|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: <WannaBe> Let's not forget Waterworld! |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | Brown: No talk of Phillip K. Dick here? |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: <Brown: No talk of Phillip K. Dick here?> Total Recall is right up there with Battlefield Earth & Waterworld-all works of pure genius. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | square dance: <The whole franchise was made to cash in on video game addicts.> then maybe they should've released more than one video game based on the matrix universe. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | Supergrandmaster: Sneaky -- you are brilliant, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that The Matrix is a work of genius. Indeed, its very title exposes the mathematical nature of our existence, all of us being a random, but predictably existent, piece of data to be calculated in a universal human context by a matrix (if the reader knows anything of matrix algebra, it is a multidimensional probabilistic analysis of large amounts of data). And thus it is that we exist within the mathematical parameters of the matrix, as variable, yet predictable and normalizable functions of our own consciousness and learning as well as that of others. The chess game itself is such a vast microcosm of possibility, with only three outcomes, that it too places the minds of the two competitors on an archetypal plane of existence. |
|
Jul-02-05
 | | WannaBe: <OneBadDog> I did like Total Recall, talking of P.K. Dick, one mustn't forget Blade Runner, (Not to be confused with W. Snipe & Kristoffson's Blade.) Paycheck was O.K. mostly because I don't like Ben Affleck that much. Wasn't Minority Report also based on his work? Was Artificial Inteligence another one? Can't say for sure. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: <WannaBe> Before this goes any further, I was just kidding about Waterworld and Battlefield Earth-they're both terrible movies. Total Recall had some redeeming qualities but was still not a very good movie. All kidding aside, Blade Runner is a modern day classic. AI wasn't Phillip K. Dick but Brian Aldiss. A lot of critics didn't like AI but I liked it. AI had its flaws and there were huge holes in the plot but it said some pretty important things about society and human behavior. |
|
Jul-02-05
| | WannaBe: <OneBadDog> Glad to know you were kidding about B.E. and Wa-wa-World. Start to worry about you and your movie taste. :-) LOL. I've had enough chess studying for a day. Off to the local watering hole and get some Beer. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: Beer, Chess and the Internet-that's all you need to get by in life! Well maybe that and Pizza. LOL |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: One last thought about Science Fiction-the best works of Science Fiction aren't about technology, they are about the Man's soul and his place in the Universe. |
|
Jul-02-05
 | | Ron: <Wannabe> I think Minority Report was base on the work of P.K. Dick; A.I, the film, was based on a story by the science fiction writer Brian Aldiss. Here is part of an interview of Aldiss I came across: Talking about movies, how did you find the production of the film A.I., based on your 'Supertoys' story? I have said all I can say about working with Stanley Kubrick in an article which I think appears on my website. I remain very friendly with the Kubrick family, who are lovely. Stanley was a great filmmaker, although I disagreed with him on various points - for instance, could not stomach the Blue Fairy! So I threw up, so he threw me out! Stanley was never content to do over again what he had done before. I go along with that. That we had in common. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | csmath: <<Indeed, its very title exposes the mathematical nature of our existence, all of us being a random, but predictably existent, piece of data to be calculated in a universal human context by a matrix (if the reader knows anything of matrix algebra, it is a multidimensional probabilistic analysis of large amounts of data). And thus it is that we exist within the mathematical parameters of the matrix, as variable, yet predictable and normalizable functions of our own consciousness and learning as well as that of others.>> LOL.
As a mathematician I can tell you that if you would write this as a seminar paper for my course, you'd get an F quite fast. No sneaky genius would help you. |
|
| Jul-03-05 | | InfiniteWombat: << As a mathematician ...
Just curious csmath, what are your principal areas of research ? |
|
Jul-03-05
| | WannaBe: <OneBadDog> Back from drinking some 'relaxants' I can't agreee with you more on that comment, some of the BEST P.K. Dick's story are NOT about the science that occurs in the future, but the impact and the possible moral issues involved with tech. advancement. Plus, people need to (really need to) separate the science from the fiction in Sci-Fi. <Ron> Thanks for the post. A.I. to me was 2 completely different movie. Great premise and beginning, and then I said "What the &^%^%$$$%%" Honest. :-) <csmath> being that I hold a minor in math, (Can't get past Abstr. Alg. tried it twice) can I write a paper for you and get credit for a 'full' math degree? Please, pretty please. :-)) |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | acirce: <Indeed, its very title exposes the mathematical nature of our existence, all of us being a random, but predictably existent, piece of data to be calculated in a universal human context by a matrix (if the reader knows anything of matrix algebra, it is a multidimensional probabilistic analysis of large amounts of data). And thus it is that we exist within the mathematical parameters of the matrix, as variable, yet predictable and normalizable functions of our own consciousness and learning as well as that of others.> What on earth is this supposed to mean? |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | mas o menos: < OneBadDog: Battlefield Earth is another sci-fi classic > John Travolta as a galactic warlord?
