In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri
Luma (video)
In video, luma ( Y ′ {\displaystyle Y'} ) represents the brightness in an image (the "black-and-white" or achromatic portion of the image). Luma is typically paired with chroma. Luma represents the achromatic image, while the chroma components represent the color information. Converting R′G′B′ sources (such as the output of a three-CCD camera) into luma and chroma allows for chroma subsampling: because human vision has finer spatial sensitivity to luminance ("black and white") differences than chromatic differences, video systems can store and transmit chromatic information at lower resolution, optimizing perceived detail at a particular bandwidth. == Luma versus relative luminance == Luma is the weighted sum of gamma-compressed R′G′B′ components of a color video—the prime symbols ′ denote gamma compression. The word was proposed to prevent confusion between luma as implemented in video engineering and relative luminance as used in color science (i.e. as defined by CIE). Relative luminance is formed as a weighted sum of linear RGB components, not gamma-compressed ones. Even so, luma is sometimes erroneously called luminance. SMPTE EG 28 recommends the symbol Y ′ {\displaystyle Y'} to denote luma and the symbol Y {\displaystyle Y} to denote relative luminance. === Use of relative luminance === While luma is more often encountered, relative luminance is sometimes used in video engineering when referring to the brightness of a monitor. The formula used to calculate relative luminance uses coefficients based on the CIE color matching functions and the relevant standard chromaticities of red, green, and blue (e.g., the original NTSC primaries, SMPTE C, or Rec. 709). For the Rec. 709 (and sRGB) primaries, the linear combination, based on pure colorimetric considerations and the definition of relative luminance is: Y = 0.2126 R + 0.7152 G + 0.0722 B {\displaystyle Y=0.2126R+0.7152G+0.0722B} The formula used to calculate luma in the Rec. 709 spec arbitrarily also uses these same coefficients, but with gamma-compressed components: Y ′ = 0.2126 R ′ + 0.7152 G ′ + 0.0722 B ′ , {\displaystyle Y'=0.2126R'+0.7152G'+0.0722B',} where the prime symbol ′ denotes gamma compression. == Rec. 601 luma versus Rec. 709 luma coefficients == For digital formats following CCIR 601 (i.e. most digital standard definition formats), luma is calculated with this formula: Y 601 ′ = 0.299 R ′ + 0.587 G ′ + 0.114 B ′ {\displaystyle Y'_{\text{601}}=0.299R'+0.587G'+0.114B'} Formats following ITU-R Recommendation BT. 709 (i.e. most digital high definition formats) use a different formula: Y 709 ′ = 0.2126 R ′ + 0.7152 G ′ + 0.0722 B ′ {\displaystyle Y'_{\text{709}}=0.2126R'+0.7152G'+0.0722B'} Modern HDTV systems use the 709 coefficients, while transitional 1035i HDTV (MUSE) formats may use the SMPTE 240M coefficients: Y 240 ′ = 0.212 R ′ + 0.701 G ′ + 0.087 B ′ = Y 145 ′ {\displaystyle Y'_{\text{240}}=0.212R'+0.701G'+0.087B'=Y'_{\text{145}}} These coefficients correspond to the SMPTE RP 145 primaries (also known as "SMPTE C") in use at the time the standard was created. The change in the luma coefficients is to provide the "theoretically correct" coefficients that reflect the corresponding standard chromaticities ('colors') of the primaries red, green, and blue. However, there is some controversy regarding this decision. The difference in luma coefficients requires that component signals must be converted between Rec. 601 and Rec. 709 to provide accurate colors. In consumer equipment, the matrix required to perform this conversion may be omitted (to reduce cost), resulting in inaccurate color. == Luma and luminance errors == As well, the Rec. 709 luma coefficients may not necessarily provide better performance. Because of the difference between luma and relative luminance, luma does not exactly represent the luminance in an image. As a result, errors in chroma can affect luminance. Luma alone does not perfectly represent luminance; accurate luminance requires both accurate luma and chroma. Hence, errors in chroma "bleed" into the luminance of an image. Note the bleeding in lightness near the borders. Due to the widespread usage of chroma subsampling, errors in chroma typically occur when it is lowered in resolution/bandwidth. This lowered bandwidth, coupled with high frequency chroma components, can cause visible errors in luminance. An example of a high frequency chroma component would be the line between the green and magenta bars of the SMPTE color bars test pattern. Error in luminance can be seen as a dark band that occurs in this area.
