Branding

 

Branded (TV Theme Song)

Branded!
Marked with a coward's shame.
What do you do when you're branded,
Will you fight for your name?

So is branding a bad thing?

Branding is supposed to indicate the ability to trust.  A trademark is intended to ensure that you can trust the goods.  A trademark is meant to ensure that you can trust the seller, the provider of the products or service.  In the context of the theme song, branding is intended to indicate that you can NOT trust the individual. In this context a brand is similar to the Scarlet Letter A for Adultery or the Mark of Cain. Thus branding can be good or bad, depending on the purpose of the brand.  The brand itself is supposed to indicate truth, but the branding can itself be a lie.

Macy’s must be especially proud of its TV commercial from 2007, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNCqPxe2WA which features the branding of convicted felon Martha Stewart, indicted Donald Trump, and, while Calvin Klein is played by Lost’s Josh Holloway, Brooke Shield has claimed to being sexually exploited while doing Calvin Klein ads.  These are instances were maybe the branding was not being truthful.  Branding is a good thing when it is truthful, but it can be a bad thing when the branding is used instead to tell a lie.  Just because someone tells you that you can trust them, it does not mean that you can always trust them.  Branding is telling you the nature of that product and person.  It is up to you to determine whether the branding is telling you the truth.

Choice IV

 

Both Sides Now

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

Choice is seeing both sides now.

A real number can be expressed as the sum of a series of n real numbers x₁, x₂, …x_k or ∑f_ix_i , summed from =1 to k where the index i is the i^th grouped observation, f_i is the frequency of that observation. E.g. if there are 3 observations of 2, this makes 3 the frequency of the group of observations that is 2; k is the number of groups; and, n is the number of observations, n =∑f_i , summed from =1 to k where the index i is the i^th grouped observation.

If k is a set of sequential integers, then k is also the choices. For a 6-sided die where each side is numbered from 1 to 6, the choices are thus 1 through 6. This is also true for any n‑sided die. A coin can be thought of as a two-sided die. Instead of numbering the sides as 1 and 2, often in a coin flip to simulate a one-sided die, it is customary to designate one side of the coin as a win, 1, and the other side of the coin as a loss, 0. However however this is a relative scaling not an absolute scaling. Topologically, a one-sided die is possible, i.e. a mobius strip. Its average outcome is 50% of 1, 0.5, although the outcomes can only be 100% of 1 or 100% of 0. The median is also 0.5. But the mode, the most common value, is split equally between 1 and 0.  Therefore a single event is not “normal”. The mode can only ever be the same case as the outcomes, but the median and median do not have to be the same case as the outcomes. However if a one-sided die is flipped an infinite number of times, that event is repeated an infinite number of times. Infinity is part of every case and at infinity, even if the choice, group, is only 1, the mean is therefore equal to the median is equal to the mode.

An analogy can be made between the logistics distribution, the hyperbolic secant squared distribution,  i.e. a normal distribution,

(1/4s)*sech²((x-μ)/2s) =PDF(x:μ,s)

and momentum. The integral of the logistics distribution is

½ * tanh((x-μ)/2s)+½=CDF(x:μ,s)

which is, by analogy, energy.

The derivative, rate of change, of the logistics distribution, is then

-(1/4s)*(½)*(1/2s)*(sech²((x-μ)/2s))²

^or

- PDF²(x:μ,s)

which is, by analogy, force. It is also the negative of the square of the randomness, PDF.

Then Newton’s Three Laws can be re-written as

Law 1. A random normal event will stay random unless acted upon by a force.

Law 2. When a random normal event is acted upon by a force, the time rate of change of its randomness equals the force.

Law 3. If two random normal events exert forces on each other, these forces have the same magnitude but opposite directions.

This has some implications. The variance of a logistics equation is s²π²/3, which means that if s>0 then variance is also greater than zero. If there is a single choice, then s=0.5, and if the mean, μ, is set equal to zero, then the  Probability Density Function, PDF(x:0,0.5),  is

1⁄2 *sech² (x) 

The energy, which is also the Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF(x:0,0.5),  of this distribution is

1⁄2 * tanh(x)+1⁄2

And the force that changes randomness is

-1/4 * sech⁴ (x)

A random event produces energy.  If the total energy must be zero, then it must be balanced by a force that causes a loss of energy ( e.g. entropy).

If there is no choice, s=0, then the PDF is not normal, it is undefined; its energy is undefined; and its entropy is also undefined. It is common to talk of a standard normal distribution as having a variance of 1. If that is true then s= √3/π=0.551329, which means that there must be 2 times that in choice. But choice must also be an integer. If there is one choice, then s must be =0.5 and the variance must be  0.822467, not zero or 1.

Supreme Court IV

 It's A Lovely Day Today

And beside I'm certain if you knew me
You'd find I'm very good company
Won't you kindly let me stay? 

Shouldn't justice also be about certainty?

