Math often precedes our discovery of its physical manifestation. Negative numbers were dismissed by the Babylonians, but find expression in nature as the charge on an electron, for example. Imaginary numbers were similarly dismissed, but seem to be intimately involved with the state of quantum particles...
The field of AI Planning, as presented in the Coursera class on the subject, didn't include math. Just programming logic. Nothing more than algebra needed.
The math of quantum physics generated the "insight" that the cosmological constant should be 10^120 larger than actually measured. So math is also responsible for "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
The Markov assumption which underlies modern statistical NLP is fundamentally flawed, as is admitted at the beginning and then ignored in NLP classes, because language has long-range dependencies. Also, language is (or can often be) a conscious process, whereas statistical NLP tries to treat it like a purely physical process.
"Faraday was an excellent experimentalist who conveyed his ideas in clear and simple language; his mathematical abilities, however, did not extend as far as trigonometry or any but the simplest algebra."
The Fed should use created money to help people directly instead of giving it to institutions. Give everyone the choice of a basic income, and hold challenges to stimulate the natural creativity most of us are born with. As long as we keep advancing knowledge and technology, we can create as much money as we want. The focus should be on increasing knowledge, not economics, because greater knowledge increases survival fitness the most, by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
Over the years, more and more non-immediate transactions - namely, the kind to be concluded some time in the future - adopted the indexing (or linkage) remedy. One of its first applications was in bank savings accounts. In order to prevent inflation resulting in a deterioration of the real value of their savings, depositors were assured that each deposit would be registered at its "value" (that is, the CPI rate) on that day. The deposit would be redeemed, when the time came, according to its "real value," as corrected by the rise of the index between the two dates. Soon after, interest accumulation was also linked in the same fashion.
[...]
The linkage system was very successful. In major economies around the world, consumers often feel the pinch of just 2-7% annual inflation. But Israelis, who had to deal with a much higher inflation rate, went about their business practically unaffected. For three and a half decades, their real income was protected by this index-linked mechanism. Furthermore, over this period the standard of living rose at an average rate of close to 4% annually.
When hyperinflation hit in the 1970s, the article continues:
However perfect, the linkage machine itself was fueling the fire of inflation at an increasing pace. As inflation evolved into hyperinflation, the price spiral was taking a toll on economic output. Dealing with daily linkage adjustments and their repercussions was draining the time and resources of households and businesses.
But what if "dealing with the daily linkage adjustments and their repercussions" was fully automated, so it didn't drain any time and resources? In other words, no one would have to worry about money except for computer programs, while we got on with our lives.
It's unfortunate how economists start out with the idea that trade-offs are a necessity, then design models that prove their assumption right.
A better solution: provide a basic income, and let each individual supplement it if they choose with these kinds of micro-gigs (or by pursuing their own projects, and/or by educating themselves in MOOCs, and/or by entering challenges from biz or govt).
Are you claiming that even within the region of applicability, you really know with absolute certainty what is going on? I suspect you are guilty of confirmation bias. The post to which you are responding didn't say theories can't be useful, just that at some level, all models are just that, models.
People should study what they want. Productivity increases mean we can provide for everyone with fewer people needed. That means we can easily afford a basic income, and challenges to stimulate individuals to unleash the native curiosity and creativity most of us are born with. We need to rethink pre-industrial age, feudal economics and understand that money is a tool that should benefit us, instead of a God demanding human sacrifice.
Why can't bitcoin mining do something with some knowledge value, like Seti@home tries to do? It seems that bitcoins base a currency on wasting energy. Which would seem to be contrary to the principles of a "Green" organization.
More government spending is exactly what we need. The "spending problem" is entirely psychological, the same sort of unreasonable and unsupported fear that led to the Iraq war ("they have WMDs!").
Government should create money to provide for the General Welfare.
"Not making money means consuming more in energy, resources and labor than you get in return. That in itself isn't good for the planet, or us uncultured swines."
Alternative energy is good for the planet and good for us. If business is too short-sighted to invest in it, then government should create the money to do it.
the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration determined that Chinese manufacturers had apparently dumped "massive" quantities of solar panels into the US market that were sold far more cheaply than US-made panels. According to the finding, the lower price was mainly because the panels were heavily subsidized by dozens of low-cost Chinese government loan programs and other subsidies.
Like the Chinese haven't already hacked into NASA's computers. This is like shutting the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Export controls just hurt little people by removing our access to knowledge. The big players like China already know how to get access.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't the scientists open source their research so that many eyes can find the potential bugs?