Cloud printing
There are, in essence, three kinds of Cloud printing. == Benefits == 76% of IT teams have moved, or plan to move, their print workflows to the cloud due to its simplicity. Consumers can print easily to any printer from their PC, tablet or smartphone, while the Cloud print service monitors the supplies level. Many printer vendors such as Lexmark propose an automatic supplies shipment based on the real-time analysis of the printer supplies and user behavior to ensure printing will always be possible. For IT department, Cloud Printing eliminates the need for print servers and represents the only way to print from Cloud virtual desktops and servers. For consumers, cloud ready printers eliminate the need for PC connections and print drivers, enabling them to print from mobile devices. As for publishers and content owners, cloud printing allows them to "avoid the cost and complexity of buying and managing the underlying hardware, software and processes" required for the production of professional print products. Leveraging cloud print for print on demand also allows businesses to cut down on the costs associated with mass production. Moreover, cloud printing can be considered more eco-friendly, as it significantly reduces the amount of paper used (13% reduction in print jobs yearly) and lowers carbon emissions from transportation. As many companies move their IT to the Cloud, some adopting the Windows 365 and Azure Virtual Desktop services from Microsoft, the connection from the Cloud environment to the on-premise printers become an issue as opening ports for incoming print flow traffic is not an option. In 2020, at the exact same time Google discontinued its Google Print offer, Microsoft has announced its Universal Print service offer, aimed at making printing compatible with Cloud Desktop environments, making printing driver-free and simple with no client to install on PC. With Universal Print Microsoft has built a disrupting architecture with a value proposition commodifying printers, removing print servers and drivers, allowing to move printers to VLAN for security purpose and printing from anywhere. Clients are free to use any printer from any model as they all work the same, clients are not tied anymore to any printer brand and that gave a significant boost to the Cloud print market. That Microsoft Universal Print architecture provides APIs to third-party developers who can develop add-ons such as Celiveo 365 to extend Microsoft Cloud Print with added features such as access control on printers and copiers, follow-me pull print, data encryption, advanced usage reporting or charge back. == Providers of Consumer Cloud Printing Solutions == Before 2020 only a handful of providers used to work towards a professional cloud print solution, operating in their own niche or focus on mobile devices. In 2020 Microsoft has boosted that market by announcing its Universal Print Cloud printing service and since then many publishers have started to propose solutions for that growing market. The Covid pandemic also created the need for employees to be able to print at home when using the corporate IT software. Closed VPN often prevent accessing home network printers from corporate laptops and Full Public Cloud solutions are meant to be a solution to that problem. After the decision by Google to terminate Google Cloud Print service on 31 December 2020, most printer vendors released their own mobile cloud solution to fill the gap, while Hewlett-Packard implemented its own cloud print with their ePrint solution. Those solutions are often proprietary, only working on printers proposed by the vendor. Google has decided to let third-party developers develop Cloud Print solutions and to limit its scope to certifying the best Print Management offers compatible with its Chrome Enterprise Cloud ecosystem. == Providers of Corporate Cloud Printing solutions == While many print solutions claim to be "Cloud Printing", there are actually three categories: full Private Cloud, full Public Cloud, and Hybrid Cloud. Their differences are real and have an impact on the overall TCO as the more software there is on-site, the more hidden cost there are. In the Full Public Cloud category, independent SaaS vendors like Celiveo, ezeep , Printix , and Y Soft support a wide range of printer brands and models, allowing clients to buy the best printer without being locked on any brand. They are leveraging cloud computing technology to offer cloud-based print infrastructure and cloud-based