This is a temporary post so I can discuss the design tool with fmm, as trying to have a conversation across multiple threads is impossible.
45 thoughts on “FMM design tool post 1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
While that is true, a shared starting point is desirable. So when the tool starts, it has a demo ready to go. This is also desirable for other reasons. I.E. we start the tool and it behaves the same way for everybody initially.
So, please generate the initial dataset and post it in a couple of comments on this thread.
Another reason for wanting a starting dataset generated by you is this does not make much sense to me.
How “close” is close? Why is an EA needed? What does it do, specifically? Does your existing code do that work? Can’t you just move the string randomly for a bit? How much is too much?
Is the user supposed to know which strings are what before the test starts?
I don’t have access to the excel version of the tool today. I’ll see if I can grab something when I get back to the office next week.
peace
OMagain,
I asked a similar question lo these many moons ago:
fifthmonarchyman responded:
So the EA is an unnecessary flourish and I don’t think fifthmonarchyman knows what the whole process is supposed to model.
We are trying to create a string that is close to the “real” one but that is produced by an algorithmic process an EA is a great way to do this.
Patrick thinks that another approach would be simply to take the original string and vary it randomly by a certain percent.
I realize that (randomly very the original string by 20%) is an algorithm but it smells a little to arbitrarily “random” for my tastes.
The benefits of an EA is that we start with complete randomness and approach the target of original string as defined by the r squared.
We can stop at a predetermined value or continue to run to whatever r squared value we want.
It’s just a better way of judging closeness in my view
peace
Without any selection or generations, what do you think the difference between the two methods is, FMM?
I don’t think you should be allowed to call FMM a “design tool” and get away with it.
If it’s an EA, why would it lack selection or generations?
fifthmonarchyman,
Why? You’re just stopping when the new string is 20% different from the old string. It doesn’t matter how you get there.
Also keep in mind that I use this tool mainly to evaluate forecasting models.
I run my model and then see if I can distinguish the forecasted results from the actual data using the tool.
The metric that I generally use to evaluate regression equations is r squared. So I have two metrics that I can compare and contrast the binary one I get from the tool and the more established statistical one.
What I find interesting is that at times I have a very good model in terms of the r squared and at the same time I can easily distinguish it from the original data.
That is power of the tool
peace
You need to define what you mean by 20% different.
IMO Randomly varying 20% of the digits is not the same as varying all the digits until l I get an r squared of .8.
Another cool thing about this game is that we could try it both ways run a blind test and compare the results we get.
Ah science
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Here’s what you said was your approach:
Regardless if your metric is 20% difference or r square of 0.8, I don’t see how your use of an EA is necessary. Does it contribute anything that simply randomly flipping bits would not?
I think I sort of agree with Patrick but I think that flipping bits on the final string is missing the point. Generate a string at random and flip bits on it, including adding and subtracting characters. Or use an EA.
I could agree with that
peace
no.
You need to choose which string is the “real” one by looking at the moving graph . Then check your answer.
the buttons are supposed to turn green if you pick correctly
After a few repetitions you should be able to do this with ease and be correct every time. At that point you know the “form” of the string.
Hope that helps. Feel free to make any modifications you would like to make it all more elegant and user friendly
I do thank you for your work on this.
Coding is simply outside my wheelhouse and about as much fun as a root canal
peace
I love coding. I love it even more when given the time to do it the right way. But that rarely happens.
Red -> Green -> Refactor
Then it’s your turn next.
