Over the weekend, I moved the domain Proto Photo to a new server. The reseller account I was using had a limit of a paltry 200MB...not sufficient for a photo gallery. Not only did they have low bandwidth and space restrictions, the account had a punitive pricing structure. It was basically the thing that if the site got popular, I could have ended up with network fees in tens of thousands of dollars.
Because of that limit, I had stopped adding pictures or development on the account. I also had compressed all of the images in the gallery to the point that the quality of the images was compromised.
My new account has a 2GB limit and it has a reasonable upgrade path if I exceed that amount. That means I can start adding photos again! That is, if I can get everything working again.
I waited so long as I really was expecting my web host to change the pricing on my original account.
I am slowly getting the new account to work.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Money Grubbing
On the money grubbing front.
The set of community directories produced a pathetic 682.88. I sent 7453 hits to advertisers. It is about a 10% improvement over last year, but not a living (details). Affiliate marketing does not mesh with community service.
I had received one bid for the ad auction thing I put on the front page of each directory. The bid was for $1 for 1000 impressions. Currently, I have only 643 impressions a day. Even if people were bidding for the ad blocks, I would not be any where near a living.
I need to clean up the program and take off the word "beta". I lowered the reserve bids to under $10 per 1000 impressions.
The set of community directories produced a pathetic 682.88. I sent 7453 hits to advertisers. It is about a 10% improvement over last year, but not a living (details). Affiliate marketing does not mesh with community service.
I had received one bid for the ad auction thing I put on the front page of each directory. The bid was for $1 for 1000 impressions. Currently, I have only 643 impressions a day. Even if people were bidding for the ad blocks, I would not be any where near a living.
I need to clean up the program and take off the word "beta". I lowered the reserve bids to under $10 per 1000 impressions.
Trapped by Comtempt
I realize that my last post was very contemptuous. Temerity might be a better description of amateur daring to speak of what many consider to be the greatest triumph of modern thought...transfinite theory.
More than once, people have told me that I am a contemptuous little snit who does not recognize his betters. Most of the comments I have received about investigations into the subject point out that I am too small and petty of an individual to even utter the great words “diagonal method.”
The theory was not intended for the common man or for small minded rabble who drown their pettiness in pubs (people like me). It was meant for that small tiny transcendental elite who flutter in the upper heavens of thought and spirituality
My actions do wreak of contempt. When I speak of transfinite theory, I feel the part of an uncouth gentile soiling sacred temple grounds.
In truth, I do have a great deal of respect for the time and effort that scholars apply to their respective fields of study. I’ve always thought that it is more likely that I am wrong in my beliefs than it is likely that the great mathematicians of the modern era were misled. This assumption that I am wrong in my thoughts is a driving force in both my academic and professional life.
The idea that I am wrong drives my own personal investigations.
What I do in my research in start with the assumption that I am wrong. I assume that the great mathematicians who hold to the theory are right. Somehow, set theory really is the hidden forms that Plato saw when exited the cave of temporal illusion. I assume that I just somehow misunderstood the diagonal method.
The way I would approach the issue is to put the theory aside for several months or years. I would then pick up a few books on Set Theory. I would read through, doing exercises, etc.. I am usually impressed with the astute logic and structure of discrete set theory. Frege’s propositional and prepositional logics are a grand contribution in the history of thought.
Then I would get into the sections on transfinite theory. All of my old objections would flood back into mind...generally the objections would be added with new objections. I find myself wanting to take an even stronger stand against transfinite theory, transcendental logic and all of the silliness of the modern tradition.
Anyway, during the last iterations of this process. My mind was burning on the issue of how one could rid mathematics of this idea that mathematics is driven by a fundamental dichotomy.
A year ago, I lighted on the idea of creating something called “Rich Theory.”
Transfinite theory essentially says that there are only two layers of infinity. It starts with the claim that all denumerable sets are the same size. The diagonal method creates a set which is larger than this denumerable infinity. Transfinite theory holds the following. It holds that n = n+1 where n is infinity, 2*n = n, when n is infinity and n^2 = n when n is infinity. However, it states that 2^n is greater than n.