Opinions of the Supreme Court are not constitutionally required to be decided by a majority. The Supreme Court is asked to render an opinion and each justice may issue concurring or dissenting opinions. But we are so used to hearing about the actual vote of the court that we have become have been become used to thinking that dominance, a simple majority is required. In fact it was not until the 1940s under Chief Justice Harlan Stone, that an actual tally of the vote of the justices on each opinion of SCOTUS was released to the public. An opinion of the SCOTUS with no dissenting opinions could have been a unanimous vote of the justices or could have been a simple majority where none of the dissenting justices felt compelled to issue a dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions are important. Dissenting opinions may contain arguments that form the basis of majority opinions in future cases. Justice John Harlan became so famous for his dissenting opinions that he became known as “The Great Dissenter.”  Even the infamous Dred Scott decision had a majority opinion and 2 dissenting opinions, which meant that the decision could have been anywhere from 5-4 to 7-2.

That the opinion of the Supreme Court should be decided unanimously has been proposed by others[1]. But a unanimous requirement places tremendous power in a lone dissenter. A unanimous decision may reflect the lowest position of the majority that was acceptable to that lone member. This may actually reflect less certainty than the current simple majority decisions, but a court case that has reached the Supreme Court is one where there have been questions about its certainty during the appeals process.

The judicial system is supposed to reflect certainty, not dominance. A case that has been decided by a single judge might be certain, but it also may only reflect the dominance of that judge. A 5‑4 opinion is dominant, but it is also obviously not certain. Is it possible to achieve certainty during the process? I believe that the answer is a resounding yes. It is possible to say a decision reflects certainty rather than dominance, and that belief is based on the Constitution and is consistent with statistics.

The most important decisions of the nation Constitutionally (e.g. overriding a veto, declaring war, approving amendments to the constitution, etc.) require a two-thirds vote of the Congress. An amendment to the Constitution requires ratification by three-fourths of the states after approval by Congress and the President. Statistics would agree that in a normal distribution 68 percent of all of the opinion of group will occur by the mean plus one standard deviation, while a simple majority only requires one member more than the mean. It is not possible to achieve a unanimous decision in a normal distribution. Even in particle physics, the most that certainty is generally expected is the mean plus 5 standard deviations, i.e. not 100% but 99.99994%. It is the responsibility of the Chief Justice to decide whether an opinion shall be issued, is certain.

To ensure that Supreme Court opinions reflect certainty for the Nation, rather than merely dominance within the Nation, it is proposed that an opinion of the SCOTUS NOT be issued if there is merely a simple majority of Justices supporting that opinion, but rather that a two-thirds super-majority of the Justices supporting that opinion be required. Given the current nine members of the Supreme Court that means that an opinion would be determined to be certain, and not merely dominant if there is a 6-3 vote. (a 6-3 vote is two-thirds, 66.7%  of the members. Ideally, according to statistics a 7-2 vote would be better in that it reflects more than 68% of the members.)

To make it clear that dominant opinions are never acceptable, it is recommended that one justice be added to the Supreme Court such that a split vote is a possible outcome where there would be NO dominance. In this case a 7-3 vote would satisfy the strict certainty of a normal distribution.

 

---

[1] Orentlicher, David. (2022). Judicial Consensus: Why the Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously. Conn. L. Rev., 54, 303. Accessed on June 19, 2023, at      
https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1362/

 

Dominate?

 

The Perfect Nanny

If you won't scold and dominate us
We will never give you cause to hate us
We won't hide your spectacles
So you can't see
Put toads in your bed
Or pepper in your tea
Hurry, Nanny!
Many thanks
Sincerely,
Jane and Michael Banks

What is with this whole dominate business anyway?

Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepth upon the earth.”

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then the Bible was not written in English. It was translated into English. Unless God also inspired the translators, it is possible that only the original Aramaic, ancient Hebrew, was the inspired word of God. Things do get Lost in Translation. I am reminded of my Serbian landlord in New York City who once told me he was going to the store to get a bag of “Chips of Potatoes,” instead of “Potato Chips.”  Did God really say that he gave dominion to man?

The Hebrew word was probably yiredu which was translated from the root word radah which means dominion, (to subdue, to rule over), rather than the root word yarad (to lower oneself). Christians believe that God is a good sovereign, the ruler of ALL of the universe. God apparently believes in System Optimal decisions ( That whole lay down your life jazz!) and not User Optimal decisions ( What’s in it for me?). Since there is the possibly that a man as the sovereign will choose User Optimal decisions, a wise System Optimalist would retain dominion, sovereignty, and merely pass stewardship ( lowering oneself) to man. Which puts a whole different wrinkle on contests. Are contests to achieve dominance, or to achieve truth, where God is Truth. This means that outcomes that only achieve dominance by choosing the opposite of Truth are not desirable outcomes. The Bible probably should have been translated as.

Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have stewardship over fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepth upon the earth.”

Corporations

 

People

People
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world

Are Corporations People?

The SCOTUS is again facing the issue of whether Corporations are People. They faced it before in the infamous Citizens United v. FEC opinion. They are facing the question again in Moore v. the United States Of America. The Moores are arguing that they owe no taxes on foreign income because they did not realize this income. They have lost in every court decision so far, but the fear is that if decided in their favor that any corporate taxes on foreign income will also be rescinded.

