User talk:Ancheta Wis/sandbox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/compose-ltr left-to-right composition
https://stackoverflow.com/tags?page=2&tab=popular
cf: Ernst von Salomon https://www.worldcat.org/title/answers-of-ernst-von-salomon-to-the-131-questions-in-the-allied-military-government-fragebogen/oclc/1509800
"You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) that is provided for USG-authorized use only.
By using this IS (which includes any device attached to this IS), you consent to the following conditions:
The USG routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this IS for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing, COMSEC monitoring, network operations and defense, personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI) investigations.
At any time, the USG may inspect and seize data stored on this IS.
Communications using, or data stored on, this IS are not private, are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed or used for USG-authorized purpose.
This IS includes security measures (e.g., authentication and access controls) to protect USG interests--not for your personal benefit or privacy.
Notwithstanding the above, using this IS does not constitute consent to PM, LE or CI investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications, or work product, related to personal representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Such communications and work products are private and confidential."
"Power: capacity for A to influence the behavior of B so that B acts in accordance with A's intent." —Robbins & Judge 14th ed. https://othjournal.com/2019/03/04/vulnerabilities-of-multi-domain-command-and-control-part-1/ https://othjournal.com/2019/03/06/vulnerabilities-of-multi-domain-command-and-control-part-2/ http://c4i-technology-news.blogspot.com/2011/12/us-armys-common-operating-environment.html https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/from-the-baltic-to-black-seas-defender-exercise-goes-big-with-a-big-price-tag/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0957417496000309 A hybrid expert system for scheduling the U.S. Army's Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/close-combat-tactical-trainer-cctt/ CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER (CCTT) https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/12/06/the_next_revolution_in_military_affairs_multi-domain_command_and_control_112741.html https://www.japcc.org/multi-domain-command-and-control/ https://www.dvidshub.net/feature/rapidforge2019 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp1_ch1.pdf?ver=2019-02-11-174350-967 https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/hack-jam-sense-shoot-army-creates-1st-multi-domain-unit/ https://www.dvidshub.net/image/5932060/i2cews-factsheet https://www.dvidshub.net/news/306986/new-space-cyber-battalion-activates-jblm
https://www3.nd.edu/~sbernste/LewisTCTI.pdf https://v4.chriskrycho.com/2016/the-covering-law-model.html https://perso.uclouvain.be/peter.verdee/counterfactuals/lewis3.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/25592003?seq=33#metadata_info_tab_contents How Science Textbooks Treat Scientific Method: A Philosopher's Perspective https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-1735-7_1 The Deductive-Nomological Model Briefly Revisited At the cost of restating the points above (I retain the abbreviations listed above, and the names of the sources from the Scientific method article), I summarize in one thread:
- There is no canonical list of steps which apply to all researchers, because everyone begins from a different basis for understanding.[1] (This somewhat corroborates Feyerabend, who seems to be more nihilistic in his statements.) Pólya's suggestion that students attempt to restate the problem in their own words (this restatement serves the teacher as a check that students understand enough to be able to capture a problem in their own words, from their own experience. In other words, silence denotes noncomprehension, by Pólya's lights).
- Knowing that we do not understand something is a step along the path toward our understanding it. The next step beyond our inability to express it in our own words is to acquire more basic blocks so that we can make a plan.
- That said, scientific method requires that students already have command of the basics of their subject of study, such as an understanding of mathematical functions[2] (enough to understand the law of falling bodies, for example. A teacher could then review Galileo's experimental setup to show how he discovered the law of falling bodies.
- The hammer and feather drop on the moon could then be displayed as a counter-example to Aristotle's earthbound feather drop demonstration, to show the limits of a purely empiricist philosophy. The demonstration could also clearly limn the science and its limits of certainty.)
- The need to teach from a shared base of knowledge (for example,Andrew Carberry (Updated: March 28, 2019) How to Build a Compost Pile) depends on a common shared experience. The shared experience allows the teacher and the student to communicate to each other that which needs to be established to achieve the goals (for example, improving the landscaping in a park using its natural resources).
- Pólya's dictum "Use your own brain first" is a restatement of his "First, you have to understand the problem," as a researcher. This dictum applies to a covering-law (CL) viewpoint which models a law of nature, or an institution, to cover the answer needed (profession of a CL thus implies that a researcher has accepted the risk of renouncing that CL, should it fail to cover the problem domain). At most, a CL is for an established institution or science (See Feynman's lectures in physics Vol I, ch. 2 -- his references to "law known, law partially known, law unknown"). Pólya's "make a plan" thus has 3 variants:
- Law known: one plan might be: use deductive-nomological method (DN) to search for a systematic explanation — when a law is known, it entails known resources, such as lab equipment, time to use some scientific instrument, some location in space to observe some phenomenon, some expertise possessed by people at some institution such as a lab, a library, and so forth. Results are thus available from those resources, and Pólya's "execute the plan" has a predictable mission. This is the simplest path for rote problems, because it saves a teacher's time, a scarce resource.