Rich Theory notes that n < n+1 < 2n < n^2 < 2^n when n is a large number. We can actually imaging each of these operations creating a different level of infinity. Essentially, infinity is a rich space.
For various reasons that will take a long time to explain, what we see in infinity is largely a reflection of what we see in the finite. When we look at complex issues in the finite world, we see that there’s a large number of different things going on (wheels within wheels). Transfinite Theory’s effort to sum up mathematics with a simple dichotomy between denumerable and nondenumerable was as off base as Marx’s attempt to sum up the economy in terms of a single conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletarian classes.
Transfinite theory does not open a paradise. It impoverishes a paradise. It wants to reduce the fantastically complex nature of infinity into two piles...denumerable and nondenumerable.
Rich Theory says that infinity is rich. We can find all sorts of wonderful things reflected in the study of infinite sets.
Calling this view of infinity “rich” is really a mean thing.
The theory was not satisfactory because it did not address the reason that attracted attention in the first place. Mathematicians want a way to address the important distinction between discrete and continuous mathematics.
So, my mind had been racing on how the issue of the distinction between discrete and continuous mathematics. The distinction of course, pretty much falls from definitions. Discrete mathematics is reduced to finite elements. Continuous mathematics allows of the use of infinite length entities.
My current thinking is that an approach that the best way to approach transfinite theory would be a discussion of binary strings. Such a course could present better and clearer models for discussing the infinite. Likewise it would fit in well with computer science.
Which, of course, brings me back to the problem that I am a contemptuous little snit.
There is a possibility that I have a good idea that could help students understand mathematics. The problem is that, even if I have a good idea, my being a contemptuous little snit immediately nullifies anything that I might say.
In classical mathematics, there would be a hope that serious mathematicians could look beyond my personality defects. If they found something worthwhile, they would run with it and discard the inane things I say.
Unfortunately, we live in the world of modern mathematics. Modern mathematics is driven by who a person is and not what they say. The Hegelian heart of modern mathematics has the world spirit realized in the writings of a few super intellectuals (philosopher kings).
The very act of speaking, researching or trying to understand mathematics is an act of contempt.
The modern world has created a culture of silence. In the days of classical mathematics, you saw people in all walks of life engaged in the discourse of mathematics.
The set theoretic model discards input from people judged as lesser men. They drove the classical mathematicians and scholastic scholars from the schools. Today all mathematics and logic is written in terse, arcane symbolic form. Commoners are simply to worship our transfinite betters and stay silent. To even speak or think is an act of contempt.
It is a trap that is extremely difficult to break.
More than once, people have told me that I am a contemptuous little snit who does not recognize his betters. Most of the comments I have received about investigations into the subject point out that I am too small and petty of an individual to even utter the great words “diagonal method.”
The theory was not intended for the common man or for small minded rabble who drown their pettiness in pubs (people like me). It was meant for that small tiny transcendental elite who flutter in the upper heavens of thought and spirituality
My actions do wreak of contempt. When I speak of transfinite theory, I feel the part of an uncouth gentile soiling sacred temple grounds.
In truth, I do have a great deal of respect for the time and effort that scholars apply to their respective fields of study. I’ve always thought that it is more likely that I am wrong in my beliefs than it is likely that the great mathematicians of the modern era were misled. This assumption that I am wrong in my thoughts is a driving force in both my academic and professional life.
The idea that I am wrong drives my own personal investigations.
What I do in my research in start with the assumption that I am wrong. I assume that the great mathematicians who hold to the theory are right. Somehow, set theory really is the hidden forms that Plato saw when exited the cave of temporal illusion. I assume that I just somehow misunderstood the diagonal method.