Even if the Moores do unexpectedly win, Corporations are not People,  They are not enumerated as such in the US Census required by the Constitution. Yes, corporations are groups of people BUT they are special entities of the state created to ensure that the assets of the corporate officers or shareholders of the corporation are not confused with the personal assets of the corporate officers or shareholders.  That is what limited liability is all about. So the government AND the members of the corporation, have already decided that they are not merely groups of people. Any decisions affecting People should have no bearing on Corporate taxes because Corporations are NOT People.

In which case, Citizens United was wrongly decided by SCOTUS. If free speech is a constitutionally protected asset of the People, and the assets of the shareholders are NOT the assets of the corporation, then the asset of free speech was not transferred to the corporation. You can not have it two ways. Corporations can not be groups of people, when it comes to free speech, but not groups of people when it comes to liability. If corporations are protected from liability, then regulations that restrict the free speech of corporations are not in violation of the Constitution. Besides since there are no corporations on Death Row in prisons, even Texas seems to agree that they are not People, since they are not trying to execute them.

Variance II

 

Don’t Fence Me In

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
Gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
I can't look at hobbles and I can’t stand fences
Don't fence me in.

But what if the fence is very, very distant?

A fence limits the outcomes of events. In the universe of random choices there are limits. Those limits are very, very large. For example there are estimated to be between 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸² atoms in the universe. Each of these atoms can have as many as 100⁺ electrons. Each of these electrons can be in random, quantum locations. It is such a large number that for all practical purposes the human mind treats this as an infinite number. But the choices still exist and there is a finite, although very, very distant “fence.” 

In a logistics, sech squared, distribution the parameters are the mean, µ, and s, the range of the choices. The variance, σ², in a logistics distribution is s²π²/3, which means that σ=sπ/√3, and s=√3σ/π,  The variance in a logistics distribution also follows the 68/95/99 rule of normal distributions. In fact at µ+3σ there are 99.97% of the outcomes in a normal distribution. Since in a normal distribution, such as the logistics distribution, the median is also µ and the median by definition is 50% of all outcomes, then, with rounding, 2µ=(µ+3σ) or σ= µ/3, which means that s= µ/√3π. It is thus not possible for there to be no fences, a variance of zero, unless the mean is also zero. In a simple binary choice, yes/no, 1/0, the mean, µ, is 0.5 and the variance, σ², is thus .03.  The mean, µ, is by definition n/2, where n is the number of observations in the sample, thus the variance is  n²/36. As noted above the variance in a universe with more than 10¹⁰⁰ , also known as googol, where do you think the name google comes from, choices will be very, very large but it will still exist. Unless there are no choices, s=0, then the variance can not be zero. Just because you can’t see the fence because it is very far away, doesn’t mean that the fence is not there.

Climate Change II

 

Here Comes The Rain Again

Here comes the rain again
Falling on my head like a memory
Falling on my head like a new emotion

There is a difference between rain and climate.

“Everybody talks about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it.” – Mark Twain.

That is because weather, including rain, is a random event, but climate is a long-term trend. To put it in statistical terms: weather follows a random probability distribution, but climate is the variance that describes the range within which those random weather events can occur. And maybe that can help inform the whole climate change debate. Just because we can’t always control random weather events, maybe we can influence the variance within which those events can occur. Being able to influence climate does not mean that anyone is claiming the ability to influence individual weather events. It is like setting up the house rules at a casino. If it is an honest casino, then each game is a random event that occurs within those house rules.

Saying that there is a concern about climate changes, is saying that there is a  concern about the house rules, NOT that anyone is under the illusion that they can control each random game.

Preclearance

 

It's Been A Long, Long Time

Kiss me once, then kiss me twice
Then kiss me once again
It's been a long, long time

How long is a long, long time?

This is not a silly question. The Supreme Court in Shelby v. Holder ruled that the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act was no longer valid because

“Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” 

It is true that while governments might have illegally discriminated in the past, no individual currently in government is being charged with that discrimination. Uh…... that is NOT what the Law says. Preclearance does not mean a government can not change their rules, only that governments who have exhibited a pattern of discrimination in the past must preclear those rule changes before they are implemented.

The fact that individuals currently alive do not discriminate does not change the fact that the governments in the past had discriminated. In a few weeks, on July Fourth, we will celebrate the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. I guess because no one alive today signed that Declaration we should not celebrate. In November we will celebrate Thanksgiving to commemorate an autumn feast by the Pilgrims. But since no one is alive who was at that feast, then I guess that any celebration is misplaced.  The same goes for Christmas, Passover, etc. Since no one was alive who was present at those events, the religions should not celebrate them. I also guess that the Armenians have forgiven the Turks because no one was alive who forced the march into the desert, and the Irish Catholics must be imagining the parades that Irish Protestants march to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne since none of the marchers were at that Battle. The point is that nations, religions, cultures, etc. exist far longer than the individuals who are currently in those groups. Saying that the group has done good or bad does not mean in any way that the current members have done good or bad. The group may last longer than any individual in that group. If the remedy is being applied to the group, the fact that the individuals in that group have changed is irrelevant. A long, long time to an individual of a group may not be a long, long time to that group.

