Comments for Notes http://naml.us/blog Geoffrey Irving Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:31:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 Comment on Rootstrikers conference summary by Geoffrey Irving http://naml.us/blog/2013/04/rootstrikers-conference-summary#comment-741 Geoffrey Irving Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:31:44 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=506#comment-741 <p>Well, I wouldn't say we're at the first such point, but it's definitely a critical one! There was actually a similar anticorruption turning point 100 years ago, when about 70% of the 1912 presidential election votes went to a Progressive candidate focused on attacking corruption (which included both Wilson on the left and Roosevelt on the right).</p> Well, I wouldn’t say we’re at the first such point, but it’s definitely a critical one! There was actually a similar anticorruption turning point 100 years ago, when about 70% of the 1912 presidential election votes went to a Progressive candidate focused on attacking corruption (which included both Wilson on the left and Roosevelt on the right).

]]> Comment on Rootstrikers conference summary by Lukas http://naml.us/blog/2013/04/rootstrikers-conference-summary#comment-739 Lukas Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:14:25 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=506#comment-739 <p>thanks for sharing. we realize and see the cracks in the system but are still not compelled to change (as a society) -- it seems we are in a strange bifocal point of history: for the first time we can actually choose whether to prolongue the status quo and watch it go down, or act and try to adapt!</p> thanks for sharing. we realize and see the cracks in the system but are still not compelled to change (as a society) — it seems we are in a strange bifocal point of history: for the first time we can actually choose whether to prolongue the status quo and watch it go down, or act and try to adapt!

]]> Comment on Inverse of a hash function by Geoffrey Irving http://naml.us/blog/2012/03/inverse-of-a-hash-function#comment-736 Geoffrey Irving Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:03:01 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=445#comment-736 <p>Yes, different integers map to different integers. That is part of what invertible means, and is implied by the existence of an inverse.</p> Yes, different integers map to different integers. That is part of what invertible means, and is implied by the existence of an inverse.

]]> Comment on Inverse of a hash function by Attractivechaos http://naml.us/blog/2012/03/inverse-of-a-hash-function#comment-728 Attractivechaos Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:38:40 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=445#comment-728 <p>For any two integers, does Wang's hash function always map the two to different integers, or there exists integers k!=l such that hash(k)=hash(l)? Do you know this? Thanks a lot!</p> For any two integers, does Wang’s hash function always map the two to different integers, or there exists integers k!=l such that hash(k)=hash(l)? Do you know this? Thanks a lot!

]]> Comment on Would anarchy work? by Will Ness http://naml.us/blog/2012/12/would-anarchy-work#comment-689 Will Ness Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:02:05 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=478#comment-689 <p>( also, a bit edited version at http://reasonresponsibilityandchoice.blogspot.com ).</p> ( also, a bit edited version at http://reasonresponsibilityandchoice.blogspot.com ).

]]> Comment on Would anarchy work? by Will Ness http://naml.us/blog/2012/12/would-anarchy-work#comment-688 Will Ness Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:39:57 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=478#comment-688 <p>I think the most important defining feature of society is its basic Ethics Axioms - core values. Esp. in anarchistic societies, where we do not want any coercion. Laws are fiction anyway if people do not want to abide by them. I have quite a few thoughts on the matter at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WillNess (forgive the childish language there). </p> <p>About direct democracy, I don't understand what do you mean by "scripted". </p> <p>I first saw this concept on John McCarthy's pages in the 90s ("Electronic Individual Voting", http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/politics/voting.html). He speaks of "delegating" your vote IIRC, just like you describe, reserving the ability to vote yourself whenever you so choose. </p> <p>I think this exactly turns the current democracy into one perpetual referendum system. This system should not be amenable by a majority vote; it should be regarded as Constitution, I think.</p> <p>I also think voting should be continuous, we should be able to change our vote at any time, not just once in 4 years. I elaborate a bit at the c2 page, including a simple anti-oscillation device.</p> <p>The <em>major</em> problem, as you say, is competency and good-will of each and every voter. You know that saying, as soon as the electorate discover they can vote money for themselves, the democracy ends. We might be witnesses to such process right now in Europe and the US. This is a real problem. One solution is selective/personal/ex-territorial citizenship (like in Snow Crash). It's pretty far out for sure.</p> I think the most important defining feature of society is its basic Ethics Axioms – core values. Esp. in anarchistic societies, where we do not want any coercion. Laws are fiction anyway if people do not want to abide by them. I have quite a few thoughts on the matter at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WillNess (forgive the childish language there).

