Laws of Form

Laws of Form (hereinafter LoF) is a book by G. Spencer-Brown, written by August 1967 and published in 1969. The book straddles the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. LoF describes three distinct logical systems: The primary arithmetic (described in Chapter 4 of LoF), whose models include Boolean arithmetic; The primary algebra (Chapter 6 of LoF), whose models include the two-element Boolean algebra (hereinafter abbreviated 2), Boolean logic, and the classical propositional calculus; Equations of the second degree (Chapter 11), whose interpretations include finite automata and Alonzo Church's Restricted Recursive Arithmetic (RRA). "Boundary algebra" is a Meguire (2011) term for the union of the primary algebra and the primary arithmetic. Laws of Form sometimes loosely refers to the "primary algebra" as well as to LoF. == Contents == The preface states that the work was first explored in 1959, and Spencer Brown cites Bertrand Russell as being supportive of his endeavour. He also thanks J. C. P. Miller of University College London for helping with the proofreading and offering other guidance. In 1963 Spencer Brown was invited by Harry Frost, staff lecturer in the physical sciences at the department of Extra-Mural Studies of the University of London, to deliver a course on the mathematics of logic. LoF emerged from work in electronic engineering its author did around 1960. Key ideas of the LOF were first outlined in his 1961 manuscript Design with the Nor, which remained unpublished until 2021, and further refined during subsequent lectures on mathematical logic he gave under the auspices of the University of London's extension program. LoF has appeared in several editions. The second series of editions appeared in 1972 with the "Preface to the First American Edition", which emphasised the use of self-referential paradoxes, and the most recent being a 1997 German translation. LoF has never gone out of print. LoF's mystical and declamatory prose and its love of paradox make it a challenging read for all. Spencer-Brown was influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein and R. D. Laing. LoF also echoes a number of themes from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead. The work has had curious effects on some classes of its readership; for example, on obscure grounds, it has been claimed that the entire book is written in an operational way, giving instructions to the reader instead of telling them what "is", and that in accordance with G. Spencer-Brown's interest in paradoxes, the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the statement which says no such statements are used in this book. Furthermore, the claim asserts that except for this one sentence the book can be seen as an example of E-Prime. What prompted such a claim, is obscure, either in terms of incentive, logical merit, or as a matter of fact, because the book routinely and naturally uses the verb to be throughout, and in all its grammatical forms, as may be seen both in the original and in quotes shown below. == Reception == Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog. Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind. Stafford Beer wrote in a review for Nature in 1969, "When one thinks of all that Russell went through sixty years ago, to write the Principia, and all we his readers underwent in wrestling with those three vast volumes, it is almost sad". Banaschewski (1977) argues that the primary algebra is nothing but new notation for Boolean algebra. Indeed, the two-element Boolean algebra 2 can be seen as the intended interpretation of the primary algebra. Yet the notation of the primary algebra: Fully exploits the duality characterizing not just Boolean algebras but all lattices; Highlights how syntactically distinct statements in logic and 2 can have identical semantics; Dramatically simplifies Boolean algebra calculations, and proofs in sentential and syllogistic logic. Moreover, the syntax of the primary algebra can be extended to formal systems other than 2 and sentential logic, resulting in boundary mathematics. LoF has influenced, among others, Heinz von Foerster, Louis Kauffman, Niklas Luhmann, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela and William Bricken. Some of these authors have modified the primary algebra in a variety of interesting ways. LoF claimed that certain well-known mathematical conjectures of very long standing, such as the four color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Goldbach conjecture, are provable using extensions of the primary algebra. Spencer-Brown eventually circulated a purported proof of the four color theorem, but it was met with skepticism. == The form (Chapter 1) == The symbol: Also called the "mark" or "cross", is the essential feature of the Laws of Form. In Spencer-Brown's inimitable and enigmatic fashion, the Mark symbolizes the root of cognition, i.e., the dualistic Mark indicates the capability of differentiating a "this" from "everything else but this". In LoF, a Cross denotes the drawing of a "distinction", and can be thought of as signifying the following, all at once: The act of drawing a boundary around something, thus separating it from everything else; That which becomes distinct from everything by drawing the boundary; Crossing from one side of the boundary to the other. All three ways imply an action on the part of the cognitive entity (e.g., person) making the distinction. As LoF puts it: "The first command: Draw a distinction can well be expressed in such ways as: Let there be a distinction, Find a distinction, See a distinction, Describe a distinction, Define a distinction, Or: Let a distinction be drawn". (LoF, Notes to chapter 2) The counterpoint to the Marked state is the Unmarked state, which is simply nothing, the void, or the un-expressable infinite represented by a blank space. It is simply the absence of a Cross. No distinction has been made and nothing has been crossed. The Marked state and the void are the two primitive values of the Laws of Form. The Cross can be seen as denoting the distinction between two states, one "considered as a symbol" and another not so considered. From this fact arises a curious resonance with some theories of consciousness and language. Paradoxically, the Form is at once Observer and Observed, and is also the creative act of making an observation. LoF (excluding back matter) closes with the words: ...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical. C. S. Peirce came to a related insight in the 1890s; see § Related work. == The primary arithmetic (Chapter 4) == The syntax of the primary arithmetic goes as follows. There are just two atomic expressions: The empty Cross ; All or part of the blank page (the "void"). There are two inductive rules: A Cross may be written over any expression; Any two expressions may be concatenated. The semantics of the primary arithmetic are perhaps nothing more than the sole explicit definition in LoF: "Distinction is perfect continence". Let the "unmarked state" be a synonym for the void. Let an empty Cross denote the "marked state". To cross is to move from one value, the unmarked or marked state, to the other. We can now state the "arithmetical" axioms A1 and A2, which ground the primary arithmetic (and hence all of the Laws of Form): "A1. The law of Calling". Calling twice from a state is indistinguishable from calling once. To make a distinction twice has the same effect as making it once. For example, saying "Let there be light" and then saying "Let there be light" again, is the same as saying it once. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} "A2. The law of Crossing". After crossing from the unmarked to the marked state, crossing again ("recrossing") starting from the marked state returns one to the unmarked state. Hence recrossing annuls crossing. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} In both A1 and A2, the expression to the right of '=' has fewer symbols than the expression to the left of '='. This suggests that every primary arithmetic expression can, by repeated application of A1 and A2, be simplified to one of two states: the marked or the unmarked state. This is indeed the case, and the result is the expression's "simplification". The two fundamental metatheorems of the primary arithmetic state that: Every finite expression has a unique simplification. (T3 in LoF); Starting from an initial marked or unmarked state, "complicating" an expression by a finite number of repeated application of A1 and A2 cannot yield

