Smartphone and Tablet computers have a lot of technology in them and in fact can tell where you are, what network you connected to, the time of day and much much more.
I am endeavouring to identify opportunities to simplify my life to reverse the complexity of using these devices buy using automation principles to work for me. An Example would be my regular habit of turning the wifi or Bluetooth settings on or off. My main objective is to make my life simpler given the complexity is always increasing.
If we stand back and look at what we may automate we discover that triggering an automated process is desirable lest we build more complexity into out lives. Imagine at every step of your life trying to identify and start an automated process, it may very well be counter productive. So first I am looking at triggers.
Triggers may need to occur at a particular time of day, after or during some kind of activity or in different places. Some places move such as the location of your car but others such as home stay the same. Other items are common but when and where may vary such as a meal and some triggers could be time sensitive, if X happens between the hours of 6pm and 8pm.
On the whole automation needs to be dependable and tolerant of change and allow you to set and forget something because when we can depend on something we can forget it until it reminds us. We can forget the details and concern ourselves only with the Gist of it all, when we know we can detect an event and set an action then we can bundle all that may be required or even add a one off. Dependability can also be related to the order of events such as having bluetooth on before you arrive somewhere where blue tooth is used and a connection will be automatic. We also know that we have constraints, sure you could always have bluetooth always on, but it may thus use power all day for a only a half an hour use.
Of course with further development this can go a lot further and I will go there, one step at a time.
One of the problems I face daily is people putting things in the wrong box or just leaving them out of any box at all.
I am all for thinking outside the box when we need change but when we don’t please just use the correct box and if you must learn how to identify the correct box 🙂
“Information Technology Dissonance” (I am coining the term) Policy that says you cannot do X or its opposite Y, but your business requires you do either X or Y
From decades of experience in and the customer of corporate IT help desks.
Also experienced when the Help desk insists your computer must be re-imaged not because it must, but because they do not know how to fix your problem.
Can you help me discover something?
I am placing these notes into the public domain with a view to identifying an appropriate and qualified collaborator(s). If you, yourself have skills and with formal mathematical or computational proofs perhaps we could collaborate. Otherwise if you have friends you think may be interested then please pass it on.
As an enthusiast for science and mathematics I quite enjoy employing otherwise unused brain processing time on interesting puzzles. Rather than choose brain teasers, I have chosen to play with puzzles that have “no answers – written at the back of the book”, in fact I have chosen to play with some of the unsolved or cumbersome proofs. Two of these where I feel I have had some success are, prime numbers and the proof of the four color theorem.
The truth is I have possibly spent thousands of hours trying to understand the prime numbers and somewhat less on the four colour theorem.
Here is a basic summary of my current understanding on these two puzzles. These notes assume a good understanding of these subjects.
If on reading this you believe you or someone else you know, has already reached this level of understanding, please let me know so I can review their work. If they pique you or a friend’s interest and can demonstrate skills with formal mathematical or computational proofs, perhaps we could collaborate.
The Four Color theorem:
As I understand the current situation there has been a successful proof developed, that first used a computer to test all the required combinations. This was considered controversial because the proof could not be demonstrated by any other means than a computer. Subsequently this proof was improved upon by demonstrating “a smaller set of combinations need be tested to prove the theory”.
My own work suggests a conceptual frame work, based on well know geometry, exists, that explains why the Four colour theorem is true, without the need to resort to a combinatorial proof, which simplifies this substantially, in fact almost to a triviality. Further, I have developed a process that may be deployed on any two dimensional map to colour it according to the requirements of the four colour theorem, that is without any two adjacent regions having the same colour. This process does not appear to be subject to any discontinuities or infinite regresses (for want of better words). This process appears also to demonstrate a proof for the four colour theorem by demonstrating how no combination of map can confuse the process.
The Prime numbers
There are a range of proofs and outstanding questions relating to the primes with many thinking of the prime numbers as a “very complex system”. This includes special cases such as “prime pairs”.
In my endeavour to understand the primes, I have developed a process to generate prime numbers in an extremely rapid manner, sorting primes from the non-primes at an increasingly fast rate. Interestingly I now understand the prime numbers as forming quite a simple pattern, repeated over and over but dependant at each step, on what went before.
I believe that the pattern and process in the prime generator is relatively simple once understood, and stands to support or deliver proofs to a number of questions about the primes. One example is, it clearly provides a proof for an infinite number of prime pairs, yet explains why we may not see them for a very long time when trawling through the large primes. The pattern also sheds light on the size of the prime gaps, including the maximum prime gaps found at a given distance into the numbers.
The process to generate the prime numbers I have developed, depends only on multiplication (that can be replaced by addition) and one or two simple transformations. The process needs minimal data to store the results and is re-start-able using the stored results. The process can generate a prime testing algorithm of 100% or diminishing accuracy.