Here is an original string that we can use as a base line. It is data recorded from a industrial type process
51
55
57
63
66
69
72
73
75
75
76
74
74
80
77
78
76
76
75
75
75
80
80
80
82
83
83
80
83
84
82
83
84
83
84
83
83
81
81
82
82
78
78
77
80
79
76
77
78
78
77
79
80
81
83
83
72
73
73
72
70
69
69
67
64
67
69
71
72
77
78
79
79
80
81
83
84
84
85
85
85
85
84
85
84
86
87
87
87
85
85
85
84
82
82
83
84
83
83
84
85
85
84
83
81
82
82
84
86
85
85
86
86
84
84
84
84
83
82
83
83
82
79
79
80
80
79
76
77
77
78
78
79
79
80
80
82
83
83
83
83
82
84
84
85
85
84
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
86
83
83
83
83
84
84
83
83
83
83
83
81
78
69
70
71
72
74
74
70
70
71
69
70
71
71
72
74
72
70
69
70
71
71
67
66
69
69
70
70
71
72
73
74
74
73
75
76
79
80
80
82
81
80
82
82
84
84
Here is the same data set but randomized as to order
79
70
87
79
78
79
72
72
69
78
82
69
78
86
74
83
82
83
82
83
85
85
69
83
84
72
83
80
77
82
71
83
75
70
71
81
83
81
78
86
83
83
85
86
79
77
69
85
79
81
78
85
86
75
72
77
74
82
84
84
85
81
83
84
83
83
70
74
85
83
84
71
77
73
82
83
71
66
73
83
87
80
76
79
73
72
80
78
51
83
82
85
83
82
75
80
82
80
79
74
70
85
57
80
73
81
81
82
78
78
79
64
84
80
85
66
84
83
76
69
83
83
80
83
77
82
67
81
81
77
85
83
85
71
83
83
85
84
82
76
85
80
76
82
83
77
71
69
79
74
80
83
83
82
84
83
83
77
80
84
78
78
55
84
81
78
82
85
81
84
81
74
70
80
85
80
63
67
80
70
75
82
84
83
83
80
82
72
85
71
81
82
83
84
80
78
77
83
84
83
85
87
76
82
76
85
80
83
70
83
81
70
84
To obtain this string I started with the random order set and ran it through a crude EA untill the R squared was over .85
28
37
42
53
64
58
64
70
74
67
80
67
89
72
77
84
75
73
72
69
85
74
76
85
73
77
75
92
80
83
95
74
89
79
84
85
76
84
84
90
75
77
68
90
77
66
85
71
79
68
82
87
82
89
82
50
71
63
70
65
62
58
40
44
55
46
67
63
79
77
81
77
75
80
88
79
89
90
91
88
92
96
91
91
87
96
91
99
97
94
93
86
91
87
80
93
92
88
84
91
92
81
88
78
91
86
94
90
81
99
89
94
90
83
92
90
87
81
92
90
82
76
84
69
80
75
75
77
81
79
80
81
89
80
81
89
80
91
81
81
89
94
94
95
88
89
93
86
90
97
95
95
98
96
83
91
89
76
88
95
84
84
91
92
89
88
80
68
63
55
75
64
62
58
65
53
53
73
55
59
69
64
64
72
51
51
62
67
58
49
58
53
66
66
63
61
59
61
77
69
76
70
74
77
79
86
79
78
82
93
76
96
90
fifthmonarchyman,
Could you please use Pastebin or something similar (or at least put your data comma separated on one line) rather than spamming the board?
Finally at Patrick’s suggestion I began with the original string and randomly varied 20% of the digits with a number that fell between the min and max of the set as a whole
51
68
57
63
66
56
60
73
54
75
71
74
74
62
77
78
76
76
75
75
75
80
57
80
82
83
83
80
83
84
82
83
81
83
84
63
83
81
81
82
82
78
78
77
73
79
76
77
65
80
77
79
80
81
83
83
72
73
73
72
70
69
69
67
78
67
69
71
72
77
78
79
79
80
81
58
84
84
85
85
78
85
84
85
72
86
87
87
87
85
85
85
84
82
82
83
84
83
83
79
85
85
84
83
81
82
82
74
76
85
85
86
86
84
84
84
84
83
85
83
83
82
60
79
77
80
79
76
77
81
78
67
79
79
80
80
82
64
83
83
67
82
84
84
85
85
84
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
86
83
83
83
71
84
84
83
83
83
83
83
81
78
76
70
71
72
74
74
70
70
61
69
70
71
71
63
74
58
70
69
70
71
71
67
66
62
69
70
70
81
72
73
74
74
73
75
76
79
80
54
82
81
80
76
82
84
84
Sorry about that I’m done now
peace
thanks. I think. I’ll get back to you.