PerfKitBenchmarker

PerfKit Benchmarker is an open source benchmarking tool used to measure and compare cloud offerings. PerfKit Benchmarker is licensed under the Apache 2 license terms. PerfKit Benchmarker is a community effort involving over 500 participants including researchers, academic institutions and companies together with the originator, Google. == General == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) is a community effort to deliver a repeatable, consistent, and open way of measuring Cloud Performance. It supports a growing list of cloud providers including: Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, CloudStack, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud Platform, Kubernetes, Microsoft Azure, OpenStack, Rackspace, IBM Bluemix (Softlayer). In addition to Cloud Providers to supports container orchestration including Kubernetes [1] and Mesos [2] and local "static" workstations and clusters of computers [3]. The goal is to create an open source living benchmark [framework] that represents how Cloud developers are building applications, evaluating Cloud alternatives, learning how to architect applications for each cloud. Living because it will change and morph quickly as developers change. PerfKit Benchmarker measures the end to end time to provision resources in the cloud, in addition to reporting on the most standard metrics of peak performance, e.g.: latency, throughput, time-to-complete, IOPS. PerfKit Benchmarker reduces the complexity in running benchmarks on supported cloud providers by unified and simple commands. It's designed to operate via vendor provided command line tools. PerfKit Benchmarker contains a canonical set of public benchmarks. All benchmarks are running with default/initial state and configuration (Not tuned to in favor of any providers). This provides a way to benchmark across cloud platforms, while getting a transparent view of application throughput, latency, variance, and overhead. == History == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) was started by Anthony F. Voellm, Alain Hamel, and Eric Hankland at Google in 2014. Once an initial "alpha" was in place Anthony F. Voellm and Ivan Santa Maria Filho built a community including ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, CloudSpectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Rackspace, Red Hat, Tradeworx Inc., and Thesys Technologies LLC. This community worked together behind the scenes in a private GitHub project to create an open way to measure cloud performance. This community released the first public "beta" was released on February 11, 2015, and announced in a blog post at which point the GitHub project was open to everyone. After almost a year and with large adaption (600+ participants on GitHub) the V1.0.0 was released along with a detailed architectural design on December 10, 2015. == Benchmarks == A list of available benchmarks from PerfKitBenchmarker: (The latest set of benchmarks can be found at GitHub readme file.) == Industry participants == Since Google open sourced the PerfKitBenchmarker, it became a community effort from over 30 leading researchers, academic schools and industry companies. Those organizations include: ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, Cloud Spectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Thesys Technologies. In addition, Stanford and MIT are leading quarterly discussions on default benchmarks and settings proposed by the community. EcoCloud@EPFL is integrating CloudSuite into PerfKit Benchmarker. == Example runs == On Google Cloud Platform On AWS On Azure On Rackspace On a local machine

