Friday Jan 18, 2008
Thursday Oct 12, 2006
Interactive Mathematics
By MortazaviBlog on Oct 12, 2006
San Jose Math Circle
By MortazaviBlog on Oct 12, 2006
Sunday Sep 17, 2006
Events, Probabilities and Information
By MortazaviBlog on Sep 17, 2006
Thursday Aug 24, 2006
Mathematicians and Confirming Correctness
By MortazaviBlog on Aug 24, 2006
Only a mathematician can turn confirming correctness into a conundrum.
To get around the conundrum, neither deduction by contradiction nor deduction by construction will help.
I'm purposefully not using "proof by contradiction" here but emphasizing the "deduction" used by mathematicians. Anything that requires for its proof a deduction must indeed be quite poor in its validity for it is far from obvious.
Tuesday Jun 13, 2006
P vs. NP
By MortazaviBlog on Jun 13, 2006
Monday Aug 01, 2005
Information Theory
By MortazaviBlog on Aug 01, 2005
Lucent has a nice little page on the "who" and "what" of information theory, and there is a little course on information theory hosted at Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.
Sunday Jul 31, 2005
Space, Mechanism and Interactability
By MortazaviBlog on Jul 31, 2005
Mathematics, Digital Machines.
Monday Apr 04, 2005
Mathforum.Org, Nonlinear Dynamics and Blood
By MortazaviBlog on Apr 04, 2005
Mathforum.org has a great starting point for exploring nonlinear dynamics on the web.
I thought about nonlinear dynamics because we had some guests Sunday night whose son (who was also visiting us) almost died last year because of a miscommunicated antibiotic prescription to the pharmacy. This particular antibiotic has longlasting effects and, obviously, triggers biochemical pathways, not all of which are fully mapped out. It may interest some to know that the nonlinearity of the biochemical cosmos is certainly greater than the nonlinearity of heavenly bodies (when they are taken to be point masses, of course).
I had the good fortunte of studying Biochemistry (among other subjects) in graduate school, and to me, the extent of the cosmos of biochemical pathways is truly astonishing. To explore it is not simply a matter of collecting more of the pathways and committing their relationships to some sort of database. The triggers and signals are only and will forever be partially mapped (think of the combinatorics). Given their understanding of small parts of the universe of biochemical pathways in the body, drug companies come up with new "designer" drugs. Since the cosmos of biochemical pathways is immense, the effect of these drugs on other corners of that cosmos are totally unknown. Small triggers in the wrong places can unleash deadly consequences, as it seems to have happened with our friends' son. Only six years of age, he woke up drenched in blood one night last year and had to stay in the hospital for two weeks. I will spare you the details.
So, did the Babylonians have it wrong? They used to lay their sick at the door, collect medical advice from the passersby, integrate and administer the suggestions.
Did they have it more wrong than we do today?
Mathematics, Drugs, Babylon, Medicine, Nonlinear Dynamics, Biochemistry, Administer, Children.
Thursday Mar 24, 2005
Gravitating Masses
By MortazaviBlog on Mar 24, 2005
As I was driving to work this morning, I wondered again about the subtle integral role of cultural practices which resonate with the motion of heavenly bodies, for example the start of the Persian solar year, Noruz, which celebrates spring solstice. The mathematics and numerical simulation of such motions has fascinated people for centuries. Here is a cool Java applet computing and displaying the motion of gravitating masses in the solar system and a few others. My favorites are the ones with "simple" orbits, like this one which shows bodies ending with circular orbits. The applet is hosted by CUUG, Calgary Unix Users Group. Bob Jenkins has implemented another Java applet, displaying the paths of gravitating masses. Jenkins says he has used a 9^{th} order multistep simulation method for his applet because lowerorder methods were insufficient for his purposes. He also has a summary page for various multistep methods, and a brief note which describes their pedigree—absolutely great stuff 
TX Cam, in the constellation Camelopardalis. (National Radio Astronomy Observatory) 
Mathematics, Physics, Gravitation, Noruz, Solstice.
Friday Nov 05, 2004
A Problem
By MortazaviBlog on Nov 05, 2004
Mathematics, particularly those parts of it rooted in Algebra, have a stunning, razorsharp view of the concept of a problem:

In other words, an instance of a problem is obtained when all paramters, except the "solution" variables are bound to particular values. The "solution" variables remain free. For example, find an x such that for all y, z and w, we have P(x,y,z,w), where P is some predicate.
What mathematics offers is precision in thinking. Without basic training in it, our reasoning becomes crippled, and we fail to see what there is and what there is not.
Tuesday Oct 26, 2004
ConsistencyWhat's Logic Got To Do With It
By MortazaviBlog on Oct 26, 2004
Frege used a 2D notation for his logic. 
Back in 1996, in a paper submitted to the annual StanfordBerkeley graduate philosophy seminar, I wrote on the role of mathematical logic in the positivist philosophical work conducted in the twilight of the twentieth century. This afternoon, I mentioned it, in passing, to a friend, and he suggested I should discuss it on my weblog. Now, this friend of mine (who likes to remain annonymous to search engines but who is one of the leads for our most important pieces of work on web services) noted that consistency was central to his methodology. We agreed that the Cartesian model of the world still remains the dominant one in many of the sociooperational systems around us.