There exists numerous glimpses of solutions to other problems and the opportunity to learn something about any given N without knowledge of the proceeding primes.
The Next steps ?
I have been unable to test these ideas using very large numbers due to a lack of skill and or familiarity with formal mathematical or computational proofs. However I believe the proofs lie within the samples I have used. It would however be wise to extend these tests further, in the hope of identifying flaws, it is quite easy to construct tests (or use some existing ones) that should quickly disprove the ideas – if they are in fact wrong.
Related Phrases and keywords
Process to colour 2D maps 4 color theorem, 4 Colour Theorem, four color Theorem, four colour Theorem
The basic Prime number pattern, infinitely small subset of an infinitely large set, prime number as a fundamental structure, prime pairs, prime number set
There seems to me to be a simple internal inconsistency in saying “I believe in UFOs” because if you expand that it reads “I believe in unidentified flying objects” because it is believing in something you don’t understand. What they really mean is I believe aliens or spaceships are present in earths atmosphere/ near space but they would not say it because it quickly looks stupid. I also believe there are things I can’t identify, sometime it lasts seconds before I identify it and in a few rare cases I still have not identified it – however until I identify it I can’t believe anything about it let alone pronounce facts about it. The UFO fraternity relies on two other structures to keep there “dreams” alive 1. Conspiracy theories 2. You cant prove (or in this case disprove a negative). As usual for Woo Woo it usually fails basic tenants of critical thinking. Just like other alternative medicine, evidence of UFO beliefs must immediately be put to the side pending further evidence because by nature they a prepositions that can not be tested using “Blind” or “Double Blind” research as by definition they require an observer primed to categorize it as a effective/observed. We can’t not easily if at all test the Null case.
I have participated in a LinkedIn Conversation “Public apathy: how to engage the masses for resource management solutions for the future” which I believe is full of very good contributions.
With in excess of 131 comments there is some very valuable ideas and information not to mention principals that have been highlighted. Why not join the conversation ?
Science is one of my favorite subjects, given it satisfies my insatiable curiosity.
Perhaps it is the way my parents fostered an interest in knowledge and reason, or perhaps it is because of the many experiences of finding extreme beauty in science, I am not sure. Rationally we must accept that it is thru science that humanity, is as it is to day, and once applied through Technology, has created wonderful things (if not some negative outcomes). this includes the ability for me to write this, and for you to find it. Many of us have avoided a great deal of suffering and extended lifetimes due to science.
Perhaps it is my belief that each of us is in a position to uniquely contribute to the “human endeavor” and all the life we share this earth with, that drives my interest.
Or perhaps is my belief that, complex problems are just bigger versions of the simple problems, that I dare to think I may be able to solve some “wicked problems”, and thus have set myself on a course to understand as much as I can, about everything that interests me and much more.
In part to make notes to myself, and since I have renewed my subscription to New Scientist, I plan to make regular posts on things I have found interesting. Most often what interests to me is knowledge, new to me, or science, which indicates existing axioms have cracks in them or whole new paradigms are required.
Let me know if you like the idea or appreciate what you learn and that will ensure my personal notes become online notes.
On Wednesday past I attended a presentation at the NSW Royal Society and a Talk “Climate change, regional drought and forest mortality: are we seeing a new global phenomenon?”
Speaker: Professor Derek Eamus
Professor Eamus – presented an interesting and well substantiated case that it was humidity in the canopy of trees that was critical to their survival not as commonly thought, Temperature and Water. He discussed how various factors influence each other and which factors are most important. Although not expert myself in this field I was able to draw the following conclusions, some of which I verified through putting some questions to the Professor on the night.
- There is massive die-back occurring all over the world in forests even without human intervention
- Humidity is largely conserved in the atmosphere as a whole, that is increased global temperatures, does not result in increased global humidity.
- Normal weather relationships mean increased temperature, combined with reduced rainfall will cause a drop in Humidity in forest canopies and thus increased die-back.
- Given that Humidity in the canopy is critical to tree survival;
- Larger stands of trees are more resilient than isolated trees
- There is evidence to support the concept of “Micro climates”
- This is further support for the idea that coastal forests that run inland, help bring rainfall inland.
- Soil health/depth/moisture is critical to resilience in forests.
In Closing, Professor Derek Eamus presented a well argued, evidence based comprehensive model to support his conclusions and was very professional in qualifying answers to questions outside his scientific specialisation. He demonstrated, that often false assertion that models are somehow weaker than empirical research is unfounded because these models we based on substantial empirical research. The models help extract the signals from complex data, enable us to ask “what if” questions we then test empirically, which will either strengthen or weaken the model.
Please note: these conclusions are my own and not that of the Professor and while I am well informed on the above subjects, I am not a professional scientist. Please follow standard scientific peer reviewed literature for a more in depth understanding.
Original Content – Anthony Muscio