Local tangent space alignment

Local tangent space alignment (LTSA) is a method for manifold learning, which can efficiently learn a nonlinear embedding into low-dimensional coordinates from high-dimensional data, and can also reconstruct high-dimensional coordinates from embedding coordinates. It is based on the intuition that when a manifold is correctly unfolded, all of the tangent hyperplanes to the manifold will become aligned. It begins by computing the k-nearest neighbors of every point. It computes the tangent space at every point by computing the d-first principal components in each local neighborhood. It then optimizes to find an embedding that aligns the tangent spaces, but it ignores the label information conveyed by data samples, and thus can not be used for classification directly.

Hinge loss

In machine learning, the hinge loss is a loss function used for training classifiers. The hinge loss is used for "maximum-margin" classification, most notably for support vector machines (SVMs). For an intended output t = ±1 and a classifier score y, the hinge loss of the prediction y is defined as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 − t ⋅ y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1-t\cdot y)} Note that y {\displaystyle y} should be the "raw" output of the classifier's decision function, not the predicted class label. For instance, in linear SVMs, y = w ⋅ x + b {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +b} , where ( w , b ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {w} ,b)} are the parameters of the hyperplane and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is the input variable(s). When t and y have the same sign (meaning y predicts the right class) and | y | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle |y|\geq 1} , the hinge loss ℓ ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ell (y)=0} . When they have opposite signs, ℓ ( y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)} increases linearly with y, and similarly if | y | < 1 {\displaystyle |y|<1} , even if it has the same sign (correct prediction, but not by enough margin). The Hinge loss is not a proper scoring rule. == Extensions == While binary SVMs are commonly extended to multiclass classification in a one-vs.-all or one-vs.-one fashion, it is also possible to extend the hinge loss itself for such an end. Several different variations of multiclass hinge loss have been proposed. For example, Crammer and Singer defined it for a linear classifier as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 + max y ≠ t w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1+\max _{y\neq t}\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} , where t {\displaystyle t} is the target label, w t {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{t}} and w y {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{y}} are the model parameters. Weston and Watkins provided a similar definition, but with a sum rather than a max: ℓ ( y ) = ∑ y ≠ t max ( 0 , 1 + w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\sum _{y\neq t}\max(0,1+\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} . In structured prediction, the hinge loss can be further extended to structured output spaces. Structured SVMs with margin rescaling use the following variant, where w denotes the SVM's parameters, y the SVM's predictions, φ the joint feature function, and Δ the Hamming loss: ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) = max ( 0 , max y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ ) − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\ell (\mathbf {y} )&=\max(0,\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle -\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\\&=\max(0,\max _{y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}\left(\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle \right)-\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\end{aligned}}} . == Optimization == The hinge loss is a convex function, so many of the usual convex optimizers used in machine learning can work with it. It is not differentiable, but has a subgradient with respect to model parameters w of a linear SVM with score function y = w ⋅ x {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} } that is given by ∂ ℓ ∂ w i = { − t ⋅ x i if t ⋅ y < 1 , 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \ell }{\partial w_{i}}}={\begin{cases}-t\cdot x_{i}&{\text{if }}t\cdot y<1,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} However, since the derivative of the hinge loss at t y = 1 {\displaystyle ty=1} is undefined, smoothed versions may be preferred for optimization, such as Rennie and Srebro's ℓ ( y ) = { 1 2 − t y if t y ≤ 0 , 1 2 ( 1 − t y ) 2 if 0 < t y < 1 , 0 if 1 ≤ t y {\displaystyle \ell (y)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}-ty&{\text{if}}~~ty\leq 0,\\{\frac {1}{2}}(1-ty)^{2}&{\text{if}}~~0

