Growth

 

I’m A Loser

What have I done to deserve such a fate?
I realize I have left it too late
And so it's true pride comes before a fall
I'm telling you so that you won't lose all

I'm a loser
And I lost someone who's near to me
I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was a winner.

In a zero-sum game there are always winners and losers. A winner has more than 50% of the sum and a loser has less than 50% of the sum. In a game that is more than a zero-sum game, a game which allows growth, that does NOT have to be the case. The growth can be shared by both players of the game. In that case, they can both be winners. The previous winner can have all of his previous share and a percentage of the growth. Because that player has more than what he had previously, he is a winner. The previous loser can have all of his previous share plus the remaining share of the growth. In that case the second player is better off than he was before and is no longer a loser and is also a winner. Only if the previous winner takes more than his share of the growth plus his share of the previous sum will there be a winner and loser. If each player retains his previous share and gets a share of the growth then both players have more than their previous amount and they are both winners.

That is a reason for being against any zero-sum game. In a game where the previous share is retained and the growth is shared among the players, there are only winners with respect to the previous value. It is only if the growth is also considered to be a zero-sum game are there winners and losers. If the previous share is applied to growth then everyone is a winner.

The problem is if the game repeats and on each successive round the share of the growth is the share from the previous round, not from the initial round. Eventually all of the new growth  will belong to the “winner” and none of the growth will belong to the second player and thus that player will be a loser. But it is by definition NOT a zero-sum game because there was growth. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to assume that from the start it is NOT a zero-sum game.

Branding

 

Horse in Striped Pajamas

Look there daddy, do you see?
There's a horse in striped pajamas
No, that's not what it is at all
That's an animal people call a zebra
I see, but it still looks like a
Horse in striped pajamas to me

Whether you call it a "zebra" or "a horse in striped pajamas", it  is only branding!

I just completed a business meeting as a result of the 2024 Presidential election.  It was about rebranding the work to be marketed by our firm.  What was our firm's Resiliency and Sustainability work became rebranded as Redundancy and Emergency Planning.  Same work, just a different name.  What had been our firm's DEI, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, work became rebranded as Increasing Economic Opportunity.  Again same work, just a new name.  This is nothing new. What had been End-of-life Discussions became rebranded as Death Panels.  What had been an Estate Tax became rebranded as a Death Tax.  What had been Anti-Abortion became rebranded as Pro‑Life.  And that rebranding changes the perception of the action.  Who isn’t opposed to death and in favor of life!

When I was a state official, the state had agreed to pay for transportation improvements around the then new Gillette Stadium where the New England Patriots would play. I had to keep reminding the Chief Engineer to say the state was NOT adding new through highway lanes. Those would have been prohibited by the funding source.  But if we were merely adding auxiliary lanes, that would be allowed.  So whether you call him Father Zeus, or call him Jupiter (Zeus Pater?), what is in a name? A rose by any name would smell as sweet.  A name is NOT the attribute.  A name is a just the branding of an attribute.

Random

 

Stormy Weather

Don't know why
There's no sun up in the sky
Stormy weather
Since my man and I am not together
Keeps raining all of the time

Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.

Weather is a random event. Climate is a series of weather events. We can’t do anything about the weather. We can do something about the climate. It is like a card game at an honest casino. The casino has no control over the outcome of the next deal of the game. They do, however, and get very rich, in setting the house rules and odds for that game.

Everything is random. As much as we world like certainty, an honest person will realize that everything is random, and is not certain at all. And that should be liberating, not upsetting. If everything is random then your winning is not destiny or because you are good. It is because you were lucky. Similarly if you lose, it also is because it was random. It was not destiny or because you were bad. It is because you were unlucky this time, but maybe you will be lucky the next time. Things being random should make you humble, make you accepting, and make you hopeful. Go forth, play the game, and be lucky.

Commandments?

 

Don’t Stand to Close to Me

Loose talk in the classroom
To hurt they try and try
Strong words in the staff room
The accusations fly
It's no use, he sees her
He starts to shake and cough
Just like the old man in
That book by Nabokov
Don't stand, don't stand
Don’t stand so close to me. 

Is this a commandment or a warning? 

When a toddler hears “ Don’t touch the hot stove”, he may interpret that as a commandment. If the statement is given with the toddler’s safety in mind, with love, it can be a warning that the toddler will not like the consequences of touching a hot stove. The salient point is the consequences of the action. If touching the hot stove will cause harm to the toddler, then it should be taken as a warning, not a commandment. If touching the hot stove will cause no harm to the toddler, then it is correctly taken as a commandment. On this basis the Ten Commandments are more properly the Ten Warnings. No harm can befall an absolute by the action of a human who is far less than an absolute. Killing, stealing, lying, oath breaking, coveting, etc. do NOT cause harm to the absolute, thus they are more properly warnings rather than commands. Do not eat from the tree of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden which would make you an absolute and there is only one absolute, and you are NOT an absolute is a warning because of the consequences, not a commandment. Don’t stand to close to an absolute is a warning, not a commandment, because of what may happen when you do. A commandment is meant to control. A warning is NOT meant to control. Grow up and listen.