Intellectual Property

 

You Belong To Me

See the pyramids along the Nile
Watch the sun rise on a tropic isle
Just remember, darling, all the while
You belong to me

But to whom does Intellectual Property belong?

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

A copyright, ©, is a protection for the seller in a transaction. A copyright licenses the Intellectual Property, IP,  of artists for a defined period before it enters into the public domain. A copyright confers government protection for that Intellectual Property while it is NOT in the public domain. Otherwise that IP could otherwise be copied, without a fee, by the potential buyer. Without this protection, the seller does not have an incentive to produce that Intellectual Property.

A patent is related to a copyright but covers scientific and technical Intellectual Property. Like a copyright, it is for a defined period and is protected by the government during that period.

A trademark, ^TM, is a protection for the buyer in a transaction. A trademark is used to ensure that the good that is being sold is trustworthy.  A trademark may include a word, but it is most probably a stylized symbol which may include a word. A trademark does NOT have a defined period and is valid forever. E.g. one of the oldest trademarks is the Golden Lions of Lowenbrau. By registering that trademark with the government, the government is ensuring that the goods being sold with that trademark can be trusted by the buyer.

Copyrights were originally extended to authors because, under the technology at the time that the Constitution was written, primarily books could be easily copied. The intent is that all creative works can be copyrighted, and that all inventions can be patented.

Artists and inventors are people, not corporations. An artist or inventor can be employed by corporations, but corporations are NOT the People, at least they are not enumerated in the US Census as the People. Corporations are instead chartered by the government. Corporations may be groups of the People, but they are a special entity charted by the government where the assets of the People owning shares in, or employed by, those corporations are protected from liability.

As such, corporations should not be issued copyrights or patents. They are not the People. Copyrights, or patents, can not be created, or invented, by corporations. They can be created, or invented, by the People employed by corporations, but not by corporations themselves. Thus copyrights and patents should be issued only to the artists and inventors. Those artists and inventors can then in turn issue licenses that may give rights, including exclusive rights, to anyone, including corporations, during the period that the government is ensuring its protection.

This is NOT  a trivial issue. For example, a copyright can be issued to the late Walter Elias Disney for Steamboat Willie and that copyright can be passed down to the estate of Walter Elias  Disney during the period of protected ownership. The license to use that copyright, including exclusive use, can be sold to the Disney Corporation, and the Disney Corporation can own the license to the copyright, and whatever terms and restrictions are agreed to in the license between the copyright holder and the receiver of the license, but not the copyright itself.

Thus it becomes a legal matter to whom copyrights, or patents, may be issued. In the case of a book, it is clearly the author. In the case of a song, it may be the composer and the lyricist. In the case of collaborative arts, such as movies, the copyright may name a number of positions ( e.g. producer, director, leading actors, writers, etc.) while excluding others ( e.g. extra and uncredited actors, stunt persons, grips, etc.)  Who can be named on a copyright, or patent, should be a legal matter. The ability to issue of copyrights and patents is a congressional matter, the actual issuance is an executive matter, and disputes about ownership and licensing is a judicial matter. Corporations can license copyrights, or patents, but they can not own copyrights. or patents.

Because corporations have previously been issued copyrights and patents, any changes where copyrights and patents can NO LONGER be issued to corporations would take effect only upon enactment of a new law. At that time, all existing corporate copyrights, or patents, should be considered instead to be exclusive licenses to that corporation by anonymous copyright, or patent, holders. Thus a case of copyright infringement by one corporation against another, would be treated exactly the same but would now be a case of license infringement. Corporations could be sued for license infringement, but they could not be sued for copyright, or patent, infringement because while they could license a copyright, or patent they could not be issued a copyright, or patent.

In the case where there are multiple holders of a copyright or patent, it should take only a two thirds supermajority of those holders to issue a license. This would prevent a single copyright, or patent, holder from being able to block the actions of other holders of that same copyright or patent.

All licenses should require that the copyright, or patent, IP is available during that specified time period. If the IP is not available to others, or is not used by the license holder, during that period, any license would be terminated. Thus corporations could not buy up and prevent patents from being sold or used, and streaming platforms could not delete copyrighted material from their sites, effectively making them unavailable to all other parties.

Pythagoras' Theorem

 

The Boy Next Door

The boy next door
I just adore him
So I can't ignore him
The boy next door

If you adore something, then you can’t ignore that something!

In checking on the internet, I am not the first engineering student who could not get his head around the concept of ignoring the imaginary portion of solutions involving AC currents. I was always taught that ignoring something does not make that something go away. I could not bring myself to ignore the imaginary portion, so I ignored electrical engineering. In hindsight, maybe I should have not ignored anything.

