Monday, April 8, 2024

Filibuster

 

Mrs. Robinson 

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates' debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose 

A debate isn’t always losing 

The Senate filibuster has a noble purpose. It is to extend debate and allow minority positions to be articulated. However under the current rules, the filibuster has been used to prevent action, not to extend debate. I would propose that a motion to end debate is always in order. Unless a motion is then made for a SECRET vote to extend debate, the subject advances to the floor (e.g. extending debate becomes an opt out, not an opt in.)  If called for, a SECRET vote of a quorum of Senators, not a public vote along party lines would be taken. And given that there are only two parties in accordance with Duverger's Law, unless one party has a filibuster proof majority, a party vote can block an action if its votes is public and votes against the party are punished.  (In less technological times it was done with white and black balls in a jar, hence the phrase “blackballed”, so I think a modern accommodation could be made). 60 SECRET votes to extend debate (I might personally choose 68, the mean of 100 senators plus one Standard Deviation, but that is  merely the statistician in me showing) does not mean that there would be 60 votes in favor of the act, but the intent of the filibuster is to preserve debate, NOT to block the passage of acts.

Term Limits

 

I’m A Man

You think that I'm not human And my heart is made of stone But I never had no problems Cause my body's pretty strong I'm a man, yes, I am, and I can't help but love you so

When did you become a man?

Children and others may be considered to be wards of the state. They are counted in census and in apportioning representatives, but at some point, they may no longer be wards of the state. Thus a representative for them while them are a ward, e.g., a regent, should have a term that expires when they typically become of age. In the Jewish faith between the ages of 12 or 13,  you have a Bar (or Bat) Mitzvah and declare that “Today I am a (wo)man.” Restaurants and others have a children’s menu /price until typically the age of 12. The driving age is 16.The voting age is 18. The draft age is 18. The drinking age for alcohol is 21. The age of consent varies by state but is typically 16 to 18 years. So clearly there is some leeway on how long the term should be, but there seems to agreement that a regency is less than a lifetime and somewhere between 12 and 21 years.

Then why are some officers of the United States considered to be lifetime appointments. Every officer of the United States is merely a representative of the people, the sovereign f the United States. If elected legislative officers are for a definite term, and most executive officers serve at the pleasure of the elected term limited executive, then should not judicial and other officers also be for a defined term, not a lifetime appointment. To avoid political controversies in the nomination and approval process, that term should be long, for example 16 years, but it should NOT be for life. A lifetime appointment makes it possible for  the officer to be confused that they are more than just a representative. The group that is being represented might be immortal, or at least have a lifespan greater than any representative, but that officer is not immortal, or at least might have a life span less than the group. There is no reason that an officer should not be nominated for an additional term, barring constitutional issues, and service in one office should not prohibit anyone from serving in other offices, but every office ( legtisative, eceuruve AND judicial should be for a definite term because if you represent a man, that man is NOT immortal.)

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Regulations

 

This is Me

When the sharpest words wanna cut me down I'm gonna send a flood, gonna drown them out I am brave, I am bruised I am who I'm meant to be, this is me

Why did I do what I did?

I got into my field because I wanted to serve a group by explaining why large groups of individuals make the decisions they do.  See the first few episodes of Foundation on Apple TV+.  I wanted to be Hari Sheldon.  I learned at college that transportation played this game.

I also learned that it is never a binary choice.  It is a choice among at least three things.  Thus not unregulated capitalism versus only regulated communism, but give the group the choice of regulated capitalism. 

There are things that should be functions of the group, e.g. health care, prisons, education. etc., that should never be delegated to subgroups (e.g. corporations) without regulation.  Similarly there are things that are functions of subgroups, (e.g. individuals, clubs) such as free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom to asemble, voting rights, etc. that should never be delegated to the group without regulation. Delegating without regulating is stupid.  You should NEVER be offended because you are being regulated.  You are being regulated NOT because the group doesn't trust you.  You are being regulated because the group doesn't trust the other guy.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkcdU4gxU38

 

Saturday, April 6, 2024

Names

 

The Name Game

Shirley! Shirley, Shirley Bo-beer-ley Bo-an-an fanna Fo-fer-ley Fee-fi-mo.-Mer-ley Shirley!

“What's in a name?That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.”…..Or
“Her name was Magil, She called herself Lil, But everyone knew her as Nancy.”

If you look at my user profile, you will see my name is Daniel Beagan. My late father was also Daniel which meant that when I was very young, I was called “Little” Dan while my father was “Big” Dan. This lasted until I was a teenager, and it became obvious that I was going to be taller than my father. At that time while I was living at home, I was called Danny, a diminutive of Daniel, and my father was called Dan. It was not until I left home that I also became Dan. Beagan means “little” in Gaelic. That means when I was very young my name could be translated as Little Dan Little.