Patience

I Want It All

It ain't much I'm asking, if you want the truth
Here's to the future
Hear the cry of youth (hear the cry of youth) (hear the cry of youth)
I want it all, I want it all, I want it all and I want it now.

But some things take time

Wanting it all and wanting it now is childish.  Patience (not expecting that you CAN have it all and have it NOW) is something that we try to teach our students.  The rule is that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at anything.  There is an old joke of a pedestrian asking for directions on the streets of New York, ” How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” The punchline is “Practice, Practice, Practice.” The joke being mistaking being on the stage with being in the audience. The original construction of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris began in 1163 but it was not completed until 1260 almost 100 years later.  An oak tree requires almost 40 to 60 years to mature.  A baby takes years to reach adulthood.

If someone, a con man, promises you an easy way, a shortcut, he may not be telling the truth, and may be only trying to take advantage of you. If you want it all, and you want it now, you may find that you get nothing at all and the cnon man may get what you do have.  And that IS the Truth even if it is inconvenient.

Post Election 2024 II

 

A Day in the Life 

I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well, I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph 

Which news did you read? 

I made a prediction according to Game Theory, that in the Nov 5th election that  2/3 of the voters would be able to determine the winner in “regulation time”  and would favor Republican policies by 60% to 40% and 1/3 of the voters would go to a tie breaker which would be the character of the candidate. Given that the total popular vote was 50.3% for the Danaid Trump, the Republican candidate, that means that tie breaking voters preferred the character of that candidate over any opponent by 30.9% to 69.1%.  Given that this candidate was a convicted felon, was fined because of racial bias in renting his apartments, has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, his charities were suspended for being used for personal use,  swindled those attending his University, was a civilly convicted as being a rapist,  opposed by those who served with him, etc., it is surprising that this was as high as 30.9% and not 0.0%. 

The problem is that the voters depend on the trusted opinions of others to judge character when they vote.  Many of those trusted sources either did not carry news applicable to the candidate's character (Fox News, News Max, One America News, Breitbart, Sinclair, etc.) or if they did carry the news of behavior applicable to the candidate’s character either “sane-washed” his statements, or because of fear of reprisals,  a misplaced sense of politeness, or taking the “high” road,  put that behavior in the best possible light. When the news goes dark, is it any wonder that darkness results.

Post-election 2024

 

I Will Survive.

No, not I, I will survive
Long as I know how to love
I know I'll stay alive
I've got my life to live
And all my love to give and
I will survive
I, I, I will survive

Sing it loud.

Before the November 5^th election I was prepared to start a blog post with the lyrics of Easter Hymn, The Strife is O’er. In the aftermath of the election I was prepared to start a blog post with lyrics of the Doors, This is the End. But that is behind me and I have calmed down. There is a difference between marginal and effective, relative and absolute, certainty and dominance, free and unpriced. Just because a majority of those voting got confused does not mean that there is no difference. But we will survive.

Lies

 

Sympathy for the Devil

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mm, yeah 

All that glitters is not gold.  And all that is gold does not glitter. 

The best lie is one that contains a glimmer of truth. Then it is not obvious to the listener that the statement is a lie.  Not all cops are criminals, and therefore not all sinners are saints, and heads is not tails. 

President Nixon famously said that “I am not a crook” and we wanted to believe him, and then came Watergate and we knew that he was a crook. Ronald Reagan started his career by “re-broadcasting” Chicago Cubs games, which meant that he added sound effects , etc. in orders that those listening to him on the radio did  not know he was merely reading updates of the game which he received by telegraph. Henry Kissinger believed that the "Enemy of our enemy is our friend" which is why our country supported Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, when they were fighting our enemies.  Barry Goldwater said that “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Except that moderation is always a virtue and extremism is always a vice.  Newt Gingrich become famous for the broadcasts of his  speeches on C-SPAN but what the camera did not show is that he was speaking to a mostly empty House Chamber. 

It is like the dialogue when Dorothy discovers that the Wizard of Oz is a fraud. She says  “I think you are a very bad man” to which the Wizard replies, “I'm really a very good man, but I'm a very bad Wizard, I must admit”.  When voting today, remember that you are voting for a good man, not a good wizard.

Revenge

 

I Wanna Be Around

I want to be around to see how he does it when he breaks your heart to bits,
Let's see if the puzzle fits, so fine,
And that's when I'll discover that revenge is sweet,
As I sit there applauding from a front row seat.

Revenge may be sweet, but is it correct?

