[FRIAM] hidden

[Frank Wimberly]

Matrices that have no inverse are called "singular".  Would that word work
in this context?

The treatment of fibers, bundles, connections, etc. that I am familiar with
is in Baez's book Gauge Theory, Knots and Gravity.

Frank

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:40 AM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 5/19/20 4:55 PM, Jon Zingale wrote:
> > Doing so could be one meaningful way to interpret /tracing a thought/.
>
> Yes. While I don't fully grok the expansions from fibers to bundles/sheaf,
> what it evokes in my head seems coherent.
>
> > With regards to the discussion about our holographic surface, I could
> use more
> > clarification on the lossy/lossless property. I assume we agree that
> sorting is
> > not dual to shuffling. For instance, defining the type of a shuffling
> algorithm
> > does not require Ord <
> http://zvon.org/other/haskell/Outputprelude/Ord_c.html> to be a class
> constraint, where it /is/ required for sorting.
>
> I think whether shuffle is yet another ordering depends on what we mean by
> "random". But I don't want to devolve into metaphysical conversations about
> free will and whatnot. So, if we assume shuffle is ordered, just ordered
> mysteriously, then we can talk about loss sans metaphysics.
>
> > If we are claiming that the information found on our holographic surface
> is
> > complete, I would like to think we are claiming it to be lossless‡. At
> the end
> > of the day, it may be the case that we will never know the ontological
> status of
> > information reversibility through a black hole. Am I wrong about this?
> If our
> > holographic surface isn't reversible, is hashing perhaps a better
> analogy?
>
> To do complete justice to the steelman of the EricC/Nick claim, I think we
> do have to assert no loss. And invertibility of the transform(s) is the
> right way to think. But I *also* think, if we tried hard enough, we could
> get EricC/Nick to admit to some loss with the caveat that what's lost in
> that lossy transform is *irrelevant* somehow (EricC's use of "invalid" and
> yammerings about Wittgenstein >8^D). And since my point isn't to
> inadvertently create a *strawman* of their claim by making the steelman too
> ... well, steely, I'd like to allow for a lossy transform as well as a
> lossless transform. And, by extension, I'd like to allow both invertible
> and uninvertible transforms.
>
> That may well be important if the steelman turns out to be nothing *more*
> than metaphor. If all I'm doing is laying out a metaphor for privacy, then
> I'll lose interest pretty quick because what I'm *trying* to do is classify
> privacy. I want string comprehension to be in the same class as
> behaviorism. I don't want to draw super-flawed analogies between them.
>
> But the distinction ([non]invertibility) might very well help evaluate the
> believability of the steelman.
>
> > If in the limit of behavioral investigation we find no more semantic
> ambiguity than
> > the semantic ambiguities we experience when attempting to understand an
> others
> > language, [...]
>
> I don't think it is. I think there is a no-go lurking that is associated
> by EricS's recent mention of the student laughing because the insight was
> "at his elbow". And it's (somehow) associated with Necker cubes, paradigm
> shifts, and even a "loss of innocence" you see in people who've become
> cynical, the difference between work and play, "flow", etc. It's related
> (somehow) to the opportunity costs of using decoder X instead of decoder Y.
> As SteveS pointed out, one's participation in the landscape *changes* the
> landscape.
>
> This is fundamental to the steelman we're building. It's not merely
> epiphenomenal. By decoding the surface of the ... [ahem] ... "patient", you
> are *manipulating* the patient. You can see this directly in your worry
> about [ab]using Frank as our privacy touchstone.
>
> I wanted to set the stage for this in the formulation of 1st order privacy
> (by obscurity) by laying out the thing to decode side-by-side with the
> decoder, evoking a UTM where the tape contains both the computation and the
> description of the machine that can do the computation ... but I thought
> that would interfere with my main targets EricC and Nick. If they reject
> the steelman, then this becomes a tangent project of numbers, groups, and
> codes ... which is cool, but not what I intended [†].
>
> [†] I'd love to sit in on a read of Gentry's paper, though it'd all be
> over my head.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> -- --- .-. . .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200520/04cfc84a/attachment.html>