Daniel in Hebrew means God’s (-iel) Judge(Dan). Which means that my name translated is Little God’s Judge Little. Grammatically, it could be questioned as to whether the first Little modifies God while the second Little is a modifier of Judge. In order not to not be blasphemous. I prefer to think that little modifies judge in each instance. Which means that my name could be translated as God’s Little Judge. You hear that, Harlan Crow. Where is my bribe? Tens and twenties please!

Wrong, but Useful

 Think

I ain't no psychiatrist, I ain't no doctor with degrees But, it don't take too much high IQ's To see what you're doing to me.

I also ain’t no doctor with degrees, but Dr. Nash meet Pythagoras and Dr. Einstein

The two equations with which most people are familiar are probably: 

  • c2=a2+b2, Pythagoras’ Theorem for the hypotenuse of a right triangle; and
  • E=mc2, Einstein’s formula for energy. 

Most people are also aware that the c s in these equations are variables which represent different things: 

  • the hypotenuse in Pythagoras’ Theorem, and 
  • the speed of light in Einstein’s formula.

What most people do not realize, is that BOTH equations are actually for triangles: Pythagoras’ Theorem by definition, and Einstein’s formula as an outcome of its Triangle of Energy,             E= (mc2)2  = (mvc)2 + (m0c2)2. Further, if m=m0/ϒ, and the terms are simplified, then Einstein’s Triangle becomes ϒ2=1 - v2/c2. Both equations ignore any consideration of the imaginary plane. If they are treated as complex numbers and the imaginary plane has a coefficient of zero, they should be c2=a2+b2+02i and ϒ2=1 - v2/c2+ 02. Their solution on an elliptical or flat surface is the conventional c=√(a2+b2) and ϒ=√(1 - v2/c2). However on a hyperbolic surface there would be two solutions.            

c=ln(cosh( √(a2+b2)) ± sinh( √(a2+b2))), or ln(0 ± 2cosh( √(a2+b2)))
and     
c=ln(cosh(-√(a2+b2)) ± sinh(-√(a2+b2))), or ln(0 ± 2cosh(-√(a2+b2)))

for Pythagoras’s Theorem, and            

                               ϒ=ln(cosh( √(1 - v2/c2)) ± sinh( √(1 - v2/c2))), or ln(0 ± 2cosh( √(1 - v2/c2)))
                                                                               and     
                               ϒ=ln(cosh(-√(1 - v2/c2)) ± sinh(-√(1 - v2/c2))), or ln(0 ± 2cosh(-√(1 - v2/c2)))

for the factor of relativistic dilation, which is the Loretz Transform on a flat Euclidean Surface.

Since cosh(x) is an odd function, that is cosh(x)=cosh(-x), both solutions are the same and there is thus effectively only one solution. If at the origin of (0,0,0) there is also a rotation of the coefficient of the imaginary axis in the transformation of coordinates as a complex number, then according to Euler’s’ formula, the coefficients of the imaginary axis, sin(0) and sin(π) are both zero, but the coefficients of the real axis will be cos(0)=1 and cos(π)=-1.  Thus only with a rotation of the imaginary axis by π radians can a function pass though the origin from one sheet of a two-sheeted hyperboloid to the other sheet if this volume is formed by rotating a hyperbolic surface about the imaginary axis. It is proposed that any function passing through the origin from one sheet to the other requires a rotation by π radians at the origin. An input of zero for the natural logarithm, ln, has a value of 1. Thus the range of the solution for in the positive sheet of a two-sheet hyperboloid for Pythagoras’ Theorem is 1<c<1+ln(2cosh(√(a2+b2))) and for the  relativistic dilation factor is 1<ϒ<1+ln(2cosh(√(1-v2/c2))).   In the negative sheet for Pythagoras’ Theorem it is -1>c>-1-ln(2cosh(√(a2+b2))); and for the  relativistic dilation factor it is   -1>ϒ-1-ln(2cosh(√(1 - v2/c2))). The midpoint, average, of these ranges is in each sheet is, respectively, √(a2+b2) and √(1 - v2/c2) preceded by a  negative sign in the negative sheet and a positive sign in the positive sheet. From the perspective within each sheet, all values would be positive, including this midpoint average.