“I am your retribution”-  Donald Trump, CPAC convention, March 2023

“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. - Romans 12: 19

So which one do you believe? It sounds like revenge is something that God reserves for himself. Is Donald Trump God?😝

Isn’t that violating the First commandment. “I am the Lord thy God, you shall not have strange gods before me.” You have to give Donald Trump credit. And here I thought he was trying to violate all of the Ten Commandments. He bears false witness, covets, commits adultery, steals, etc. I guess he IS obeying the Fourth Commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother.”  Considering that:

• Donald’s father, Fred, was a slum lord, who was arrested for attending a KKK rally, who cheated at taxes, paid a fine for discriminating in rentals of his apartments, and who pretended to be Swedish after WWII, and 
• Donald's paternal grandfather, Friedrich, who died of the Spanish Flu in 1920 not during the WWI years as Donald claimed, emigrated from Bavaria to the US to evade Bavarian military service, made his fortune in America by running brothels, returned to Bavaria after he married, and was promptly exiled from Bavaria for previously evading their draft,.  

Donald Trump might be violating almost all of the Ten Commandments,  but why did he have to pick this one to obey?

Tolerance

 

tolerate it

I wait by the door like I'm just a kid
Use my best colors for your portrait
Lay the table with the fancy shit
And watch you tolerate it
If it's all in my head tell me now
Tell me I've got it wrong somehow
I know my love should be celebrated
But you tolerate it

Tolerance is uncertainty, NOT error!

I learned statistics as an Engineer, and what statisticians call Standard Deviation, SD, I was trained to call Tolerance.  The problem is that in this case deviation does NOT mean error, so it is IMHO bad branding. 

Let’s use a fair game of craps as an example.  The Mean/Median/Mode is a roll of 7, but the possible rolls are from 2 to 12.  The tolerance is the highest roll minus the mean roll divided by 3 or (12-7)/3= 1.67. The variance is 1.67 squared, or 2.77.

The error and the tolerance, SD, have NOTHING to do with each other.  The error is 0 because it is a fair game.  The standard deviation is NOT zero because while it is a fair game it is an uncertain game, a game of chance. 

·       The mean plus one tolerance is 8.67.  To be a "normal" distribution  it should have 68% of the outcomes.  It has rolls of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8  which are 31 of the 36 outcomes or 86%.

·        The mean plus two tolerances is 10.33. To be a "normal" distribution it  should have 95% of the outcomes. That means rolls of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 which are 33 of the 36 outcomes or 92%. 

·        The means plus three tolerances is 12.To be a "normal" distribution it should have 99% of the outcomes. That means 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12  which are 36 of the 36 outcomes or 100%.

Only if there is no chance, is there no error.  So a sample can be correct, in that it is certain, but that does not mean that its standard error is zero. Tolerance and error are as different as INtolerance and no error.   Don’t mistake error with uncertainty.  What is next? Mistaking median for mean? Are you trying to prove Disraeli's attribution by Twain: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics? Marginal tax rates for effective tax rates? Are you Reaganomics?   End of Life discussions for Death Panels.  Are you MAGA?  Bribes for gratuities? Are you the Supreme Court?

Preseservation

 

Old King Cole

Old King Cole
Was a merry old soul
And a merry old soul was he
He called for his pipe
He called for his bowl
He called for his fiddlers three.

There goes that THREE again!

I have stated before that I am a big proponent of the Rule of Three. As a monotheist, I apologize to my polytheist Hindu brethren, but I believe that the highest of the Hindu gods are the pantheon of three Gods: Brahma the Creator; Vishnu the Preserver; and Shiva the Destroyer and that they have something to teach us monotheists. Those three gods could respectively perhaps each have a catch phrase, “Do something”, “Do the right thing”, and “Throw the bums out.’  Brahma creates everything, but not everything is worth saving. Shiva wants to destroy everything, but not everything should be destroyed. Vishnu has to decide which things Brahma has created  should be preserved and protected from Shiva and which things Brahma has created should not be preserved and should be destroyed by Shiva.

Creation, Destruction, AND Preservation are the important to the world. All creation is not good. All destruction is not bad. Some things that are created are good, and they should be preserved. Some things that are created are bad, and they should be destroyed. Creation and destruction; good and bad; hard and soft, or any two extremes are only that, the extremes.  The wisdom is in the middle of those extremes, knowing what to preserve. “Do the right thing.”

Endorsements

 

The Sound of Silence

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

What is the motto of the Washington Post?

The motto of the Washington Post is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”  Journalism is supposed to ensure that the voters in a democracy have access to the truth. When the founding families of journalists controlled their own newspapers, it was a tradition that those newspapers would endorse candidates in elections. This may not be truth, but it was truth as seen by the editors and publishers of that newspaper. But as private venture capital has bought out the founding families of journalists, the new owners are reluctant to endorse any candidates in elections. It gets even worse when those owners are billionaires who have a lot to loose if they endorse a candidate who loses.