- Law partially known: one plan in the face of partial understanding might be: exploit Five Ws to narrow the search for a systematic explanation, to learn what resources, mechanisms, or equipment are needed, at what cost. It may be that the will to know the answer depends on a marketplace for interested parties, who then have a stake in the quest for the answer by the researcher. Even if problem has only been partially solved, Pólya's "look back" is a way for a researcher to consolidate any lessons learned during the progress that has been made.
- Law unknown: currently our best-understood model for scientific method is to use hypothetico-deductive model (HD -- Blachowicz 2009 notes that only 3 out of 70 texts use the hypothetico-deductive model for teaching scientific method) method in the search for a systematic explanation: we posit a hypothetical explanation and seek disproof (it is a logical error to seek proof of some hypothesis, see confirmation bias). Again, there is no guarantee that the process will in fact converge on a systematic answer. Pólya cautions that "there may be an easier problem for you to solve. Find it." Experiment to learn a cause and effect relationship in resources of the system under study. Eventually, researchers can marshal mechanisms and equipment to institute systematic effects on the system under study.
- " Mathematics presented with rigor is a systematic deductive science, but mathematics in the making is an experimental inductive science." --Pólya, How to solve it
References
- "I do not think [causality modelled as a mathematical function] can be further analyzed" —paraphrase of Max Born (1949) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance
Black hole: accretion disk, far side, shadow, underside, and photon ring
OK, I am going to write out a tutorial here which is not meant to go into the article; it is written in terms of understanding the imaging problem for M87*, and hopefully Sagittarius A*, which is the next step.
The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) is a radio telescope, meaning that the electromagnetic wavelengths (millimeters) which EHT observes are much longer than visible light's wavelengths. The analog to the beam of light we are used to, for visible light, is spread out, like the flashlight beam we use in summer camp. The central bright beam is surrounded by successive dark and bright rings (called phases), like a searchlight. Instead of pointing the searchlight by hand, EHT uses a basic technique for interferometry; the bright and dark rings of sensitivity of EHT are built up of individual beams received by each individual telescope. Instead of emitting light, EHT observes light (in the radio spectrum rather than the visible spectrum of light). This lets EHT form an observation beam almost as wide as Earth. By summing up the dark and bright rings of sensitivity, EHT can be pointed at M87*. This synthetic aperture allows EHT to be pointed at M87* much more precisely than its component telescopes. When EHT turns on its receivers the radio signal is synchronized to the same clock standard for each individual telescope.
EHT observed M87* for four successive night, with this synchronized network of telescopes. The observational problem was to distinguish M87* from its background. One data processing problem was to handle the empty spaces between the point sources which make up galaxy M87, while keeping the relevant signal from M87*.
Clarence K.K. Chinn
- https://www.dvidshub.net/news/259736/usarpac-retirement-ceremoy
- https://www.army.mil/article/156496/us_army_south_advancing_existing_relationships_forging_new_ones
- https://www.army.mil/article/152867/army_south_completes_ninth_bilateral_staff_talks_with_el_salvador
- https://www.army.mil/article/50262/chinn_takes_command_of_joint_readiness_training_center_and_fort_polk
- https://ar.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2016/08/Clarence-K.pdf
- 1st Theater Sustainment Command Centcom
- 8th Theater Sustainment Command Usfk
- 21st Theater Sustainment Command[5] Eucom
- 377th Theater Sustainment Command Reserve
- 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary)[6] Airborne
- 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Conus West
- 19th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) Daegu South Korea[7]
- 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command Eucom
- 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command[8] Conus etc
- 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command Usfk
- 263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command Reserve
References
- Kenneth J. Bocam, Kenneth J. Hyatt, Stephen J. Kalasky, Dominick D. Risaliti, Krystal Arroyo-Flores, Fred Eckert, Gregory Gallant, Glen E. Cameron and Stephen J. Fujikawa --Adcole Maryland Aerospace (Jun 28, 2018); Wheeler K. Hardy, Mark E. Ray, Christian J. Reyes, Matthew A. Hitt, Mason E. Nixon --USASMDC/ARSTRAT --pre publication release #8018, cleared for publication: (08 Feb 2018) Kestrel Eye Block II 32nd Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites 2018 pdf
- (9 August 2012) USAF Kestrel Eye
- (2012) Kestrel Eye Block 2A
- LEO John London (26 March 2015) SMDC space initiatives pdf