The way I would approach the issue is to put the theory aside for several months or years. I would then pick up a few books on Set Theory. I would read through, doing exercises, etc.. I am usually impressed with the astute logic and structure of discrete set theory. Frege’s propositional and prepositional logics are a grand contribution in the history of thought.
Then I would get into the sections on transfinite theory. All of my old objections would flood back into mind...generally the objections would be added with new objections. I find myself wanting to take an even stronger stand against transfinite theory, transcendental logic and all of the silliness of the modern tradition.
Anyway, during the last iterations of this process. My mind was burning on the issue of how one could rid mathematics of this idea that mathematics is driven by a fundamental dichotomy.
A year ago, I lighted on the idea of creating something called “Rich Theory.”
Transfinite theory essentially says that there are only two layers of infinity. It starts with the claim that all denumerable sets are the same size. The diagonal method creates a set which is larger than this denumerable infinity. Transfinite theory holds the following. It holds that n = n+1 where n is infinity, 2*n = n, when n is infinity and n^2 = n when n is infinity. However, it states that 2^n is greater than n.
Rich Theory notes that n < n+1 < 2n < n^2 < 2^n when n is a large number. We can actually imaging each of these operations creating a different level of infinity. Essentially, infinity is a rich space.
For various reasons that will take a long time to explain, what we see in infinity is largely a reflection of what we see in the finite. When we look at complex issues in the finite world, we see that there’s a large number of different things going on (wheels within wheels). Transfinite Theory’s effort to sum up mathematics with a simple dichotomy between denumerable and nondenumerable was as off base as Marx’s attempt to sum up the economy in terms of a single conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletarian classes.
Transfinite theory does not open a paradise. It impoverishes a paradise. It wants to reduce the fantastically complex nature of infinity into two piles...denumerable and nondenumerable.
Rich Theory says that infinity is rich. We can find all sorts of wonderful things reflected in the study of infinite sets.
Calling this view of infinity “rich” is really a mean thing.
The theory was not satisfactory because it did not address the reason that attracted attention in the first place. Mathematicians want a way to address the important distinction between discrete and continuous mathematics.
So, my mind had been racing on how the issue of the distinction between discrete and continuous mathematics. The distinction of course, pretty much falls from definitions. Discrete mathematics is reduced to finite elements. Continuous mathematics allows of the use of infinite length entities.
My current thinking is that an approach that the best way to approach transfinite theory would be a discussion of binary strings. Such a course could present better and clearer models for discussing the infinite. Likewise it would fit in well with computer science.
Which, of course, brings me back to the problem that I am a contemptuous little snit.
There is a possibility that I have a good idea that could help students understand mathematics. The problem is that, even if I have a good idea, my being a contemptuous little snit immediately nullifies anything that I might say.
In classical mathematics, there would be a hope that serious mathematicians could look beyond my personality defects. If they found something worthwhile, they would run with it and discard the inane things I say.
Unfortunately, we live in the world of modern mathematics. Modern mathematics is driven by who a person is and not what they say. The Hegelian heart of modern mathematics has the world spirit realized in the writings of a few super intellectuals (philosopher kings).
The very act of speaking, researching or trying to understand mathematics is an act of contempt.
The modern world has created a culture of silence. In the days of classical mathematics, you saw people in all walks of life engaged in the discourse of mathematics.
The set theoretic model discards input from people judged as lesser men. They drove the classical mathematicians and scholastic scholars from the schools. Today all mathematics and logic is written in terse, arcane symbolic form. Commoners are simply to worship our transfinite betters and stay silent. To even speak or think is an act of contempt.
It is a trap that is extremely difficult to break.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Is it possible?
On the intellectual front, I've started having the very strange feeling that it might actually be possible to refute the diagonal method.
From a political perspective, I know that such a thing is impossible. The fundamental dichotomy of transfinite theory exists because the political forces that dominates academic mathematics want such fundamental dichotomies to exist. Transfinite theory is essentially a political statement. It is impossible to refute a political statement.
Perhaps it would be better to refer to it as a religious statement.