The LA Times, previously owned by the Chandler Family and now owned by billionaire Patrick Soon- Shiong declined to make an endorsement for president triggering the resignation of its editors. The Washington Post, previously owned by the  Meyer/Graham family and now owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos, also declined to make an endorsement for president, triggering a massive loss of its subscribers.  It is understandable that the billionaire owners wish not to offend the winning candidate in an election by endorsing the losing candidate. They also have a lot to lose. But not endorsing anyone, not speaking truth, is a coward’s way out. The U.S. Constitution has enshrined freedom of press as a basic right for our representative democracy. The People count on the press to tell the truth as they see it, regardless of the consequences. The saying “A coward dies a hundred deaths, a hero dies but once” applies here. Better to die once than to die a hundred times. Democracy will die if the journalists are afraid to publish the truth, to speak truth to power. The voters may count on the endorsement of those journalists.  Has “Democracy Dies in Darkness” become “Hello Darkness, My Old Friend”.

Intentions

 

Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood

You know, sometimes, baby, I'm so carefree
With a joy that's hard to hide
And then sometimes again it seems, that all I have is worry
And then you're bound to see my other side
But I'm just a soul
Whose intentions are good
Oh, Lord
                                                   Don’t let me be misunderstood                                                    

The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions. 

My college roommate sent me an article about minimum parking requirements in New York City.  So why are there minimum parking space requirements in the first place?  When you create a housing unit you probably create the demand for parking associated with that apartment, which is why there is a minimum.  That parking will either use public roads (e.g. curbside parking), or public parking, or will increase the demand for private parking. When the demand goes up but the supply does not, then the cost of existing parking, including illegal use of public spaces, will go up.  So minimum parking requirements are an attempt by government to deal with that, by requiring an increase in the supply.  But the unintended impact is to create more households with cars in the first place.  So the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As an aside,  I am a "Rockefeller" Republican.  It is because government response IMHO should be limited because while the intentions are good, their other impacts can be bad.  In the battle between NO Government/NO Taxes MAGA and the Big Government/High Taxes Liberals, I am in favor of SMALL government/LOW taxes.  This used to be my wing of the Republican Party.  I joined the New York City government after college to join the John Lindsey administration.  While not my department, while I was living there, NYC government tried to solve a problem.  NYC has no alleys like in Boston’s Back Bay in which to store trash and its containers.  The metal trash containers that they did have were noisy and leaky .  Lindsey thought plastic, smell-proof, trash bags stored in front of buildings until private trash haulers could pick them up solved a problem.  And the rats have LOVED it.  Good intention, bad result. IMHO the correct response is a limited (well-vetted) response in the first place, not NO response, or a BIG response.  Don't be misunderstood.

 

Work/life Balance

 

Stay Awake

Though the world is fast asleep
Though your pillow soft and deep
You're not sleepy as you seem
Stay awake, don't nod and dream
Stay awake, don't nod and dream

So how much sleep do you need?

We all need sleep. Following the rule of threes, one should expect to spend 1/3 of your life sleeping, 1/3 of your life working, and 1/3 f your life a leisure. Sleep is something that we need every day. One third of 24 hrs. is 8 hours of sleep per day, which sound like what the doctors order. During sleep our brains undergo various processes that help us consolidate out memories, regulate emotions and clear toxins. Lack of sleep can lead to irritability, anxiety, depression, and other mental illnesses. The inability to sleep even has a name, insomnia, and we speed vast amount of effort combating it.

Works and leisure get more complicated. They do NOT have to happen every day. In fact days without work, such as weekend, holidays, and vacations are expected. Every day is not a work day. We may spend 8 hours at hour during a work day, but we also spend on average 30 minutes each way commuting to, and from, work and have a lunch hour while at  work. That amounts to, on average, 10 hours per work day. If there are 52 week in a year and 5 work days a week, that amounts to 2,600 hours per year. Since  a year has 8,760 hours (365 times 24), thus 30% of a year is spent working. To this add in time during leisure spent thinking about work and you get to 1/3.  That means leisure should also be also be about 1/3 of the time.

The rule of three is also informative about retirement age,  child protection, and education. If life expectancy is 75 years, then you should expect that 1/3 of them should NOT be working years. From birth to about 20 we are being educated and getting ready for work. From retirement age to death we are not working. That means that retirement age should be should be on average near 70, (2/3 of 75 plus 20 years), after working for 50 years.    Pretending that we are instant experts is not a good thing.  It takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert and you are actually only working 8 hours a day, thus it should take 6 years (at 200 working days per year) to become an expert at something.

Whoever thought that 365/7/24 is a good thing! A work life balance, including time sleeping, and playing, being educated, and retired are important too! Pretending that we are instant experts is also not a good thing. And if you dream during the time spent awake too, all the better!