The solution for a hypotenuse in Euclidean geometry, Pythagoras’ Theorem, is c=√(a²+b²) which is true because cos²(x)+sin²(x)=1.  But this is only true on a flat surface.  The solution on a spherical surface is cos(c/R)=cos(a/R)*cos(b/R) where R is the radius of that spherical surface, and the solution on a hyperbolic surface is cosh(c)=cosh(a)*cosh(b).  But cosh(i*x)=cos(x)+i*sin(x).  This means that the hypotenuse on a hyperbolic surface can be restated, rotated by 90 degrees, since cosh(x) = cosh(ix) rotated by 90 degrees,  as 

cosh(c/R)-i*sin(i*c/R)=cosh(a/R)*cosh(b/R)
                                           -i*cosh(a/R)*sin(i*b/R)
                                           -i*cosh(b/R)*sin(i*a/R)
                                          +sin(i*a/R)*sin(i*b/R).

The limit as R→∞ because sin(0)= 0, is

Cosh(c)-i*sin(i*0)=cosh(a)*cosh(b)-i*cosh(a)*sin(i*0)-i*cosh(b)*sin(i*0)+sin(i*0)*sin(i*0)

Because cos²(x)+sin²(x)=1, it is also true that sin(x)=√(1-cos²(x)). Thus all three formulae for the different surfaces are the same, and Pythagoras’ Theorem is merely the case of ignoring the imaginary components when R→∞.  This is also why, when a²+b² is negative, the solution to Pythagoras’ Theorem becomes imaginary. They said on the Chiffon Margarine TV commercial when I was growing up, ”It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!”.  It is apparently not nice to ignore her either!

Conservatives

 

Life Begins at Forty

Conservative or sporty, it's not until you're forty
That you learn the how and why and the what and when
In the twenties and the thirties you want your love in large amounts
But after you reach forty, it's the quality that counts

Can we take back the word conservative.

I am well past forty, but I don’t think I am the opposite of sporty. Nothing should ever be defined by being an opposite. Saying that conservatives own the libs, tries to say that everyone who is not a liberal must be a conservative. I am not sure that is the case. Both Liberals and old time Conservatives believe in government. It used to be that Conservatives also believed in limited government, because the sovereign in the US Constitution is the People, but the government must be composed of individuals, People, might be well intention, but the road to you-know-where is paved with good intentions. Conservatives also believe in Lord Acton’s maxim that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  For both reasons, conservatives believe that government should be limited, so as to best avoid well intentioned but misguided actions, and because the less power the government has, the less corrupt it is likely to be.

But being in favor of limited government does NOT mean being in favor of no government. Especially when those in favor of no government really mean that they only support themselves and are in favor of government when the government agrees with them, or they control the government. It is the difference between geometric and exponential behavior. Approaching zero, but never getting to zero is exponential behavior. Eventually reaching zero is geometric behavior. Conservatives have been deceived into thinking that since they believe in limited government they are the allies of those who believe in no government. It is possible to support mercy, show tolerance, and support pluralism without favoring no government. Conservatives used to have a cautious regard for the impact on the future, “First, do no harm”, not no consideration of the future, “Après nous, la deluge.”  There is a difference between cautious action and no action. A conservative used to jokingly be called a liberal who got old, moved to the suburbs, and took out a mortgage. In reality conservatives can be any age. An election between conservatives and liberals should be about representing all of the people, not winning against liberals so that you can rule the people.

Normal II

 

The First Commandment

I am the lord, I am your God.
I am the Lord, the only God.
I am the Truth, I am the Life
I am the Way, the only Way.
You shall have no other gods before me.

Do YOU believe in the commandments?

"I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me”.  Kind of definitive isn’t it. There is  “God” vs. “no God”, but there is NOT“Good” vs. “Evil”.  That would imply that there are two gods.  Thus the choice is between 0, “No God” and 1, “God”, not between -1, “Evil” and 1, “Good

And that makes all of the difference mathematically.  Before a “Come to Jesus Moment”, μ, when you are saved, you can be 0, but you can not be -1.  This requires that the mean of choice, μ, is 0.5, not 0.0; the median of choice, CDF(μ) is 50%, not 100%; and the mode of choice is also 50%, not 100%.

There is also the problem that those who believe in Good vs. Evil also seem to believe that there is no variance, whose square root is standard deviation.  If we live in a universe where the choices are 0 and 1, then the range of choices, the difference between the mean and the actual choices, s, is 0.5. If random events follow a logistics distribution, a hyperbolic secant squared distribution, then the variance, σ², is s²π²/3, which means that the square root of the variance, σ, is s*π/√3 and the universe of random events is  hyperbolic.  If s =.5, then this means that the standard deviation, σ, is .5*π/√3=0.9069.  In a normal distribution (a mathematical term, not a judgmental term) the choice which ordinarily happens at the mean can happen as early as μ-3*σ and as a late as μ+3*σ and its cumulative choice, CDF, would be 1 at infinity and 0 at negative infinity.  While it is true that having a standard deviation of 0 also has a CDF of 0 at -∞ and a CDF of 1 at +∞, but having a variance of zero does not satisfy the 68/95/99 rule and is thus NOT normal.