Inverted pendulum

An inverted pendulum is a pendulum that has its center of mass above its pivot point. It is unstable and falls over without additional help. It can be suspended stably in this inverted position by using a control system to monitor the angle of the pole and move the pivot point horizontally back under the center of mass when it starts to fall over, keeping it balanced. The inverted pendulum is a classic problem in dynamics and control theory and is used as a benchmark for testing control strategies. It is often implemented with the pivot point mounted on a cart that can move horizontally under control of an electronic servo system as shown in the photo; this is called a cart and pole apparatus. Most applications limit the pendulum to 1 degree of freedom by affixing the pole to an axis of rotation. Whereas a normal pendulum is stable when hanging downward, an inverted pendulum is inherently unstable, and must be actively balanced in order to remain upright; this can be done either by applying a torque at the pivot point, by moving the pivot point horizontally as part of a feedback system, changing the rate of rotation of a mass mounted on the pendulum on an axis parallel to the pivot axis and thereby generating a net torque on the pendulum, or by oscillating the pivot point vertically. A simple demonstration of moving the pivot point in a feedback system is achieved by balancing an upturned broomstick on the end of one's finger. A second type of inverted pendulum is a tiltmeter for tall structures, which consists of a wire anchored to the bottom of the foundation and attached to a float in a pool of oil at the top of the structure that has devices for measuring movement of the neutral position of the float away from its original position. == Overview == A pendulum with its bob hanging directly below the support pivot is at a stable equilibrium point, where it remains motionless because there is no torque on the pendulum. If displaced from this position, it experiences a restoring torque that returns it toward the equilibrium position. A pendulum with its bob in an inverted position, supported on a rigid rod directly above the pivot, 180° from its stable equilibrium position, is at an unstable equilibrium point. At this point again there is no torque on the pendulum, but the slightest displacement away from this position causes a gravitation torque on the pendulum that accelerates it away from equilibrium, causing it to fall over. In order to stabilize a pendulum in this inverted position, a feedback control system can be used, which monitors the pendulum's angle and moves the position of the pivot point sideways when the pendulum starts to fall over, to keep it balanced. The inverted pendulum is a classic problem in dynamics and control theory and is widely used as a benchmark for testing control algorithms (PID controllers, state-space representation, neural networks, fuzzy control, genetic algorithms, etc.). Variations on this problem include multiple links, allowing the motion of the cart to be commanded while maintaining the pendulum, and balancing the cart-pendulum system on a see-saw. The inverted pendulum is related to rocket or missile guidance, where the center of gravity is located behind the center of drag causing aerodynamic instability. The understanding of a similar problem can be shown by simple robotics in the form of a balancing cart. Balancing an upturned broomstick on the end of one's finger is a simple demonstration, and the problem is solved by self-balancing personal transporters such as the Segway PT, the self-balancing hoverboard and the self-balancing unicycle. Another way that an inverted pendulum may be stabilized, without any feedback or control mechanism, is by oscillating the pivot rapidly up and down. This is called Kapitza's pendulum. If the oscillation is sufficiently strong (in terms of its acceleration and amplitude) then the inverted pendulum can recover from perturbations in a strikingly counterintuitive manner. If the driving point moves in simple harmonic motion, the pendulum's motion is described by the Mathieu equation. == Equations of motion == The equations of motion of inverted pendulums are dependent on what constraints are placed on the motion of the pendulum. Inverted pendulums can be created in various configurations resulting in a number of Equations of Motion describing the behavior of the pendulum. === Stationary pivot point === In a configuration where the pivot point of the pendulum is fixed in space, the equation of motion is similar to that for an uninverted pendulum. The equation of motion below assumes no friction or any other resistance to movement, a rigid massless rod, and the restriction to 2-dimensional movement. θ ¨ − g ℓ sin ⁡ θ = 0 {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}-{g \over \ell }\sin \theta =0} Where θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}} is the angular acceleration of the pendulum, g {\displaystyle g} is the standard gravity on the surface of the Earth, ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the length of the pendulum, and θ {\displaystyle \theta } is the angular displacement measured from the equilibrium position. When θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}} added to both sides, it has the same sign as the angular acceleration term: θ ¨ = g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}={g \over \ell }\sin \theta } Thus, the inverted pendulum accelerates away from the vertical unstable equilibrium in the direction initially displaced, and the acceleration is inversely proportional to the length. Tall pendulums fall more slowly than short ones. Derivation using torque and moment of inertia: The pendulum is assumed to consist of a point mass, of mass m {\displaystyle m} , affixed to the end of a massless rigid rod, of length ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , attached to a pivot point at the end opposite the point mass. The net torque of the system must equal the moment of inertia times the angular acceleration: τ n e t = I θ ¨ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\tau }}_{\mathrm {net} }=I{\ddot {\theta }}} The torque due to gravity providing the net torque: τ n e t = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\tau }}_{\mathrm {net} }=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} Where θ {\displaystyle \theta \ } is the angle measured from the inverted equilibrium position. The resulting equation: I θ ¨ = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle I{\ddot {\theta }}=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} The moment of inertia for a point mass: I = m R 2 {\displaystyle I=mR^{2}} In the case of the inverted pendulum the radius is the length of the rod, ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } . Substituting in I = m ℓ 2 {\displaystyle I=m\ell ^{2}} m ℓ 2 θ ¨ = m g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle m\ell ^{2}{\ddot {\theta }}=mg\ell \sin \theta \,\!} Mass and ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} is divided from each side resulting in: θ ¨ = g ℓ sin ⁡ θ {\displaystyle {\ddot {\theta }}={g \over \ell }\sin \theta } === Inverted pendulum on a cart === An inverted pendulum on a cart consists of a mass m {\displaystyle m} at the top of a pole of length ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } pivoted on a horizontally moving base as shown in the adjacent image. The cart is restricted to linear motion and is subject to forces resulting in or hindering motion. === Essentials of stabilization === The essentials of stabilizing the inverted pendulum can be summarized qualitatively in three steps. 1. If the tilt angle θ {\displaystyle \theta } is to the right, the cart must accelerate to the right and vice versa. 2. The position of the cart x {\displaystyle x} relative to track center is stabilized by slightly modulating the null angle (the angle error that the control system tries to null) by the position of the cart, that is, null angle = θ + k x {\displaystyle =\theta +kx} where k {\displaystyle k} is small. This makes the pole want to lean slightly toward track center and stabilize at track center where the tilt angle is exactly vertical. Any offset in the tilt sensor or track slope that would otherwise cause instability translates into a stable position offset. A further added offset gives position control. 3. A normal pendulum subject to a moving pivot point such as a load lifted by a crane, has a peaked response at the pendulum radian frequency of ω p = g / ℓ {\displaystyle \omega _{p}={\sqrt {g/\ell }}} . To prevent uncontrolled swinging, the frequency spectrum of the pivot motion should be suppressed near ω p {\displaystyle \omega _{p}} . The inverted pendulum requires the same suppression filter to achieve stability. As a consequence of the null angle modulation strategy, the position feedback is positive, that is, a sudden command to move right produces an initial cart motion to the left followed by a move right to rebalance the pendulum. The interaction of the pendulum instability and the positive position feedback instability to produce a stable system is a feature that makes the mathematical analysis an interesting and challenging problem. === From Lagrange's equations === The equations of motion c

MY F.C.

MY F.C. is a freemium app designed to organise and administer football teams. It is developed by MY F.C. Limited, a private company headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand. The app allows users to build a team by adding players and from there they can create trainings and matches, keep up with relevant news in the curated newsfeed, record statistics both individually and team based, follow the games live in the match-centre. The app also features integrated lineup builder with custom team kits. == History == Founders Sam Jenkins, Mike Simpson and Sam Jasper started MY F.C. in 2015 to help them "run their football lives". The app was launched on Android and iOS on 14 February 2017. == Accolades == MY F.C. won the first place prize at Bank of New Zealand Start-up Alley 2017 competition that aims to discover New Zealand start-ups who are doing innovative work and ready to establish themselves as long-term, sustainable businesses. The prize package included $15,000 and a trip to San Francisco.

Parity benchmark

Parity problems are widely used as benchmark problems in genetic programming but inherited from the artificial neural network community. Parity is calculated by summing all the binary inputs and reporting if the sum is odd or even. This is considered difficult because: a very simple artificial neural network cannot solve it, and all inputs need to be considered and a change to any one of them changes the answer.