- John Keller (Oct 2nd, 2014) Army taps Quantum Research to build imaging nano-satellites for front-line warfighters
- Elizabeth Howell (October 24, 2017) The Army Has a New Eye in the Sky
- Stephanie Mills (Oct 24, 2017) Kestrel Eye satellite sent into space from ISS
- US Army (Oct 25, 2017) US Army deploys its own Kestrel Eye satellite
- Jason Cutshaw (Oct 24, 2017) Army deploys Kestrel Eye satellite
- Jason B. Cutshaw (SMDC/ARSTRAT) (October 25, 2017) Army deploys Kestrel Eye satellite
- Steve Johnson (November 3, 2017) A new satellite in orbit has the attention of Redstone Arsenal
- Sandra Erwin (February 21, 2018) Army’s imaging satellite up and running, but its future is TBD
- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. (November 22, 2019 at 7:00 AM) SecArmy’s Multi-Domain Kill Chain: Space-Cloud-AI
- (2019-11-23) kestrel eye orbit history
- Todd South (5 Jun 2019) Tactics, tech and work of close combat experts is turning warfare ‘upside down’
- Todd South (18 Oct 2019) Close Combat Lethality Task Force is changing how the Army builds lethal soldiers and squads
- ) Close Combat Lethality Task Force
- SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. (September 19, 2018) Virtual Training Will Save Real Army Lives: Close Combat Task Force
- [ ) d]
- [ ) e]
- [ ) f]
- [https://www.army.mil/article/215302/mission_command_of_sustainment_operations Maj. Gen. Steven A. Shapiro and Maj. Oliver Davis (January 2, 2019) Mission command of sustainment operations ]
- Maj. Daniel J. N. Belzer (January 2, 2019) Command relationships between corps and ESCs ESC = (Expeditionary Support Command); TSC = (Theater Support Command)
- Army Regulation 220–1 15 April 2010
- The 32d Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC) is a theater level Army air and missile defense multi-component organization with a worldwide, 72-hour deployment mission. 32d AAMDC consists of four brigades, 11th ADA, 31st ADA, 69th ADA and 108th ADA
- Well, what you are saying is the right editor (not me, I'm not the right one) needs to look at the exterior derivative of the Hodge star operator on the electromagnetic tensor and search for a citation about how E and B ought to behave in the physical case I am alluding to above (the prediction). I am specifically not calling for that editor to deduce and then publish that prediction here. That would be WP:OR and not suitable for the encyclopedia in that form. Intuition tells me there could be some off-diagonal components (for the EM case, something akin to polarization) in another kind of spacetime.
- I urge you to self-revert; it's OK to discuss this on the talk page, though, as the kind of citation we are seeking would materially improve the article after some editor finds it.
- It is customary to sign our contributions on this talk page with --~~~~ --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The basis of the Haskell programming language can be found in Miranda, a proprietary language of David Turner. The aim was to concentrate functional programming concepts as open source without reinventing functional programming over and over. As a result, Haskell has a small cohesive core which has remained stable for thirty years. Discussing the Girard-Reynolds isomorphism can make the Haskell Core understandable;[1] Core is really the implementation of the Girard-Reynolds type system.
- Constructivism (philosophy of mathematics) was chosen because it is the philosophy-put-into-practice of a software developer, as is Intuitionistic type theory and Intuitionistic logic. They are quite practical, and more than theoretical, in other words.
- Alpha equivalence, Beta reduction, and Eta conversion are basic for Haskell; you can't proceed without them, as Chris Allen has shown.
- Anonymous functions, or better, lambdas are part of Haskell.
- Continuation-passing style is a part of Haskell which means that functional reactive programming can be implemented in Haskell.
- Curry-Howard isomorphism and the Girard-Reynolds isomorphism are fundamental to Haskell
- Currying is a part of Haskell.
- Declarative programming and Denotational semantics are only part of what is needed to code in Haskell
- Domain-specific language -- covered above
- Effect systems can be coded in Haskell. See Oleg Kiselyov's work, coded in Haskell, on extensible effects
- The Exponential object is a notation to express higher level type application to other types, which is allowed in Girard-Reynolds (the Haskell core)[1]
- Expression (computer science) and Expression (mathematics) are integrated into one concept in this language, which points to the implementation of Girard-Reynolds (the Haskell core).[1]
Expr
is about seven lines of Haskell code (a sum type) in Haskell Core.[1] - Function types are First-class citizens in Haskell
- Hash consing
- Higher-order abstract syntax -- covered above, but Higher-order functions and Higher-order logic are part and parcel of any Haskell implementation of some Domain-specific language (some specific situation -- you can think of this as a Business Case)
- The Hindley–Milner type system is decidable, and has been part of Miranda and Haskell since their early days. This is the reason that Haskell can automate type inference.