printing software as a Service (SaaS). These solutions have integrations to cloud enabled printers or provide embedded printer agents. They feature allow users to print to any printer in any network, isolated network or not, even if that printer is otherwise not reachable from the user's computer. This also allows IT departments to move printers to VLAN for maximum security, like what they are doing with IP phones. Google Chrome Enterprise Cloud ecosystem has its own technical particularities and Google certifies Print Management solutions, ensuring they comply with Google technical requirement, yet letting each solution differentiate from others with specific features or security. Many of solutions for Chrome Enterprise are Hybrid, a few are Full Public Cloud. Industry experts believe that as these services become more popular, users will no longer consider printers as necessary assets but rather as devices that they can access on demand when the need to generate a printed page presents itself. == Caveats of Cloud Printing == == Security == Print jobs flow through Public Internet. It is therefore important to verify no Man-in-the-Middle attack can be performed. The only technical solution is to ensure each printer and PC uses a non-self-generated cryptographic token or certificate allowing TLS mutual authentication and specific data encryption. Self-generated printer certificates are unknown from the Cloud and prevent trusted authentication. Microsoft has implemented its Zero Trust Access security in its Universal Print service, it generates a unique certificate on printers compatible with its service. Other Cloud Printing SaaS providers have followed Microsoft on that High Security path. Print jobs data stored on the Cloud is sensitive as it contains user information as well as all information appearing on pages. Good practices require such data is encrypted at rest and in motion, using asymmetric PKI keys instead of fixed encryption keys. Some solutions require to open incoming traffic ports on the firewall to let Cloud services communicate with printers attached behind that firewall (most of the time for IPP/IPPS flows), some other solutions use a pull model where the communication is always initiated by the printer and no firewall port needs to be open. In terms of security the later is to be preferred.
Community cloud
A community cloud in computing is a collaborative effort in which infrastructure is shared between several organizations from a specific community with common concerns (security, compliance, jurisdiction, etc.), whether managed internally or by a third party and hosted internally or externally. This is controlled and used by a group of organizations that have shared interests. The costs are spread over fewer users than a public cloud (but more than a private cloud), so only some of the cost savings potential of cloud computing are realized. The community cloud is provisioned for use by a group of consumers from different organizations who share the same concerns (e.g., application, security, policy, and efficiency demands).
Direct Graphics Access
Direct Graphics Access is a plug-in for the X display servers that allows client programs direct access to the frame buffer. Graphics hardware communicates via a chunk of memory called a frame buffer. This is an array of values that represent pixel color values on the screen. Writing the appropriate values into the frame buffer therefore allows a program to paint areas of the screen. However, as with any shared resource, problems occur when multiple programs attempt to access the same resource, as they tend to write over each other's work. In the X Window System, this is solved by having a central display server that mediates between programs that want to draw on the screen. The display server also used to perform a lot of the drawing work, allowing programs to say Draw me a circle of this radius filled with this pattern or draw this text in this font. The X server does all this work, freeing programmers from having to write their own drawing code. Another advantage of the X architecture is that it works over a network, allowing programs on one machine to display output on the screen of another. Direct Graphics Access allows direct access to the frame buffer and the X-server hands over control of the frame buffer to the client program and waits for the client to hand it back. This means that the client program has control of the whole screen, and so it is mostly used for full-screen video/games.
