related to the concept outlined in
> the NS article.
They mention "Self-organized criticality." Doesn't this cause
their theory to be a fractal theory? (i.e. it lives at the
so-called Edge of Chaos, and will probably be full of
self-similar features.)
>
--
((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William Beaty bbe...@microscan.com
Software Engineer http://www.microscan.com
Microscan Inc., Renton, WA 425-226-5700 x1135
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gerry Quinn
>In article <1e6sl9i.1a6u21oth7vzgN%mars...@zipworld.com.au>,
> mars...@zipworld.com.au (Keegs) wrote:
>> Warning- poorly informed amateur guesswork below:
>>
>> I thought that it
>> might be fruitful for someone who's better at this than me to consider
>> fractal theory and how it might be related to the concept outlined in
>> the NS article.
>
> They mention "Self-organized criticality." Doesn't this cause
> their theory to be a fractal theory? (i.e. it lives at the
> so-called Edge of Chaos, and will probably be full of
> self-similar features.)
>
Can't dispute the fact that space is pretty self-similar!
- Gerry Quinn
Mihai Moise
> Sorry, I meant the *original* article as in the publication of Cahill
> and Klinger's theory, not the New Scientist article.
>
Check out the thread on Cahill & Klinger.
Note that the pdf version does not function with Acrobat Reader 2.1, but
with GhostView it functions.
I was disappointed that they did not give out any source code. It would have
been worth while to build gebits at home.
Mihai
"Crazy old Stauf is watching us; scaring us;
watching us play at his puzzles.
Only he knows the rules.
Only Stauf knows the rules."
Nathan Urban
> Note that the pdf version does not function with Acrobat Reader 2.1, but
> with GhostView it functions.
It works with newer versions of Acrobat.
> I was disappointed that they did not give out any source code. It would have
> been worth while to build gebits at home.
It's not common for published papers to include source code, and when they
do it's only usually done if the code is fairly short and the paper is
primarily on the algorithm itself rather than the results of a simulation.
If you want the source, you might try contacting the authors directly
and see if they'll give it to you.
Keegs
> also sprach Keegs:
>
> > Sorry, I meant the *original* article as in the publication of Cahill
> > and Klinger's theory, not the New Scientist article.
> >
>
> Check out the thread on Cahill & Klinger.
>
> Note that the pdf version does not function with Acrobat Reader 2.1, but
> with GhostView it functions.
>
-So what's the URL of the PDF file?
Mihai Moise
> > > Sorry, I meant the *original* article as in the publication of Cahill
> > > and Klinger's theory, not the New Scientist article.
>
> -So what's the URL of the PDF file?
There isn't any because you must ask the server to create it. Here are the
URLs,
http://arXiv.org/format/gr-qc/9605018
http://arXiv.org/format/gr-qc/9708013
http://arXiv.org/format/gr-qc/9812083
http://arXiv.org/format/gr-qc/9905082
Mihai