In the paper, I claim that an overemphasis on consistency (I should have been more precise and should have called this an overemphasis on the the law of excluded middle) led to a misplacement of philosophical focus prior to Heidegger. Heidegger is the one who turned the philosophical ship from questions regarding epistemology, in the positivist tradition, to those regarding metaphysics and ontology, in the modern tradition of phenomenology. (Metaphysics and ontology had generally enjoyed a far greater priority in traditional philosophical investigation.)
My point in the paper was about the emphasis placed on consistency, not necessarily a critique of it, but rather a critique of its importance (as understood by modern positivists and logicians) to philosophical dialog and to philosophy.
Wednesday Sep 01, 2004
The Mathematics of Elections
By MortazaviBlog on Sep 01, 2004
Should software and servers matter in breaking election ambiguities?
Well, it all depends on what sort of ambiguity we're talking about. Here, I'm certainly not talking about hanging chads. I'm talking about ambiguities that may arise because of the election method used.
Some election ambiguities require computational power, others may take you to the Supreme Court. Let's focus on the first type of ambiguity, for the moment.
The mathematics of elections is quite simple when everyone has a chance to vote only for one of the candidates, i.e. when no allowance is made for the voter to fully specify and assign his or her preferences to each and as many of the candidates as he or she wishes. In such an election, all we need to do is add the votes for each candidate. Whoever has more votes wins. No puzzling ambiguities are left.
Kenneth Arrow, the distinguished Stanford economist, who has also written the forward to the anniversary edition of Chester Barnard's classic (about which I've written earlier) has a famous theorem (Arrow's Impossibility Theorem) which effectively says there are no ideal methods for elections.
Arrow gives several criteria for "ideal" elections, the most controversial of which is the "Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives Criterion" (IIAC).
IIAC says, effectively, that removal or addition of a candidate should make no difference unless that candidate was or will be the winner (against all other candidates).
Arrow shows that it is impossible for an election method to satisfy all of his criteria. So, according to Arrow's theorem, even if voters had a chance to fully specify their preferences, it would make no difference.
The trouble is that the IIAC is not necessarily a valid criterion.
As noted in ElectionMethods.org, IIAC is too strong a criterion and nearideal election methods do exist. The Condorcet election method is one such nearideal election method:
The proper method of counting ranked votes is called the Condorcet election method, named after the French mathematician who conceived it a couple of centuries ago. The main idea is that each race is conceptually broken down into separate pairwise races between each possible pairing of the candidates. Each ranked ballot is then interpreted as a vote in each of those oneonone races. If candidate A is ranked above candidate B by a particular voter, that is interpreted as a vote for A over B. If one candidates beats each of the other candidates in their oneonone races, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and a simple procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity.
Well, it is the resolution of this ambiguity at a national (or any other largescale) level that may require some use of computing power.
ElectionMethods.org discusses Basic Condercet (BC) and Schwartz Sequential Dropping (SSD) for resolving the ambiguity. It includes a software implementation for the SSD method for solving cyclic ambiguities.
BC method drops the weakest defeat (from the cyclic series of defeats) until there's a candidate that is unbeaten. This may cause strategy issues. Parties may have clone candidates, i.e. multiple candidates running for the same party.
The SSD method has been described in ElectionMethods.org, where links to software and other useful information can also be found.
Personally, the Beatpath Winner (BW) method appears to me to be adequate in resolving cyclicity in a Condercet voting result. It's equivalent to the SSD method of resolving ambiguities. In the BW method of resolving cyclic ambiguities, if A defeats B through a "path" (chain of defeats) and B defeats A through another path (in the cycle), the two paths (chains) are compared to see which one has the weakest defeat in its sequence of defeats. The candidate which has the strongest defeat paths (chains) against all other candidates is the winner.
Condercet method of elections seems like a very reasonable method. The reason it has not been popular in the U.S. is probably because people are very conservative and don't want surprises. Furthermore, the strategy outcomes are hard to predict. It really unleashes a marketplace for votes and makes results much more difficult to predict. Another reason could be that Condercet will be truly bad for the twoparty system. Finally, with more parties having a chance, there is also the question of political stability. In the absence of political stability, economic stability may also be a rarity. So, I would expect there may issue some arguments from institutional economists against Condercet.
About
MortazaviBlog
Search
Recent Posts
 Oliver Williamson Wins the Nobel Prize in Economics
 LBL, Technology and Life
 At the Mount Whitney Summit
 More on Derby
 Advancing MySQL Open Development One Important Step Forward
 A Prize WellDeserved
 ADO.Net Entity Framework on MySQL
 How a Differential Gear Works
 Clunkers and Financial Institutions
 Workbench 5.2 Alpha
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
 Adam Bosworth
 Blogs.Sun.Com
 Bryan Cantrill
 David Edmondson
 Edward Felton
 Gizmodo
 Hinkmond Wong
 His Holiness, The Duke
 James C. Liu
 Lawrence Lessig
 Paul Rogers
 Philip Greenspun
 Planetsun.Org
 Richard Friedman
 Richard Sharples
 Roberto Chinnici
 Seyed Razavi
 Simple Signs
 Simson L. Garfinkel
 Tim Bray
 Yusuf Goolamabbas