Mathematicians love the paradoxes of transfinite theory because it gives them the ability to take a position on the foundations of mathematics. It is a theory that gives an immediate path into discussions of the philosophic.
The whole point of posting a Critique of the Diagonal Method was simply a quick jab at this boil on the face of mathematics, while I worked on the real contents of the site.
My primary hope in making a parody of the diagonal method was to give heart to the millions of students subjected to the method each year. The diagonal method has probably done more to drive people away from mathematics than any other single cause in the history of mathematics.
Transfinite theory is the beating heart of new math. Transfinite theory led directly to the current epidemic in mathematics illiteracy.
The theory is best described as a disease. The power of the dialectical methods of paradox is that, when you build paradoxes into the foundations of reason, anything you want can be true.
Transfinite theory is from the same generation of thinkers and has the same basic form of both communism and Freudian Psychology. You start by proclaiming the existence of a fundamental dichotomy. You stir in a number of profound insights and with dialectics of paradox, you can create an irrefutable intellectual paradox.
From that point forward, there is simply the matter of defending your interpretation of the paradox. Such activities are considered a plus by many thinkers. The process of defending interpretations of the paradox allows you to filter people by their politics. Such dialectical systems seem to be more about rewarding friends and punishing enemies than they are about the development of positive, productive discourse.
You can not refute theories such as Freudian Psychology or Transfinite theory. You simply have to sit and wait for the world to weary of the method.
The problem, of course, is that there is this massive body of literature on the fundamental dichotomy in transfinite theory. Although the very notion of trying to refute a belief system based on the dialectics of paradox is absurd. I wonder if it might be possible to write something that future historians to use as a basis to explain the disease that overtook mathematics in the modern era.
It really appears that people have tired of Freudian Psychology. There also seems to very small number of academics who question the logical foundations of communism.
Anyway, my mind has been burning with the idea of seriously trying to tackle the theory. Absurd, I know.
I recently read The Meaning of it All by Feyman. The classical analytic approaches used in science are so much more pleasing than the dialectical methods used in math and politics. I've read book after book after book on modern theories. It is gasp of fresh air to read to read about the scientific method...which is the absolute height of classical thinking.
The key to quality analytics is uncertainty. You create logical models that can explain phenomena, but must avoid the temptation of certainty...thinking that you have uncovered the invisible forms behind nature.
Set theory is this game where you wrap the whole intellectual universe in a cloud of ink and paradox so that you can feel smuggly secure in your intellectual invicibility.
I would rather live among the scientists who live with the specter that the next experiment just might prove them wrong, than with the mathematicians who have gained irrefutability by building paradox into the foundations of reason.
From a political perspective, I know that such a thing is impossible. The fundamental dichotomy of transfinite theory exists because the political forces that dominates academic mathematics want such fundamental dichotomies to exist. Transfinite theory is essentially a political statement. It is impossible to refute a political statement.
Perhaps it would be better to refer to it as a religious statement.
Mathematicians love the paradoxes of transfinite theory because it gives them the ability to take a position on the foundations of mathematics. It is a theory that gives an immediate path into discussions of the philosophic.
The whole point of posting a Critique of the Diagonal Method was simply a quick jab at this boil on the face of mathematics, while I worked on the real contents of the site.
My primary hope in making a parody of the diagonal method was to give heart to the millions of students subjected to the method each year. The diagonal method has probably done more to drive people away from mathematics than any other single cause in the history of mathematics.
Transfinite theory is the beating heart of new math. Transfinite theory led directly to the current epidemic in mathematics illiteracy.
The theory is best described as a disease. The power of the dialectical methods of paradox is that, when you build paradoxes into the foundations of reason, anything you want can be true.
Transfinite theory is from the same generation of thinkers and has the same basic form of both communism and Freudian Psychology. You start by proclaiming the existence of a fundamental dichotomy. You stir in a number of profound insights and with dialectics of paradox, you can create an irrefutable intellectual paradox.