Isn't birth rate dropping fast in Europe? Fewer people, less need for food.
Math often precedes our discovery of its physical manifestation. Negative numbers were dismissed by the Babylonians, but find expression in nature as the charge on an electron, for example. Imaginary numbers were similarly dismissed, but seem to be intimately involved with the state of quantum particles...
The way to test intelligent design is to recreate it in the (computer) lab.
The field of AI Planning, as presented in the Coursera class on the subject, didn't include math. Just programming logic. Nothing more than algebra needed.
The math of quantum physics generated the "insight" that the cosmological constant should be 10^120 larger than actually measured. So math is also responsible for "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
The Markov assumption which underlies modern statistical NLP is fundamentally flawed, as is admitted at the beginning and then ignored in NLP classes, because language has long-range dependencies. Also, language is (or can often be) a conscious process, whereas statistical NLP tries to treat it like a purely physical process.
"Faraday was an excellent experimentalist who conveyed his ideas in clear and simple language; his mathematical abilities, however, did not extend as far as trigonometry or any but the simplest algebra."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
The Fed should use created money to help people directly instead of giving it to institutions. Give everyone the choice of a basic income, and hold challenges to stimulate the natural creativity most of us are born with. As long as we keep advancing knowledge and technology, we can create as much money as we want. The focus should be on increasing knowledge, not economics, because greater knowledge increases survival fitness the most, by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
Did you know that 50% of all gold inventories in the world today were mined since 1967? http://www.goldsheetlinks.com/production2.htm
Did you know that the US is the world's #3 producer of gold? http://www.goldsheetlinks.com/production.htm
Do you realize that the "inflation tax" has been far less than income tax rates?
The difference is that the metaphor is used to bring up images of using wheelbarrows to hold enough money to buy a loaf of bread (see http://www.mises.org/daily/1611 ). But if we just add zeros digitally and index everything, where's the problem? Consider Israel's experience: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/eco5.html :
When hyperinflation hit in the 1970s, the article continues:
But what if "dealing with the daily linkage adjustments and their repercussions" was fully automated, so it didn't drain any time and resources? In other words, no one would have to worry about money except for computer programs, while we got on with our lives.
Isn't the point of this story that it'll take more than a minute?
China uses its central control of its money supply to create money without attaching debt to it.
That day has been coming any day now! since the first administration when Hamilton assumed the states' war debts.
It's unfortunate how economists start out with the idea that trade-offs are a necessity, then design models that prove their assumption right.
A better solution: provide a basic income, and let each individual supplement it if they choose with these kinds of micro-gigs (or by pursuing their own projects, and/or by educating themselves in MOOCs, and/or by entering challenges from biz or govt).
Are you claiming that even within the region of applicability, you really know with absolute certainty what is going on? I suspect you are guilty of confirmation bias. The post to which you are responding didn't say theories can't be useful, just that at some level, all models are just that, models.
People should study what they want. Productivity increases mean we can provide for everyone with fewer people needed. That means we can easily afford a basic income, and challenges to stimulate individuals to unleash the native curiosity and creativity most of us are born with. We need to rethink pre-industrial age, feudal economics and understand that money is a tool that should benefit us, instead of a God demanding human sacrifice.
Actually issues are brought up in the class forums. I've had a few problems with videos not playing.
Why can't bitcoin mining do something with some knowledge value, like Seti@home tries to do? It seems that bitcoins base a currency on wasting energy. Which would seem to be contrary to the principles of a "Green" organization.
Government can, and should, create the money to further the General Welfare.
More government spending is exactly what we need. The "spending problem" is entirely psychological, the same sort of unreasonable and unsupported fear that led to the Iraq war ("they have WMDs!").
Government should create money to provide for the General Welfare.
"Not making money means consuming more in energy, resources and labor than you get in return. That in itself isn't good for the planet, or us uncultured swines."
Alternative energy is good for the planet and good for us. If business is too short-sighted to invest in it, then government should create the money to do it.
China's government subsidizes their solar companies to a much greater degree than the US does; that's why Solyndra couldn't compete.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0320/China-subsidized-solar-panels-US-finds.-Are-tariffs-the-right-response
Freenode, home of cyber-terrorists.
Like the Chinese haven't already hacked into NASA's computers. This is like shutting the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Export controls just hurt little people by removing our access to knowledge. The big players like China already know how to get access.