Assuming that the universe is a hyperbolic surface as proposed by Mabkhout (Mabkhout, 2012) appears reasonable and consistent with this analysis. Mabkhout proposes that if Einstein’s tensors  are re-solved for a hyperbolic surface, then there is no need to resort to Dark Energy or Dark Matter,  and the inflation after the Big Bang at the origin appears to be a consequence of the hyperbolic surface. He also proposes that the hyperbolic solutions are consistent with the age and size of the universe at large scales, and the Planck Energy and Planck Length at quantum scales. 

It is noted that a range, uncertainty (as in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle), also appears to be an outcome for the solution on a hyperbolic surface. Pythagoras’ Theorem and the Lorentz’s Transform are merely AVERAGES of the ranges of uncertainty required by the hyperbolic solutions. When the uncertainty in the solutions is small, then the values introduced by imagination can be ignored. However at a scale of 2/3 of the absolute, uncertainty becomes too large to be ignored. At 5/6 of the absolute, the average approximations of the midpoint of the ranges are no longer useful. 

The values of 2/3 and 5/6 are consistent with n individuals acting as a single system, called a Nash Equilibrium after mathematician John Nash. For a normal random function of the absolute, for example the hyperbolic secant squared, or logistics, distribution, the mean/median, µ, is one half of the absolute. Zero is that mean minus 3 Standard Deviations, σ.  Between 0 and µ-2σ there is a small value for the approximation and a large uncertainty. Between µ-2σ and µ+2σ are almost all of the solutions and the uncertainty causing an error from this approximation is small. Only between µ+2σ and µ+3σ, which if µ is ∞/2 and µ-3σ is zero, 1/∞, then µ+3σ is , the absolute, and σ=∞/6, is the approximation large and its error also large. A Nash Equilibrium again is n individuals acting as a system and almost all of those individuals, over 90 percent,  will be between µ-2σ and µ+2σ, in other words 2/3 of the absolute. While almost 5% of the individuals will be between zero and µ-2σ, the error will be large, but the approximation  will be very small. Only for the almost 5% of the individuals between µ+2σ and the absolute, i.e. 5/6 of the absolute, will the error be large, and the approximation also be large. Thus according to Nash, Pythagoras’s Theorem is correct over 90% of the time and when the values are less that 5/6 of the absolute, this approximation can be used. Pythagoras’ Theorem, like all models, may be wrong, but according to Nash it is useful. 

Works Cited

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

Thursday, April 4, 2024

Hope

 

Zing! Went The Strings Of My Heart

I still recall the thrill, guess I always will
I hope 'twill never depart
All nature seemed to be in perfect harmony
Zing! Went the strings of my heart

Do you HOPE, or are OPTIMISTIC, that the thrill will never depart?

The difference between Hope and Optimism is that Hope is outward looking for a group while Optimism is inward looking for an individual.  The saying "Those that can do, and those that can’t teach" is IMHO from a User Optimal, individual, perspective.  From a group, System Optimal, perspective it would be "Those who care only about themselves do, those who care about others teach." 

My native state, Rhode Island has a motto, featured on the state flag, of Hope.  The iconic Barack Obama print featured the word Hope.  Corinthians, 3:13 “Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love.”  Long live Hope.

Sunday, March 31, 2024

Polling III

 

Something

Something in the way she knows And all I have to do is think of her Something in the things she shows me I don't want to leave her now You know I believe and how

Do Something?

According to Game Theory in economics, it takes three players to form a perfect game.  (Yes it is seems like there are only two teams, but what about the refs?) N users can try to serve as a system, but the rule of three remains.  Let's call one third of the system "Do Something".  Let's call one third of the system "Burn Everything".  That means that any decisions will be up to that the remaining third.  Let's call them "Burn Some Things, but Keep Some Things" 

That means that any unbiased poll should at least be 44.4%, 1/3 + just under half of 1/3; and that same poll should be no more than 55.6%, 1/3 + just over half of 1/3.  I would not get to excited about any single political poll that shows less than 50%.  It is the trend which shows how that middle third is leaning that is important. A single poll for a single political event is no better than touting a horse race.  It is better to BE the house than to try to BEAT the house. 

But having said that anything can happen at a single political event, say on election day in November, this is my fantasy scenario.  The Democrats take the House of Representatives AND the White House, but the Republicans take the Senate by 51-49.  Bloodshed ensues as promised.  But the Electoral College meets, votes, and the combined House and Senate certifies.  But even though the Senate is controlled by Republicans, there is no deadlock in the ensuing years.  Either Senator Murkowski or Senator Collins change parties and become independents and caucus with the Democrats, making the Senate 50-50 and Vice President Harris goes back to breaking ties. Maybe both will switch parties and it becomes 51-49 the other way and VP Harris gets a rest.  Will I be betting on this?  Don't be silly.  Will I be surprised by this? Absolutely not.