Reality TV

 

Tryin' To Make It Real, Compared To What?

I love the lie and lie the love
A-Hangin' on, with push and shove
Possession is the motivation
That is hangin' up the God-damn nation
Looks like we always end up in a rut (everybody now!)
Tryin' to make it real, compared to what? C'mon baby!

REALity TV, compared to what?

With the WGA on strike, the broadcast TV networks are getting set for a fall season with lots of Reality TV. At least that is what they, and a former president who was a Reality TV star, call it. A better name is UNSCRIPTED, because it is anything but REAL.

I once had the opportunity to attend a taping of Deal or No Deal, a reality TV game show. I wish it was in the first two seasons when Meghan Markle was a briefcase model, because that would make a better story, but it was in a later season. What you see on TV is anything but what is real.

What was broadcast on the TV screen was the unexpected appearance of the loved ones of the contestants in the audience. In reality, the people in those seats were removed and the loved ones were seated for just that shot. The contestant was so excited and hyper when the cameras were rolling. When the cameras stopped, that hyper, excited contestant sat passively and did not move. The one-hour show which was broadcast became a 4-hour ordeal to record, and when those originally in the audience started leaving, the remaining audience members were herded into their empty seats so only shots with no empty seats would be shown on camera. What you see is NOT what is real. What you see is what the producers want you to see.

Public Goods

 

Return To Sender

Return to sender, address unknown
No such number, no such zone
We had a quarrel, a lover's spat
I write I'm sorry, but my letter keeps coming back

Th US Postal Service will return to sender, but an email site?

I have an email address that my family ghosted. It was so inundated with spam, etc., that it became easier to just move to another company and another email address. But that original email address is still active all of these years later. And it is the email address that is on file with my college. I only found this out when I had to go back to that email site (I had to be verified by the company offering that email that I was who I said I was). In doing so I found hundreds of old emails from my college.

The college knows my post office address. When I move or change that address, mail gets forwarded for a time and then eventually it is retuned to sender. I am well aware of this because when my late father moved to a nursing home, he received forwarded letters for a time, but the sender eventually received a return to sender note.

And that is the difference between a public service, as provided by the US Postal Service, and a private company providing an email address. A public service can attempt to notify both parties when it is unable to complete a transaction, even when it makes no profit on that notice. A private company can not be expected to notify either party unless it is getting a profit for providing that service. Email addresses provided by a private company may look and feel like a public good, but they are still private goods, and unless those private goods make money they will not be offered. So no incentive to return to sender,

Tolerance III

 

The Rules of the Road

But that's how it goes,
You live and you learn,
The rules of the road.

So what are the rules?

Playing a game means following the rules of that game. There is a branch of study about playing games, Game Theory. It studies, subject to the rules, the best strategy for playing a game. Game Theory has demonstrated that there are different strategies for playing a game with only two‑players, than there is for a game with three-or-more players, (and that does NOT mean that there are not three‑players in most games. There is often an umpire to call balls and strikes, even if that umpire is merely the two players being honorable, and there is probably a league of potential opponents, making all of those games more than two-players). But the rules should only ensure that bad behavior is not rewarded if it is caught, not that there is no bad behavior.

There is a board game called Lie, Cheat and Steal. It is a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The object is to win even if that means lying, cheating, or stealing. The payout matrix for Player One on each move, the rules, where the payout matrix for Player Two is the oposite of this, effectively is:

Player One (rows)/Player Two	Not Lie, Cheat, or Steal	Lie, Cheat or Steal
Not Lie, Cheat or Steal	1	-2
Lie, Cheat or Steal	2	0

But there is a problem for society if this behavior is rewarded. If players Lie or Cheat, then transactions may not take place. If Stealing is allowed, then there is no incentive to ever produce anything because it may be stolen from you. To allow transactions to continue and to encourage production, society would prefer it if the payout matrix for Player One was:

Player One (rows)/Player Two	Not Lie, Cheat, or steal	Lie, Cheat or Steal
Not Lie, Cheat or Steal	1	0
Lie, Cheat or Steal	0	0

The payout matrix would be the same if the a constant were subtracted from every cell, for example, 

	Not Lie, Cheat, or steal	Lie, Cheat or Steal
Not Lie, Cheat or Steal	0	-1
Lie, Cheat or Steal	-1	-1

And that is why society has laws and trials. Those laws are not intended to PREVENT lying, cheating, or stealing. They are intended to NOT REWARD lying, cheating, stealing or other bad behavior, if and when it is caught. The penalties should be large enough such that being caught has to be considered when each player makes their choice.

IOW, dominance, winning at all costs, might be good for one player, but that win is not necessarily good for society. What is good for society, is tolerance, allowing, but not encouraging, any choice, i.e. making each game at least a three-player game. Any law which restricts choice even if that choice is to lie, cheat or steal, is bad, even if it is well intentioned.  But laws can be enacted to prevent rewarding bad choices.