- Intuitionistic type theory -- covered above
- Intuitionistic logic -- covered above
- Kan extensions allow us to carry along the data so that we can call by need, a practical part of both effectful programming (i.e. monads) and lazy evaluation.
- Lambda calculus definition, Lambda calculus, and Lambda lifting allow us to exploit Lazy evaluation when we need it along some axis of the Lambda cube. Note that the specialization to some Topos allows us to skip past the infinities that some other languages would force us to step into, but which lazy evaluation allows us to skip.
- Linear logic is Girard's resource-oriented logic, which is a basis for Effect systems
- Monad (functional programming) was first implemented in Haskell
- Natural deduction -- covered above. Note that it is groundwork for the normal forms which get produced by alpha, beta, and eta transformations covered above.
- Normal form (abstract rewriting) is a fundamental part of a Haskell thunk, but weak head normal form doesn't even have an article yet
- Partial application, and Partial function are discussed above. They are built-in to the Haskell language with a consistent grammar which doesn't even need to identify them as special cases, they are first-class citizens of the language. Now compare to other functional languages which have to create special machinery. 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Partially ordered sets are fundamental to any Haskell type. They need to be derived via natural deduction, bottom-up for each topos.
- Pointfree programming is either very high-level (via Higher-order type classes) or very low-level (via natural deduction). As an example, the point-free implementation of Map-reduce (call it mr) of Google fame is one line in Haskell:
mr = (. map).(.).foldr
--credit: Udo Stenzel's derivation. ghci consumes this without complaint. Other languages implement it with thousandfold (or more) increases in lines of code. --16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC) - Polymorphism (computer science) can be implemented by the Girard-Reynolds isomorphism, implemented largely in Haskell Core,[1] which is typed (colloquially termed Big Lambda) in less than 20 lines of Haskell. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Purely functional data structures, and Purely functional programming can exploit lazy evaluation while using some interpreter such as ghci to prove that the Haskell code is correct for the denoted cases (which could be infinite in number).
- Rewriting -- the transformations from one form to another (e.g., the alpha, beta, eta discussed above) while remaining assured of correctness. This in particular is a difficult concept to grok because the different forms can morph from one to the other, and the skilled practioners seem to have this ability of fluent translation, while remaining mathematically correct, to the despair of anyone trying to follow their code. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Scott continuity describes a mapping between posets, which are the elements of the type system being implemented in the Haskell code. For example, "two particularly notable examples of Scott-continuous functions are curry and apply." Their cartesian closed category cannot be a foreign concept to a Haskeller. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sequent -- discussed above
- Sequent calculus -- discussed above, as the framework for expressions which surround a Turnstile --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- SECD machine (an abstract machine) for implementing Lambda calculus
- Side effect (computer science) -- not a part of Haskell, unless you seek one
- Strictness analysis -- there is an operator which tells the compiler to reduce the expression right away, absolving the coder of the responsibility of carrying along its weak head normal form (the lazy instance). --16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Subobject classifier -- a necessary part of a topos. A classifier might be reducible to a Boolean function, but the Subobject classifier is allowed to be even more general (ala higher order type theory (HoTT).[2]). This kind of classifier is a predicate in Gottlob Frege's sense as it includes semantic meaning. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Supercombinator
- Syntactic closure
- System F -- see Girard-Reynolds
- Tail call -- one strategy for handling thunks
- Thunk -- a fundamental part of Haskell, discussed above
- Turnstile (symbol) used in sequents above
- Type classes were first used in Haskell
- Type constructors reside on the left hand side of a declaration, while data constructors reside on the right hand side of a declaration, and can be sum types or product types. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- The kind of Type inference which Haskell offers depends on the Type system it implements; Haskell at one time supported only Hindley-Milner, but now offers a version of System F --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Intuitionistic Type theory is a basis for Haskell
- Unified Modeling Language can depict Haskell code, because it has arrows. This defines graphs and allows Graph rewriting.
15:32, 13 March 2019
The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[3][4][5]
Though diverse models for the scientific method are available, there is in general a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear, and they often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways. The most conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on how well additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported, a general theory may be developed.[6]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, they are frequently the same from one to another. The process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[7][8] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[9]
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[10] Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[11] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[12][13] Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin[14] and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey remark that "For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation. We beg to differ."[15]