some food for thought while we wait for Omagain
http://www.nature.com/news/paradox-at-the-heart-of-mathematics-makes-physics-problem-unanswerable-1.18983
quote:
But the undecidability ‘at infinity’ means that even if the spectral gap is known for a certain finite-size lattice, it could change abruptly — from gapless to gapped or vice versa — when the size increases, even by just a single extra atom. And because it is “provably impossible” to predict when — or if — it will do so, Cubitt says, it will be difficult to draw general conclusions from experiments or simulations.
end quote:
peace
On that linked page, I read:
If that is so, then quantum physics has gone badly wrong.
I don’t suppose you could find a browser friendly way of formatting a string.
If I was Patrick I’d demand you put together OP with a detailed argument defending your claim or that you retract it immediately in face of Hitchens’ mighty razor.
But since I’m FMM I’ll just ask you how you know this
😉
peace
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is a very technical result about mathematical logic. It has no implications for finite logic, nor for empirical data. If it affects quantum physics, then quantum physics is not paying sufficient attention to empirical data.
Did you read the article?
quote:
For a finite chunk of 2D lattice, however, the computation always ends in a finite time, leading to a definite answer. At first sight, therefore, the result would seem to have little relation to the real world. Real materials are always finite, and their properties can be measured experimentally or simulated by computer.
But the undecidability ‘at infinity’ means that even if the spectral gap is known for a certain finite-size lattice, it could change abruptly — from gapless to gapped or vice versa — when the size increases, even by just a single extra atom.
end quote:
It seems that there are implications for at least some empirical questions
peace
Turtles all the way down.
Exactly
peace
Any implications are for the mathematical model, not for the empirical questions.
care to elaborate? perhaps by interacting with the paper
peace
No. Sometimes it isn’t worth the effort.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2586
Courtesy of BruceS
I completely agree. Thanks anyway
peace
Thanks a lot that was exactly what i was looking for
peace
The anticipation is killing me.
While we are waiting I would like to ask some advice
I’ve been compiling a list of some operational definitions that will be of use when OMagain completes his work on the game/tool done.
1) Should I post them here of should I start an OP?
2) should I post them now so we can flesh them out or wait till the game is ready to provide context?
peace
Hey Omagain
It’s been a couple of weeks, how is it going?
Is there any thing you need from me?
Did you get the game to work?
what did you think?
Are you able to distinguish a “real” string from a randomized copy and models that are close?
Peace
Over at UD WD400 said
quote:
There are plenty of programs that can be shown to halt or not. The halting problem only tells us that it’s not possible to generate a general solution. Likewise (as I understand it) the physics results tells there is no general solution that will allow us to predict arbitrarily small spectral gaps. That doesn’t mean specific solutions can’t be found.
end quote:
The difference between specific and general solutions is a big part of the point of the game.
peace
Making progress.
I am holding my breath.
Excellent,
I must admit it part of me is glad it is taking you a little time. It’s such a very simple gizmo that in my mind I imagined it could be whipped out in mere minutes.
I was feeling especially stupid when in reality it proved difficult for me to put together and share.
To see that it’s taking the Great OMagain a little time to produce it eases some of the inferiority complex I had ;-). Thanks again for the effort you are putting into this.
That being said I’m really excited to begin some hypothesis testing. It will be doubly rewarding for me since that folks from both sides of the fence had a hand in the endeavor.
thanks again
peace
Found the thread.
Cool I was getting paranoid.
I haven’t been so excited since I was a little kid. I’ve been doing lots of thinking about all this and I can’t wait to share.
I think we might finally have something that will move the discussion forward that both sides will agree on.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Sounds promising!