Affirmative Action II

 

Working Class Hero

There's room at the top they are telling you still|
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
If you want to be like the folks on the hill
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be

Should the working class be opposed to Affirmative Action?

I have degrees from two of the Ivy Leagues. But, since I come from a working-class background, I could not afford tuition at either of these Ivy League Universities. I was only able to attend because of merit based scholarships.  I was a National Merit Scholar in high school and properly nerdy enough at my undergraduate college that I earned merit-based scholarships to graduate school.  This must mean that I am FOR a merit-based system and OPPOSED to affirmative action,  correct?  Nothing could be further from the truth.   https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2022/08/affirmative-action.html

Man is a group animal.  In the words of John Donne, “No Man is an Island”. It is the group that matters, not each individual in that group, whether that group is a club, a college, or a nation.   A merit based system is good for the individual and should be supported, but Affirmative Action is for the group, including every individual in that group, including the working class.

Left versus Right

 

It’s Alright With Me

It's the wrong time and the wrong place
Though your face is charming, it's the wrong face
It's not her face, but such a charming face
That it's all right with me

Is the left then wrong?

Left and Right to describe one’s politics only dates back to just prior to the French Revolution. At that time in the French National Assembly, the supporters of the King sat on the right and the supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Left and right, a binary, is not how normal politics should be described. A normal distribution does indeed have a left and right side, but most of the views are in the center.

Unfortunately right in other contexts means correct. And right-handed is "normal", while left-handed is not. And left is known as sinister in Latin. Thus the perception that the left is not normal and is sinister.

Ever wish there were another way to describe political positions than left and right?  Would it be better to describe it as User Optimal, UO, and System Optimal, SO. That is Individuals versus the Team? And wouldn’t it be even better to describe it in three dimensions: UO vs SO; Nature vs Nurture; Truth vs Fiction. ( and that last dimension is not mean to be disparaging, to be a slam. I prefer Fictional stories over Non-Fiction, but I also know that WWE wrestling is NOT Truth). Maybe Truth, Justice, and the American Way, otherwise known as  Certainty, Mercy and Pluralism?

Dimensions

 

The Twilight Zone

You are about to enter another dimension.
A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
A journey into a wondrous land of imagination.
Next stop, the Twilight Zone!

A dimension of the imagination?

Herman Minkowski realized that the special theory of relativity, introduced by his former student Albert Einstein,  could best be understood in a four-dimensional space, which has come to be known as "Minkowski spacetime", in which time and space are not separated, but combined in a four-dimensional space–time. Then special relativity can be effectively represented using an invariant constant which is equal to  x²+y²+z²-c²t^{2 .} or (x²+y²+z²)-c²t². Pythagoras’s Theorem is only the special case when eccentricity is equal to one and is only true for a flat surface. In case anyone needs a hint,
x²-y²= 1 is the formula for a hyperbola. Only if time OR space is equal to zero should this be solved using Pythagoras’s Theorem. Unfortunately, the Lorentz Transform solved it using Pythagoras’s Theorem.

Graphically, Minkowski space typically has been presented as a two dimensional graph where the three spatial dimensions: x, y and z; were combined into one dimension of space versus another dimension of time. But because the invariant constant involves squares, this should really be not solved for a flat, Euclidean, surface. It should be solved for a hyperbolic surface, and a third dimension should be added which is indeed one of imagination, based on the imaginary number, √-1. This cone of events should be plotted with dimensions of space, time, AND imagination. Hyperbolic functions of space and time only repeat in imaginary planes and would be a single function on a hyperbolic surface. E.g. Cosh(x) has a period of 2πi which repeats only in the imaginary plane. These other planes of the imagination can  be thought of as the multiverse, which is distinguished from the “real” plane on which we live. Using the three dimensions,  the event space would be two cones which intersect at the origin, the Big Bang, which is the opposite of Twilight Zone, where all imaginations are zero.  

Variance

 

Room to Move

May seem peculiar
How I think o' you
If you want me darlin'
Here's what you must do.
You gotta free me
'Cause I can't give the best
Unless I got room to move.

Does the universe give us room to move?

The universe is infinite and expanding. But because it allows us to be free, there is choice, it has a known variance, which should NOT be confused with its size. That variance allows for all of these choices to occur. If each choice is binary, e.g. heads/tails, true/false, the odds of each choice is 0.5 and statistics tells us that the variance of the universe must be s²π²/3. Because the odds of choice, s, are 50%, its variance is 0.91. If there was no choice then s would be 0, reflecting that there is only one outcome, i.e. only true, and the odds of deviating from that outcome is 0% and the variance would thus be zero. 

The universe in which we live has choice, and thus has to include all of those choices. At the point where the universe incudes all of those choices, there is a transition to a universe where the choice has already been made ( e.g. there is effectively no further choice). This point is the absolute as given by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. In the Theory of Relativity, the absolute is the speed of light. That is you can only approach an absolute, but you can not be an absolute. This describes exponential behavior. In Traffic Engineering, the approach is to the absolute which is capacity of a road. In Fluid Mechanics, it is the capacity of a channel. In Traffic Engineering, you are in a uncongested domain before reaching that capacity. In Fluid Mechanics you are in a laminar flow domain before you approach that capacity. It is suggested that the universe  in which we live is only the turbulent, chaotic, part of the domain where there is choice. There must be a transition to the orderly domain, which has a zero variance. But in both domains,  the universe is infinite so not only are we free in our domain, but in both domains we have room to move.