From that point forward, there is simply the matter of defending your interpretation of the paradox. Such activities are considered a plus by many thinkers. The process of defending interpretations of the paradox allows you to filter people by their politics. Such dialectical systems seem to be more about rewarding friends and punishing enemies than they are about the development of positive, productive discourse.
You can not refute theories such as Freudian Psychology or Transfinite theory. You simply have to sit and wait for the world to weary of the method.
The problem, of course, is that there is this massive body of literature on the fundamental dichotomy in transfinite theory. Although the very notion of trying to refute a belief system based on the dialectics of paradox is absurd. I wonder if it might be possible to write something that future historians to use as a basis to explain the disease that overtook mathematics in the modern era.
It really appears that people have tired of Freudian Psychology. There also seems to very small number of academics who question the logical foundations of communism.
Anyway, my mind has been burning with the idea of seriously trying to tackle the theory. Absurd, I know.
I recently read The Meaning of it All by Feyman. The classical analytic approaches used in science are so much more pleasing than the dialectical methods used in math and politics. I've read book after book after book on modern theories. It is gasp of fresh air to read to read about the scientific method...which is the absolute height of classical thinking.
The key to quality analytics is uncertainty. You create logical models that can explain phenomena, but must avoid the temptation of certainty...thinking that you have uncovered the invisible forms behind nature.
Set theory is this game where you wrap the whole intellectual universe in a cloud of ink and paradox so that you can feel smuggly secure in your intellectual invicibility.
I would rather live among the scientists who live with the specter that the next experiment just might prove them wrong, than with the mathematicians who have gained irrefutability by building paradox into the foundations of reason.
First Bid
I had the very first bid for the community adBlock program. I designed the program to be a blind bid process. So, I don't know if the person bid high enough to win the auction.
I decided to lower all of my reserve bids. Before they ranged from $10 to $12 for 1000 page views. I lowered the bidding to $8 to $10. I feel pretty good about the logic for running the bids. I need to rewrite the intro to the process and I need to decide the right amount of communication with the bidders. I hate spam, but we have to some communication to make products work.
My worries about the program vacilate between the fear that I am underselling the sites by having only three ad slots to fear that there is essentially no interest in the slots.
I decided to lower all of my reserve bids. Before they ranged from $10 to $12 for 1000 page views. I lowered the bidding to $8 to $10. I feel pretty good about the logic for running the bids. I need to rewrite the intro to the process and I need to decide the right amount of communication with the bidders. I hate spam, but we have to some communication to make products work.
My worries about the program vacilate between the fear that I am underselling the sites by having only three ad slots to fear that there is essentially no interest in the slots.
Lost Collar
I took CoCo to the Parley's Hollow unofficial off leash area yesterday.
She was doing a pretty good job not running ahead. We we were about 4/5th of the way to the culvert, she ran ahead. Uncharacteristically, she did not come back when I called. I called for about 4 minutes, and she came back ... without her collar.
So, now I have a strange mystery. What happened to her in those minutes that caused her to lose her collar. Did she get in a tussle with another dog? Did she meet a human that took her collar? Did she crawl under a bush and get the collar snarled in a branch? Does she know some secret collar escape trick, and waited for the opportunity to escape?
I looked for about twenty minutes for the collar but could not find it.
Fortunately, I still have the bright purple collar that you see in the picture to the right. I am not sure if I will have to replace the rabies shot tag.
She was doing a pretty good job not running ahead. We we were about 4/5th of the way to the culvert, she ran ahead. Uncharacteristically, she did not come back when I called. I called for about 4 minutes, and she came back ... without her collar.So, now I have a strange mystery. What happened to her in those minutes that caused her to lose her collar. Did she get in a tussle with another dog? Did she meet a human that took her collar? Did she crawl under a bush and get the collar snarled in a branch? Does she know some secret collar escape trick, and waited for the opportunity to escape?
I looked for about twenty minutes for the collar but could not find it.