About direct democracy, I don’t understand what do you mean by “scripted”.

I first saw this concept on John McCarthy’s pages in the 90s (“Electronic Individual Voting”, http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/politics/voting.html). He speaks of “delegating” your vote IIRC, just like you describe, reserving the ability to vote yourself whenever you so choose.

I think this exactly turns the current democracy into one perpetual referendum system. This system should not be amenable by a majority vote; it should be regarded as Constitution, I think.

I also think voting should be continuous, we should be able to change our vote at any time, not just once in 4 years. I elaborate a bit at the c2 page, including a simple anti-oscillation device.

The major problem, as you say, is competency and good-will of each and every voter. You know that saying, as soon as the electorate discover they can vote money for themselves, the democracy ends. We might be witnesses to such process right now in Europe and the US. This is a real problem. One solution is selective/personal/ex-territorial citizenship (like in Snow Crash). It’s pretty far out for sure.

]]> Comment on Sieving Primes 2 by Geoffrey Irving http://naml.us/blog/2009/01/sieving-primes-2#comment-687 Geoffrey Irving Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:03:49 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=127#comment-687 <p>Oh, right, I was foolishly confusing (3:) with [3..].</p> Oh, right, I was foolishly confusing (3:) with [3..].

]]> Comment on Sieving Primes 2 by Will Ness http://naml.us/blog/2009/01/sieving-primes-2#comment-686 Will Ness Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:39:32 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=127#comment-686 <p>No, no, the dot is just function composition operator. I don't know the complexity; I just measured the empirical orders of growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis<em>of</em>algorithms#Empirical<em>orders</em>of_growth . Also please note I'm measuring it in n primes produced. I do think it has an extra log factor; any "real" soE code must use random access, i.e. arrays; there's a package "arithmoi" that does that.</p> <p>BTW that paper misses the key reason for the inefficiency of the Turner's code: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8871918/849891 . The articles' code also makes the same error. Interesting to compare it with this: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10733621/849891 and http://code.activestate.com/recipes/117119.</p> <p>As for sets - M. O'Neill shows the Map-based code in the article, and states that the constant factors are too high. But really, <em>arrays</em> should be used, by the segment if need be.</p> <p>( btw I found you from the LtU thread http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3127#comment-45954 . )</p> No, no, the dot is just function composition operator. I don’t know the complexity; I just measured the empirical orders of growth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysisofalgorithms#Empiricalordersof_growth . Also please note I’m measuring it in n primes produced. I do think it has an extra log factor; any “real” soE code must use random access, i.e. arrays; there’s a package “arithmoi” that does that.

BTW that paper misses the key reason for the inefficiency of the Turner’s code: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8871918/849891 . The articles’ code also makes the same error. Interesting to compare it with this: http://stackoverflow.com/a/10733621/849891 and http://code.activestate.com/recipes/117119.

As for sets – M. O’Neill shows the Map-based code in the article, and states that the constant factors are too high. But really, arrays should be used, by the segment if need be.

( btw I found you from the LtU thread http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3127#comment-45954 . )

]]> Comment on Sieving Primes 2 by Geoffrey Irving http://naml.us/blog/2009/01/sieving-primes-2#comment-685 Geoffrey Irving Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:16:13 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=127#comment-685 <p>Extremely cool if it's indeed $O(n polylog n)$! Have you tried to work out the complexity analytically? Also, is that Type Directed Name Resolution? I wasn't aware they'd added that to the language.</p> <p>I really want to know the true complexity! It would be amazing if it actually hit the complexity of true Eratosthenes without extra log factors, since even one extra log factor lets you trivially simulate Eratosthenes with $O(log n)$ sets.</p> Extremely cool if it’s indeed O(npolylogn)! Have you tried to work out the complexity analytically? Also, is that Type Directed Name Resolution? I wasn’t aware they’d added that to the language.

I really want to know the true complexity! It would be amazing if it actually hit the complexity of true Eratosthenes without extra log factors, since even one extra log factor lets you trivially simulate Eratosthenes with O(logn) sets.

]]> Comment on Sieving Primes 2 by Will Ness http://naml.us/blog/2009/01/sieving-primes-2#comment-683 Will Ness Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:02:59 +0000 http://naml.us/blog/?p=127#comment-683 <p>Lastly, the original Turner's sieve is ~ n^2 (in "n" primes produced).</p> Lastly, the original Turner’s sieve is ~ n^2 (in “n” primes produced).

]]>