Absolutely VI

 

Let’s Hear it for the Boy

Let's hear it for the boy
Let's give the boy a hand
Let's hear it for my baby
You know you gotta understand
Oh, maybe he's no Romeo
But he's my lovin' one-man show
Oh, whoa-oa-oa
Let's hear it for the boy

And lets hear it for the tie.

In any contest between two parties there are three outcomes: win, loss AND tie.  We don’t often think about ties because so many contests have tie breakers such as: extra innings, sudden death, overtime, extra time, shoot outs, goal kicks, etc., so that those ties eventually become either wins or losses. But they were still ties in the first place.

It will be a tie if both  of those parties in the contest are NOT absolutes.  If one of the parties is an absolute, then the absolute should always win, or else it is not an absolute.  If both of the parties are absolutes, then what?  Then one of the absolutes must lose, which means that party can not be an absolute.  However, if there is only one absolute then that absolute can win every contest, because that absolute could only pay against another party who was not an absolute.

Thus the only way for Game Theory to be consistent with absolutes, is for there to be only one absolute.  Then that one absolute will always win, never tie. 

 

 

Imposssible II

 

Impossible

Impossible! But the world is full of zanies and fools
Who don't believe in sensible rules
And won't believe what sensible people say
And because these daft and dewy eyed dopes
Keep building up impossible hopes
Impossible things are happening every day!

I think the song means imPROBABLE.

If the odds are a million to one, not NO chance, that is the very definition of improbable but not impossible. This is because of how zero is treated and that relates to dominance and certainty. There are two types of zero, an absolute zero and a relative zero. An absolute zero is the absence of an absolute. A relative zero is the midpoint between two absolutes. They may look the same, but just as a human may not see any difference, while a computer makes a distinction between 0 and “0”, it is because of the absolute that there is a difference between dominance and certainty, although they may look the same.

Certainty is the probability of an outcome subtracted from 1. Dominance is when one party of an outcome is greater than any other party. Thus a zero as an absolute is different than a zero as a relative. If there are a positive integer number members of a group,  it can  only reflect certainty if the number of outcomes is also zero. The probability before any outcome is zero and the certainty is 100%. However the moment that there are any outcomes, the certainty by definition is always less than 100%, while the dominance is assured as long as one outcome for one party of the contest is greater than an other party of the same contest.

For example let’s assume that there are 9 members of a group, say the number of justices on the current supreme court. A 9-0 decision may appear certain but the moment the justices have made a decision it is no longer certain. That 9-0 decision is only one of 2⁹, 512, possible outcomes. The dominance of that 9-0 outcome is 100%, but the certainty is only 1-1/512=99.8%. An 8-1 decision also has a 100% dominance, but there are 9 possible outcomes that could give that 8-1 decision, so its certainty is 1-9/512, 98.24%. A 7-2 decision is still 100% dominant, but there are 36 possible outcomes that could be 7-2 making its certainty only 1-36/512, 92.97% even if it is 100% dominant. There are 84 possible outcomes, a certainty of 83.59% for a 6-3 decision, while it is still 100% dominant. There are 126 possible outcomes, a certainty of 75.39% for a 5-4 decision, while it is still 100% dominant. There are 256 possible outcomes for every remaining decision, a certainty of 50.0% while every one of those decisions is 0% dominant.

In any contest between two parties, where neither party is an absolute,  one of those parties may be dominant, but by definition that party can not be 100% certain. Dominance can be 100%, but that is NOT certainty. Lack of dominance does not determine that its is impossible, only that it is improbable.

Electoral College III

 

Sophisticated Lady

Educated lady with your college degree
Amazes me why you just can't see
Learned everything from your books on the shelf
But no one ever taught you how to think for yourself

You may be educated but are you electoral?

The sovereign of our country is "We the People" but the name of our country is the United States.  The President should be the choice of the people AND of the states.  The Electoral College is is a means of ensuring that the President is the choice of both.  It ensures that the choice has not only the support of the people.  but also a broad representation of the states.

Is the current system flawed? Absolutely.  The method of selection of Electoral College votes in Nebraska, with its famous "Blue Dot" instead of a "Winner takes all" means that the choice is one of both the people AND the state.  The attempt to change Nebraska's electoral policy on the eve of the current election is not only cynical, it shows how deeply flawed is the current system.  Every state should aspire to be like Nebraska, NOT Nebraska should aspire to be like every other state.

Are the 435 congressional-based electoral votes awarded to the states flawed?  Absolutely, but that number is not a feature of the Electoral College.  The number itself is NOT a constitutional requirement but the cowardly abandonment of the Congressional mandate to apportion seats after a decennial census that is based on a compromise after the 1910 Census.  A fairer way to apportion House seats would be the Wyoming Rule under which California would have 68, instead of 52, House of Representative seats and the total seats in the House would be 574 instead of 435.