Richardson–Lucy deconvolution
The Richardson–Lucy algorithm, also known as Lucy–Richardson deconvolution, is an iterative procedure for recovering an underlying image that has been blurred by a known point spread function. It was named after William Richardson and Leon B. Lucy, who described it independently. == Description == When an image is produced using an optical system and detected using photographic film, a charge-coupled device or a CMOS sensor, for example, it is inevitably blurred, with an ideal point source not appearing as a point but being spread out into what is known as the point spread function. Extended sources can be decomposed into the sum of many individual point sources, thus the observed image can be represented in terms of a transition matrix p operating on an underlying image: d i = ∑ j p i , j u j , {\displaystyle d_{i}=\sum _{j}p_{i,j}u_{j},} where u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} is the intensity of the underlying image at pixel j {\displaystyle j} , and d i {\displaystyle d_{i}} is the detected intensity at pixel i {\displaystyle i} . In general, a matrix whose elements are p i , j {\displaystyle p_{i,j}} describes the portion of light from source pixel j that is detected in pixel i. In most good optical systems (or in general, linear systems that are described as shift-invariant) the transfer function p can be expressed simply in terms of the spatial offset between the source pixel j and the observation pixel i: p i , j = P ( i − j ) , {\displaystyle p_{i,j}=P(i-j),} where P ( Δ i ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta i)} is called a point spread function. In that case the above equation becomes a convolution. This has been written for one spatial dimension, but most imaging systems are two-dimensional, with the source, detected image, and point spread function all having two indices. So a two-dimensional detected image is a convolution of the underlying image with a two-dimensional point spread function P ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta x,\Delta y)} plus added detection noise. In order to estimate u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} given the observed d i {\displaystyle d_{i}} and a known P ( Δ i x , Δ j y ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta i_{x},\Delta j_{y})} , the following iterative procedure is employed in which the estimate of u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} (called u ^ j ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)}} ) for iteration number t is updated as follows: u ^ j ( t + 1 ) = u ^ j ( t ) ∑ i d i c i p i j , {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t+1)}={\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)}\sum _{i}{\frac {d_{i}}{c_{i}}}p_{ij},} where c i = ∑ j p i j u ^ j ( t ) , {\displaystyle c_{i}=\sum _{j}p_{ij}{\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)},} and ∑ j p i j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}p_{ij}=1} is assumed. It has been shown empirically that if this iteration converges, it converges to the maximum likelihood solution for u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} . Writing this more generally for two (or more) dimensions in terms of convolution with a point spread function P: u ^ ( t + 1 ) = u ^ ( t ) ⋅ ( d u ^ ( t ) ⊗ P ⊗ P ∗ ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}^{(t+1)}={\hat {u}}^{(t)}\cdot \left({\frac {d}{{\hat {u}}^{(t)}\otimes P}}\otimes P^{}\right),} where the division and multiplication are element-wise, ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } indicates a 2D convolution, and P ∗ {\displaystyle P^{}} is the mirrored point spread function, or the inverse Fourier transform of the Hermitian transpose of the optical transfer function. In problems where the point spread function p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} is not known a priori, a modification of the Richardson–Lucy algorithm has been proposed, in order to accomplish blind deconvolution. == Derivation == In the context of fluorescence microscopy, the probability of measuring a set of number of photons (or digitalization counts proportional to detected light) m = [ m 0 , … , m K ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} =[m_{0},\dots ,m_{K}]} for expected values E = [ E 0 , … , E K ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =[E_{0},\dots ,E_{K}]} for a detector with K + 1 {\displaystyle K+1} pixels is given by P ( m ∣ E ) = ∏ i K Poisson ( E i ) = ∏ i K E i m i e − E i m i ! . {\displaystyle P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\prod _{i}^{K}\operatorname {Poisson} (E_{i})=\prod _{i}^{K}{\frac {E_{i}^{m_{i}}e^{-E_{i}}}{m_{i}!}}.} Since in the context of maximum-likelihood estimation the aim is to locate the maximum of the likelihood function without concern for its absolute value, it is convenient to work with ln ( P ) {\displaystyle \ln(P)} : ln P ( m ∣ E ) = ∑ i K [ ( m i ln E i − E i ) − ln ( m i ! ) ] . {\displaystyle \ln P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\sum _{i}^{K}[(m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i})-\ln(m_{i}!)].} Moreover, since ln ( m i ! ) {\displaystyle \ln(m_{i}!)