Good Intentions

 

Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

Baby, do you understand me now?
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive can always be an angel
When things go wrong I feel real bad.
I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions

C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were more than contemporaries and acquaintances.  They both belonged to a group they called the Inklings and thus supposedly read and commented on each others works while in progress.  J.R.R. Tolkien is the author who created The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and whose estate has authorized the Amazon series The Rings of Power.  C.S. Lewis is perhaps best known today for his Narnia series which contained  The Lion, the  Witch, and the Wardrobe.  But he is also the author of That Hideous Strength, the last volume of his Perelandra trilogy.

Both men lived through, and were deeply affected by, the hellish evils of WWI and WWII and the rise of fascism. Their works reflect this.  J.R.R. Tolkien also appears to be a strong believer in the monarchy, if not a Jacobite, who also believed in the battle of ultimate good and ultimate evil. He set his tale in a completely imaginary world.  C.S. Lewis appeared to be less of a monarchist, who appeared to believe that people were neither inherently good nor evil, but could be deceived to unknowingly support what later tuned out to be fascism. He also set his story as much as possible in the “real” world.  The “science” in the Perelandra trilogies is woefully out of date, and the theology is, being positive, at least imaginative.  But the lessons about having good intentions, but unknowingly supporting the evils of fascism, are unfortunately all too pertinent today.

Truth III

 

Battle Hymn of the Republic

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword
His Truth is marching on

Are you in favor of the Truth?

There seems to be a fixation that the Truth is about Dominance, while nothing could be further from the…doh….Truth. The Truth is about CERTAINTY, not DOMINANCE. A majority of the Supreme Court, a 5-4 decision, might be the truth, or it might merely be dominance. So how do we get it get to certainty?

The current judicial system provides the  answer. A uniramous jury has a certainty of 99.97%. That is because a unanimous jury verdict of guilty is only 1 of 4096 outcomes. (A unanimous verdict of NOT guilty is also only one of of 4096 outcomes.)  That jury verdict can not be completely certain due to statistics. Also that jury verdict might be only a false positive, which is why there are appeals, if: the evidence presented to the jury is false; the jury is biased and can not fairly judge the evidence; or there has been jury tampering. A criminal jury verdict of 7-5 is not only hung, a mistrial, it could only reflect dominance, not certainty.

Any verdict should be about Certainty, not Dominance. That is why Trial by Combat, which was never a part of Roman Law, the Law of Moses, the Code of Hammurabi, etc., is considered to be barbaric and has been all but eliminated. But requiring unanimity gives tremendous power to a single holdout. That holdout may require that their position, the lowest common denominator, be accepted by the group. But there is a way to get certainty, not dominance without requiring unanimity. Statistics provides an answer to this in the square root of the variance; and the Z-score, the justices in the dominant decision divided by the mean of those justices, expressed as a percentile.

A normal distribution follows the 68/95/99 rule. This means that 68% of the outcomes are found between the mean plus 1 Standard Deviation, the square root of the variance; 95% of the outcomes are found between the mean plus 2 Standard Deviations; and 99% of the values are found between the mean plus 3 Standard Deviations. A verdict from a single judge might be dominance or might be certainty. A normal distribution might require an infinite number of justices but there can not be an infinite number of justices making a decision. Assuming a normal distribution, 68% of the bench, would seem to be the desirable number of the justices to determine certainty rather than dominance. For a 9 justice Supreme Court, this would mean that no decision would be considered certain unless it had 68% of the Court. But 68% of 9 is 6.12 which, because justices are not fractions, would require a 7-2 decision, to have a certainty above 68%. 68% of ten justices, adding a justice to the current court, would be 6.8 which would also round to 7 justices. Thus to reflect certainty, rather than dominance, it is suggested that decisions should require 7 of 9 justices, include 94.0% of the outcomes; or 7 of 10 justices, include 91.9% of the outcomes. If one justice is removed from the Supreme Court, the mean would be 4, the median would be 4, but the mode would be evenly split between 3 AND 4. A dominant vote would require a 5-3 decision, which includes 89.4% of the outcomes, and that is its certainty. Or if two justices are removed from the current court so that there are seven justices, then the mean is 3.5, the median is 3.5, but the mode is 4. A 4-3 vote is not only dominant, but it also has a Z-score of 4/3.5. That reflects a certainty of  87.3%

If, politically, it would be difficult to remove justices from SCOTUS, it is recommended that a justice be added to SCOTUS and, that to reflect certainty, its decisions require 7 of the 10 justices on SCOTUS. It is also noted that a 10-member court could be split, 5-5 which would never reflect dominance. A 6-4 vote might merely reflect dominance, not  certainty.