The Electoral College Compact, that a state awards its votes to the winner of the national popular vote, ensures only that the President is the choice of the people, but that might not be the choice of the states.  The Electoral College is intended to be a means to ensure that the choice represents the people AND the states.  As wrong as it is for the loser of the popular vote but the winner of the Electoral College to be the President, it would also be wrong to see the winner of the popular vote but the loser of a revised Electoral College to be President. Two wrongs never make a right. It is possible that the winner of the presidential election could have a majority of the people but that support be concentrated in a narrow representation of states.  A revised Electoral College might prevent this from happening.

It is not the Electoral College that is flawed.  It is suggested that the number of votes in the Electoral College and the awarding of those votes on a "winner takes all" basis that is flawed.  As long as we are the United States then the President should be the choice of the people AND the states. 

That there are battleground states is evidence that the current system is flawed.  There should be battleground congressional districts.  The election should be not people OR states but people AND states. Countries that are divided, like Christians and Muslims in Lebanon, have other power sharing agreements that may only be customs which can be violated.  The Electoral College is an attempt to peacefully recognize and deal with those divisions in the law.

Absolutely V

 

Try

Try, try, try just a little bit harder
So I can love, love, love him, I tell myself
'Cause I'm gonna try, oh yeah, just a little bit harder

There is no Try.

With apologies to Yoda’s “Do or not Do. There is no Try”,  “Good or no Good. There is no Evil”.  Yoda was not saying that there is no such thing as trying. And the second statement is not saying that there is no such thing as evil.  What both statements are saying is that the choice is about an absolute.  Trying is not an absolute, neither is evil.  Thus the G.W. Bush and cronies' conception of the world as a battle of Good vs. Evil elevates Evil to that of an absolute.  There is only one absolute and that is Good. Good is not merely the absence of Evil, it is the presence of Good, which means that Evil is NOT an absolute.

Climate Change V

 

Cell Block Tango

He had it coming'
He had it coming'
He only had himself to blame
If you'd have been there
If you'd have heard it
I betcha you would have done the same

Nobody could have seen it coming?  Really?  Really?

G. W. Bush famously said that nobody could have foreseen the disaster in New Orleans caused by Hurricane Katrina and that he and FEMA Administrator Brown did a great job.  I beg to differ.  Katrina struck New Orleans on August 29, 2005.  I worked on a report for the US DOT, Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure- Gulf Coast Study, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, March 2008, which studied the impact of climate change on the Gulf Coast. It studied the impact of hurricanes, their wind, rain, and storm surges, as well as sea level rises in the coastal areas of the United States from Mobile Bay, Alabama, to Galveston Bay, Texas.  That study and that geographic area were chosen in part because of an article in Scientific American, Drowning New Orleans, in the October 2001 issue which discussed the impact of a hurricane on the levees and dikes protecting New Orleans.  Katrina accidentally provided a natural experiment with which to examine and validate those methods in our study.  Also Hurricane Rita struck Houston and Galveston on September 24, 2005.  By that time evacuation plans had been developed for Houston and the success of those evacuation plans could also be evaluated.

Could anyone have predicted the date and the hour in which a hurricane would strike? No, but the impacts were known in advance. The impacts of Katrina were very much in keeping with the article in Scientific American less than 4 years earlier.  The evacuation plan for Houston called for the orderly, timed evacuation of the city in only 1 vehicle per household.  A meeting was held to evaluate the findings of the study which included the very persons who prepared the evacuation plan for Houston.  They admitted that they also had to evacuate but they used every car in their households, as many as 3 cars per household, as soon as the evacuation of any geography had begun, without waiting for their turn just like everyone else. It is any wonder that the roads during the evacuation were jammed.  IOW do as I say, not as I do.  Great job, Brownie!!! You are not to blame!!!!

Quadratic

 

Zero, My Hero

What's so wonderful about a zero? It's nothing, isn't it?
Sure, it represents nothing alone
But place a zero after one, and you've got yourself a ten
See how important that is?
When you run out of digits, you can start all over again
See how convenient that is?
That's why with only ten digits including zero
You can count as high as you could ever go
Forever, towards infinity
No one ever gets there, but you could try 

Zero is even more important than that! 

In a previous blog post  https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2024/10/absolute-zero.html I suggested that zero as the coefficient of the imaginary part of a complex number on a hyperbolic surface is important.

The solution  of quadratic equation ax²+bx+c is typically given as x=(-b±√(b²-4ac))/(2a) if x is a real number or if x is a complex number on a Euclidean, flat, surface.  However if x is the real part of a complex number on a non-Euclidean hyperbolic surface then the quadratic equation is really ax²+bx+c+0²i and its solution is x=ln(cosh((-b±√(b²-4a*c))/(2a))±sinh((-b±√(b²-4a*c))/(2a))). Then if b²‑4a*c is negative, and its square root is imaginary, since the solution of cosh(ki) is always real but the solution of sinh(ki) is always imaginary, the solution of x will be imaginary. This is true for the period of 5/6, 83.3%, of the solutions where the traditional solution of the quadratic equation is the approximation as well as  the period of the remaining 16.7%, 1/6, where the approximation no longer applies.

