Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue (maybe, sometimes)

In article <83c739e5-47be-437a-bde0-42ca3f0c5e4a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another approach is to think where you are going in advance, and
use a compass. =A0Such systematic forethought is rare in IT, but it
does happen.

On Jul 31, 5:23=A0pm, eug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eugene Miya) wrote:
A compass (magnetism) is an good important ordering tool.
Some mathematics (and simulation) are lucky to have order as a property.
The problem comes with combinatorics.
The problem with dark unstreet lit space is it's big. =A0Real big.
Other fields don't have the same kind of order (e.g., complex variables).

Presumably you are referring to analysis of functions of a complex
variable. I don't think I've ever encountered a more orderly field of
study. You can start with Cauchy, Weierstrass, or Riemann. The fact
that so many conclusions about integers fall out of studying
meromorphic functions is a bit of a surprise, but it's precisely that
sort of "surprise" that makes me suspicious of your analogies.

Axiomatic. I mean order in the mathematical sense. order != orderly.

Time to cite Eugene Wigner:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

"The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
Sciences"

Yes, a good paper. I understand why Pi is found in the example.
I have cited here myself.

One is tempted to write a parallel article: "The Unreasonable Failure
of Mathematics in Computer Science."

Do it.


I thought about a parable myself, just have not gone down to it.
Numerous others have considered parables as well.


If you're doing a problem in applied mathematics and the difficulties
magically yield as you proceed, you suspect you are on the right
track. If the difficulties only multiply, you suspect that you have
either made a mistake or chosen an unproductive line of attack. Many
of the difficulties in computer architecture have yielded, sometimes
in surprising ways. In the realm of supercomputers, though, that's
because the field has simply decided not to bother with the hard
stuff. The difficulties in software seem only to multiply with the
passage of time.

True, however, you are confusing a number of issues.
Your last sentence only multiplies as the code base increases.
The problems are still as basic as when Dave Kuck first started
documenting them. The problem was he got little support from the
hardware guys who had their own hard problems. I would not say that
they decide not to bother. It's closer to triage. They do what's
practical in an acceptable political window. In some cases it takes
years to get money. Similarly experimental apparatus have features
which have to be argued for in budgets. Some presumption exists that
once an infrastructure to build one expensive machine exists that maybe,
just perhaps maybe, someone else will want to buy more. That's not
always the case.

When you're on the right track, things work well. When your approach
is flawed, things just become more and more difficult. Which would
more accurately describe computer systems (especially networked
computer systems) of interest to the U.S. national security
establishment?

Well/right vs. flawed is too black and white (over simple).
I don't claim to speak for the NSA or DOD. I am merely an invited visitor
(w/o a clearance).

Computers may have suffered from the fault that they simply proved to
be too flexible and too immediately useful, leaving too little time to
get the foundations in order before a leaning tower of Pisa had been
built.

RU suggesting that their flexibility be held back and levels be mastered
before proceeding to the next level of complexity? Friends outside
computing (as well as inside) claim it's like taking mary jane (and you
then get hooked on harder drugs [more coomputing]).

Horse barn door. Out.

You've mentioned chemisty, and it has suffered from a related
problem. Making miraculous compounds was relatively easy.
Anticipating all the side-effects, especially for human health and
welfare, was another story.

Yep, somewhat.

--

Looking for an H-912 (container).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Still a puzzle to me, my crackpot label
    ... the modern math community, people who are a danger to that community, ... That's not a surprise. ... my mathematics is crap, and that person is going to get more mileage ... And they will die ignorantly, unbelieving, calling out to people they ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • The experience of surprise in mathematics
    ... genuinely experience the emotion of "surprise" when they learn about ... mathematical theorems, ... Is the actual definition of "surprise" in mathematics something like ... it generally enhances the lecture by making the result more ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The experience of surprise in mathematics
    ... reflect for a moment on what the human emotion of "surprise" means, ... mathematical theorems, ... Is the actual definition of "surprise" in mathematics something like ... I was a CS grad student auditing a complex analysis course. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The experience of surprise in mathematics
    ... What should be written is that "all complex functions f ... reflect for a moment on what the human emotion of "surprise" means, ... mathematical theorems, ... Is the actual definition of "surprise" in mathematics something like ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The experience of surprise in mathematics
    ... reflect for a moment on what the human emotion of "surprise" means, ... differentiable complex functions were analytic, ... mathematical theorems, ... Is the actual definition of "surprise" in mathematics something like ...
    (sci.math)