Fortunately, I still have the bright purple collar that you see in the picture to the right. I am not sure if I will have to replace the rabies shot tag.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Marketers are Icky People
Yuck, I just read a marketer forum that was discussing different products for "content generation." You would put in the keywords for the market you are targetting. The programs would spew forth with blather in web pages and blogs. If you lace the cocktail with links to your ad efforts, then the program would theoretically over power the search engines with your machine generated garbage and you would be able to dominate the market.
Marketers really are horrible sick people.
The reason that marketers want blather generating programs that the search engines are getting better at filtering out the white noise that they've been creating with their various mass data replication schemes. Having stuff that the search engines couldn't distinguish from normal writing, will theoretically let them spam the web without getting penalized.
I think there is some open that human edited directories. The problem is, of course, that for each real human edited directory, there's seven or eight pretend human edited directory.
It is more likely that the marketers will simply consume their host (the internet). That would be sad because the internet was shaping up as a nice little tool where small companies and individuals could get their voices heard.
Marketers really are horrible sick people.
The reason that marketers want blather generating programs that the search engines are getting better at filtering out the white noise that they've been creating with their various mass data replication schemes. Having stuff that the search engines couldn't distinguish from normal writing, will theoretically let them spam the web without getting penalized.
I think there is some open that human edited directories. The problem is, of course, that for each real human edited directory, there's seven or eight pretend human edited directory.
It is more likely that the marketers will simply consume their host (the internet). That would be sad because the internet was shaping up as a nice little tool where small companies and individuals could get their voices heard.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
More Community Sites
I added two more sites to my family of web directories: Fort Collins (FtCollinsCo.US) and Durango. It will take awhile before I have enough links in these directories to be interesting, but I really like both of these towns. Anyway, it takes a couple of months for search engines to find new sites. So I figure that's not too big of a problem.
Monday, June 13, 2005
The verdict is in...
And the verdict is in.
"We the jury find the defendent ....
...
...
Silly!
Seems that, once again, the media's eyes apparently are fixated on the worst of our culture.
I view courts simply as a necessary evil, but I guess there's lots of people who loved to watch people being hauled off and judged.
It would be horrible if the view that life was simply a test given to spirit babies so that we can be judged was true.
The media circus around celebrity cases baffles me. I have no interest in the spectacle of judgment. Watching the media circus does give insight in to mantality of those who enjoy standing around the accused and wait for the judges nod to start hucking their stones.
"We the jury find the defendent ....
...
...
Silly!
Seems that, once again, the media's eyes apparently are fixated on the worst of our culture.
I view courts simply as a necessary evil, but I guess there's lots of people who loved to watch people being hauled off and judged.
It would be horrible if the view that life was simply a test given to spirit babies so that we can be judged was true.
The media circus around celebrity cases baffles me. I have no interest in the spectacle of judgment. Watching the media circus does give insight in to mantality of those who enjoy standing around the accused and wait for the judges nod to start hucking their stones.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Righteous Court
This is an interesting news item: In Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court is stretching the definition of internet commerce to the max to overturn the California medical marijuana act. The ruling is that simple existence affects efforts to control interstate commerce. Even a patient with a doctor's prescription who grows a plant in their home and uses the plant in their home is engaged in regulated interstate commerce. Very odd.
I am with conservatives on the need to reign in the activist Supreme Court. It seems to me that too many things that should be decided on the state and local levels are being dictated by courts. Stretching the Constitution to say that existence is interstate commerce wreaks of activism.
I've been hoping Bush would appoint judges set on legal reform, It will be interesting to see if the court does reform or if it simply leaps from "left" activism to "right" activism.
I am with conservatives on the need to reign in the activist Supreme Court. It seems to me that too many things that should be decided on the state and local levels are being dictated by courts. Stretching the Constitution to say that existence is interstate commerce wreaks of activism.
I've been hoping Bush would appoint judges set on legal reform, It will be interesting to see if the court does reform or if it simply leaps from "left" activism to "right" activism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)