} is a constant, it does not give any additional information regarding the position of the maximum, so consider α ( m ∣ E ) = ∑ i K [ m i ln E i − E i ] , {\displaystyle \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\sum _{i}^{K}[m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i}],} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is something that shares the same maximum position as P ( m ∣ E ) {\displaystyle P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )} . Now consider that E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } comes from a ground truth x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } and a measurement H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } which is assumed to be linear. Then E = H x , {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {H} \mathbf {x} ,} where a matrix multiplication is implied. This can also be written in the form E m = ∑ n K H m n x n , {\displaystyle E_{m}=\sum _{n}^{K}H_{mn}x_{n},} where it can be seen how H {\displaystyle H} mixes or blurs the ground truth. It can also be shown that the derivative of an element of E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } , ( E i ) {\displaystyle (E_{i})} with respect to some other element of x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} can be written as It is easy to see this by writing a matrix H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } of, say, 5 × 5 and two arrays E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } of 5 elements and check it. This last equation can be interpreted as how much one element of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , say element i {\displaystyle i} , influences the other elements j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\neq i} (and of course the case i = j {\displaystyle i=j} is also taken into account). For example, in a typical case an element of the ground truth x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } will influence nearby elements in E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } but not the very distant ones (a value of 0 {\displaystyle 0} is expected on those matrix elements). Now, the key and arbitrary step: x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is not known but may be estimated by x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}} . Let's call x ^ old {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}_{\text{old}}} and x ^ new {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}_{\text{new}}} the estimated ground truths while using the RL algorithm, where the hat symbol is used to distinguish ground truth from estimator of the ground truth where ∂ ∂ x {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial \mathbf {x} }}} stands for a K {\displaystyle K} -dimensional gradient. Performing the partial derivative of α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))} yields the following expression: ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x j = ∂ ∂ x j ∑ i K [ m i ln E i − E i ] = ∑ i K [ m i E i ∂ ∂ x j E i − ∂ ∂ x j E i ] = ∑ i K ∂ E i ∂ x j [ m i E i − 1 ] . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial x_{j}}}={\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}\sum _{i}^{K}[m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i}]=\sum _{i}^{K}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}E_{i}-{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}E_{i}\right]=\sum _{i}^{K}{\frac {\partial E_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}-1\right].} By substituting (1), it follows that ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x j = ∑ i K H i j [ m i E i − 1 ] . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial x_{j}}}=\sum _{i}^{K}H_{ij}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}-1\right].} Note that H j i T = H i j {\displaystyle H_{ji}^{T}=H_{ij}} by the definition of a matrix transpose. And hence Since this equation is true for all j {\displaystyle j} spanning all the elements from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to K {\displaystyle K} , these K {\displaystyle K} equations may be compactly rewritten as a single vectorial equation ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x = H T [ m E − 1 ] , {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial \mathbf {x} }}=\mathbf {H} ^{T}\left[{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{\mathbf {E} }}-\mathbf {1} \right],} where H T {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} ^{T}} is a matrix, and m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } , E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } are vectors. Now, as a seemingly arbitrary but key step, let where 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a vector of ones of size K {\displaystyle K} (same as m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } , E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } ), and the d
30 Boxes
30 Boxes is a minimalist calendaring IOS application created by 83 Degrees. Originating as a web application in March 2006, 30 Boxes was founded by Webshots cofounder Narendra Rocherolle. The website shut down some time in 2020, but relaunched for the IOS in February 2021. The original website was tailored towards "social media junkies". == Reception == Barry Collins of The Sunday Times appreciated the website's plain-language event adding feature, but did not appreciate that he was unable to see more than one month of events at a time. Collins was also unhappy that the website was not capable of warning him when he had two events scheduled at the same time. In a list of the best web-based calendar software for small businesses, Forbes ranked 30 Boxes second, after Google Calendar. They described 30 Boxes like “buying a new car with manual transmission and lots of extras—you don't just want to drive it, you want to fool around with it to see what it can do”.