The approximation means that in this case the real part will itself contradictorily be a complex number, a+b*i+0²i. For the remaining 16.7%, 1/6, the approximation will be the negative of that complex number, while the hyperbolic solution will always give the correct complex number.

For other solutions where the imaginary coefficient should always be zero, the hyperbolic solution always applies. Thus the relativistic dilation is γ=ln(cosh(√(1-v^2/c²))±sinh(√(1-v^2/c²))); Pythagoras’ Theorem is c=ln(cosh(√(a²⁺b²))±sinh(√(a²⁺b²))); in statistics the coefficient of EVERY moment about the mean is 0 not just odd moments; the real radius, r,  of a complex number, x+y*i in Cartesian coordinates translated to polar coordinates, re^iθ, is  r=ln(cosh( (√(x²⁺y²))±sinh(√(x²⁺y²))), etc. 

Hyperbolic

Three Blind Mice 

Three blind mice, three blind mice
See how they run, see how they run
They all ran after the farmer's wife
She cut off their tails with a carving knife
Did you ever see such a sight in your life as three blind mice?

In addition to blind mice, what about Blind Men and the Elephant?

The Blind Men and the Elephant is an ancient Indian parable that has roots in Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain texts, that discussed the limits of perception, and the importance of complete context, and is a poem by John Godfrey Saxe. It is also the subject of the of illustration below.

This is the phenomena that is responsible for the flat Earth Fallacy. If you use only your own perception, the Earth looks Flat, even though the Earth is a sphere. Mathematically it would be described as being locally flat, but globally spherical. If we only use our local perception it looks flat. The issue is that we are so small compared to the radius of that sphere, that it looks flat, just as the surface of a beach ball would look flat to an ant on that beach ball.  Just like the blind men who mistook the elephant as being a spear, a snake, a rope, a fan, a tree, or wall depending on what part of the elephant they were perceiving, or as Saxe’s poem goes

So oft in theological wars,
    The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!

What we perceive as straight lines and parabolas might both only be parts of a hyperbola. A hyperbola looks like a straight line at great distances from its vertex and looks like a parabola close to its vertex. What we perceive as straight lines and parabolas in flat space might only be different parts of the same hyperbola……IOW space might be locally flat and universally hyperbolic.

That space is hyperbolic is NOT a unique idea. It was proposed by Mabkhout (Mabkhout, 2012). He pointed out that if space is hyperbolic and the Einstein field equations are solved in hyperbolic space, the need for dark matter and dark energy goes away. This is hardly the limit of this proposal. It has implications on mathematics, physics, statistics, EVERYTHING. Don’t be blind.

Mabkhout, S. (2012). The infinite distance horizon and the hyperbolic inflation in the hyperbolic universe. Phys. Essays, 25(1), p.112.

Again?

 

I Remember It Well

We met at 9
We met at 8
I was on time
No, you were late
Ah yes
I remember it well

MAGA? How well do you remember the past?

Memory is an opinion, not the Truth. That is why a jury of twelve peers is asked to judge the memory of trial witnesses, and still sometimes gets it wrong. It is why the memories of individuals can be different which is the plot of many movies such as Rashomon and the Last Duel. Memories get cloudy with age. Which is why old men since ancient Greek times have complained about the young.

What is evidence tomorrow might contradict the memory of yesterday. That is why hard evidence like written records are valued and why banning of books is so dangerous. The Texas Revolution which included the Alamo might have been fought over the ability of landowners to own slaves while the Mexican government was abolishing slavery. Wiping something from memory, such as the Tulsa Race Riot, does not mean that it did not happen, only that it is not remembered.

Before you rely on AGAIN, make sure that AGAIN is based on TRUTH and not merely on memory. Those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Patience

 

You Can’t Hurry Love

No, I can't bear to live my life alone
I grow impatient for a love to call my own
But when I feel that I, I can't go on
These precious words keeps me hanging on
I remember mama said
… No, you just have to wait
She said love don't come easy
It's a game of give and take

And remember to always listen to your Mama!

Goodness, we are an impatient species.  We want it right now.  But we have to remember to have patience, young padawan. You can’t hurry anything.  Being patient is NOT being boring. Settling for the first thing that comes along, not waiting to see if things change, picking the biggest thing instead of the most valuable thing shows immaturity.  Don’t be immature. Don’t hurry anything.

When I was young, comedian Alan Sherman had a hit record with Camp Granada, a parody set to the tune of the Dance of the Hours.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yFTOvO0utY.  He wrote the parody because he observed that when he sent his son to summer camp, his son wanted to come home immediately instead of giving it a chance, and his son would tell the most outrageous lies to get home.  Learning to wait, be patient, give things a chance, not to hurry anything, is just as valid today as it was when I was young.  Yes, Mama.