Puleeeeezzzee... |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | Wilhelm: <acirce: What on Earth is this supposed to mean?> Being a sneaky genius myself, I will try to help Supergrandmaster here and get a "A" at least for him, and modesty apart, illustrate his post with examples: The meaning is very simple. Everyone on Planet Earth are functions, which are normalizable to conscious = 1 and learning = 1. Translated into simple terms, this means nobody know anything, and at the same time, everybody knows everything since all that matters is the norm of the function which is one, 1, in either case. This is the basis of Consumism, the doctrine that says that everybody must eat the same, wear the same, buy the same, live the same life so that the rich become richest and the poor poorest. This a very Far Right ideal close to that hold by Kasparov The Politician, for example (hence the connection with chess here). Now we as functions are predictable, and those who are not predictable are simply functions of yet-to-be-discovered variables. When these become known, then they will also be predictable. The usual example is Fischer of course, who is a function of a large set of unknown variables, that's why he is very unpredictable. The good news is that we(chessplayers) compound a Matrix which is presumably symmetric and with norm one of course. The determinant of this Matrix can be converted to zero using a set of vectors i,j,k, These vectors and the Matrix hold the Truth and in particular all the winning variations in Chess, making them very important in the long run, as every GM wants to become World Champion, but at the end only Hydra (and here the connection with this Page) is the perfect unpredictable and not normalizable chessplayer on Earth for ever and ever again. The bad news is that this Matrix of all-chessplayers is multidimensional, that is, it like a probabilistic Tensor of rank n-th, if you know what I mean, ie it can't be solved in three dimension, therefore it has imaginary roots and these are as many as chessplayers in planet Earth, therefore the simultaneous existance of two, three World Champions and which lead us to the usual questions: Who are we, Where do we come from? Is there Life in other planets? Who will win Dortmund? Will Kasparov unretire? If Capablanca plays Fischer and Alekhine Kramnik who will win? etc etc (I deserve a at least "B" for all this BS 8-)) |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | farrooj: Cool. I think the only question worth asking is "Why?" This is the question that we always find the most annoying. Usually I get slapped or kicked if I keep on repeating it, but I mean no harm... Why? you can keep asking it until your knowledge runs out and then, that will be a true question. |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | mymt: <Wilhelm>."...very simple ...nobody knows anything ...everybody knows everything " So Joe Blogs doesnt know he should remove his trousers when he goes to the toilet ,but everybody else does . Yes its quite easy to understand as Spike Milligan would say "...VERY interesting ,BUT stupid!" |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | csmath: <<Just curious csmath, what are your principal areas of research ?>>
Logic (universal algebra) and probability.
|
|
| Jul-04-05 | | Pawsome: <csmath> This is off topic, but I wonder if you could help me resolve a long running argument I've been having with a friend. My friend is a fisheries biologist whose work involved quite a bit of flying in helicopters. One day he announced that he was changing assignments to avoid heli flights. When I asked why, he said that he'd flown so often that he was almost certain to crash. I suggested that his odds of having a mishap did not increase with the number of flights flown. He told me he'd taken math in university, and that I was dead wrong. Since then I've gotten support from a high school math teacher but my friend trumped me with a college math instructor who even produced a proof that I was mistaken. Unfortunately, I couldn't make head or tails of the proof. While I admit my exposure to math is limited (I add and subtract fluently) it seems to me that if my friend's position were correct then everyone who flies carries his or her own probability of crashing. If that is true then whose probability is in play if I make flight tomorrow, mine or the pilot's? I'd be obliged if you could draw on your knowledge to shed some light on this issue. |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | jamesmaskell: pawsome, we can help but please direct questions like that to the beer or kibitzers cafe pages. |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | csmath: Nobody's. Probability is assigned to you in one sample space, to pilot in another, and to a plane in another. Meaning you can have as any probabilities as sample spaces. They are not transferrable from one to another. |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | csmath: Also with independent trials (as repeated helicopter flights) probability of crash does not increase with another fligth. It stays the same. The question that he might be interested is whether the probability of crash in 1,000 flights is bigger than in one flight. The answer is yes, because there are different random variable in the game and different sample spaces. The first is Binomial, the second is Bernouli. However since he safely flew 999 flights the probability in 1,000th flight will be the same as in the first one. |
|
| Jul-04-05 | | csmath: Also what is the same in the case of pilot-passenger case is that the probability that you will crash given that that particular pilot flies is the same as the probability that he will crash given that you are the passenger.
But these are conditional probabilities where the sample space is the same for both of you. Conditional probabilities are not ordinarily the same as your individual crash probabilities unless these variables are independent which is apparently not the sace here. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