Election 2024 II

 

Its All In The Game

Many a tear has to fall but it's all in the game
All in the wonderful game that we know as love
You have words with him and your future's looking dim
But these things your hearts can rise above

An election is an important game, but it is still only a game.

What can Game Theory tell us about the results of an election? The outcome of any game between two equally matched contestants is win, loss AND tie. It is customary in most contests to employ some tiebreaker so that if the game ends in a tie, then it will still ultimately result  in a win or a loss. If there are two equally matched opponents it is probable that they will still have different policies and characters.

If Candidate 1 has policies that are preferred by 60% of the voters but has a character that is preferred by only 20% of the voters, then Candidate 2 must have the opposite. If wins and losses are determined by policies alone, then  Candidate 1 will win. However that is only 2/3 of the electorate. The remaining electorate, 1/3, will have to employ a tie breaker. If that tie breaker is character, then Candidate 1 will have a vote total of 47%, 60% of 2/3 plus 20% of 1/3,  while Candidate 2 will have a vote total of 53%, 40% of 2/3 plus 80% of 1/3. Candidate 2 will win. Candidate 1 may complain that only policies should have been the tie breaker or that ties should not count, but that is the math if character is the tie breaker.

That is the popular vote. The electoral vote depends on the outcome in each state weighed by its share of electoral votes. If the preference of each candidate’s policies and character differs among the electorate in each state, then the outcome in each state will be different.

The state share of electoral votes being “winner take all” is a custom only, not a constitutional requirement. If the House share of a state’s electoral votes are awarded by the vote in each House congressional district, as is the case in Nebraska, then the electoral vote will be more in keeping with the intent of the founding fathers. IOW all states should award electoral votes like Nebraska, not Nebraska should award votes by “winner takes all” like other states. Then the winning Candidate will have a majority of the voters AND broad representation among the United states.

In any event Candidate 2 should focus on character NOT policies, if character is the tie breaker. Focusing on policies alone plays to Candidate 1’s strength. Play the game correctly.

Absolute Zero

 

Key's in the Conch Shell

It's the third thatched roof on the right
Right beside crystal blue water
First wave of the day
Almost got away but my sail board caught her.

Let’s talk about that first wave.

There is a tendency to dismiss zero. But there are two kinds of zero, a relative zero and an absolute zero. An absolute zero CAN be dismissed, but a relative zero CAN NOT be dismissed. What is meant by a relative zero? Think of temperature. 0º Celsius ( 32º Fahrenheit for you non-STEM Americans) is the freezing point of water. But it is 273.15º on the absolute Kelvin temperature scale. The reason being that when measuring temperature on the Celsius scale, negative numbers are allowed. -40º Celsius means that it is cold, not that there is negative temperature. On an absolute scale there is no temperature less than zero. So there is a world of difference between a relative zero, e.g. 0º Celsius, and an absolute zero, e.g. 0º Kelvin. While it is convenient to act like ‑500º Celsius has a reality, in fact it is less than would be allowed on the Kelvin scale and thus is NOT real.

Why does this matter. A complex number is a+b*i. If b=0 is an absolute zero then it can be ignored and only the real coefficient, a, can be a concern. However if b=0 is a relative zero then it should NOT be ignored. This has a bearing on all forms of mathematics. This is because there are different solutions for linear regression, statistics, calculus, the quadratic equation, Pythagoras Theorem, relativistic dilation, etc. when that zero coefficient of an imaginary number is dropped or retained.

Pythagoras’s Theorem is c=√(a²+b²). This is true because c²=a²+b²+0²i where there is an absolute zero coefficient of the imaginary component of a complex number. But this needs imaginary solutions when a²+b² is negative. However if that zero is a relative zero and the surface is hyperbolic then the solution is c=ln(cosh(√((a²+b²))±sinh(√((a²+b²))) and no imagainary solutions are required. The hyperbolic solution is approximately √(a²+b²) most of the times that matter to us, 83.3%, 5/6, of the time. A hyperbolic solution when x is less than 16.7%, 1/6, away from the absolute will look like a parabola any way.  It is only as it nears the absolute that the approximation breaks down and it looks like a hyperbolic curved line that never approaches the absolute.

If the absolute is a wave, then it may be approximately true as you get further away from the start of that wave, even if that wave will infinitely repeat. However the approximation may break down in the first wave, before it repeats, where you are closest to the absolute. It is true that the solution to ln(cosh(x)±sinh(x)) is equal to both x and -x. However that is true only if x is larger than 1x10^-15 (at least according to Excel Microsoft Office 365 Apps version 2409)    Less than this value, the sharp discontinuity required by the approximation at x=0 appears to smooth out and the solutions are no longer equal. That first wave is different.