arXiv blog

Origami Crease Pattern Design Proved NP-Hard

Origamists have long suspected their art is computationally hard. Now they've proved it.

kfc 08/11/2010

  • 30 Comments

Some 20 years or so, various individuals recognised that the problem of folding a square sheet of paper into an arbitrary 3D shape had many similarities to problems in computational geometry. These practitioners began developing algorithms that automatically generate the crease patterns that turn a flat sheet into an intricate shape of your choice. Thanks to this and the magical power of modern computing machines, origami is currently undergoing a technical and creative revolution.

But this new science of paper folding has lead to some entirely new conundrums. Having turned origami into a problem of computer science, it wasn't long before origamists began asking themselves computer science-like questions. In particular, they want to know how computationally difficult origami actually is. Today, they have an answer thanks to the work of Robert Lang, one of the world leaders in computational origami, and a couple of his buddies: Erik Demaine at MIT, and Sándor Fekete at the University of Technology in Braunschweig, Germany.

The process of origami design is conceptually simple. Origamists begin with the shape to be recreated--a spider shape say. They then redraw this as a stick figure consisting, in this case, of a body and eight legs.

Origamists know that each extremity can be reproduced by folding a flap of paper in a particular way. So the key step in designing an origami spider is to find a way of folding a piece of paper so it that produces eight, suitably sized and spaced flaps, one for each leg. After that, it's just a question of shaping the flaps to make them look leg-shaped, a relatively straight forward task.

The experts in this field have long suspected the process of turning a stick figure into a crease pattern is computationally intractable. Now Lang and co prove that this intuition is correct by showing that the process is NP-hard. So it is much harder to devise a crease pattern that produces a spider than it is to check that a given solution is correct (ie by folding it into a spider).

They've done this using the standard trick of showing that the problem of origami is equivalent to another problem that is already known to be NP-hard, in this case the problem of packing circles into a given space.

At first glance, it's hard to see how origami can be related to circle packing but actually there's a straightforward link. Think back to the stick figure of the spider. Then draw a circle around each node with a radius that is half the distance to another node. The problem of origami, finding a way of positioning these nodes so that the paper can be folded in such a way that each node represents a vertice in the final shape, is then equivalent to finding an optimal way of packing the spheres.

While the proof will come as little surprise, it does have an interesting corollary. In the course of making this breakthrough, Lang and co show that any set of circles with a total area of 1 can be packed into a square of size 8/pi = 2.546... An origamic triumph by anybody's standards.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1008.1224: Circle Packing for Origami Design Is Hard

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

ncm

56 Comments

  • 545 Days Ago
  • 08/11/2010

vertex

"Vertice"? Really?

But this is a nice result.  Maybe we can have a new public-key encryption algorithm using origami figures as keys.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 545 Days Ago
  • 08/11/2010

Re: vertex

That proof checking is way easier than proof generation is a well known fact. The former is polynomial and the latter is exponential using deterministic algorithms.

Practically speaking, computer science needed nothing more than this simplest fact which has been known for a long time. This is beause there has been no feasible nondeterministic computing machines around which really makes difference. 

When the Soviet graduate student discovered the P = NP problem, his advisor thought that this problem was not so important. I do not blame him at all. The concept of computable functions do not require any non-deterministic feature. So, mathematically there are not much incentive to consider nondeterministic algorithms. Without dubious nondeterministic computation, recursion theory beautifully characterised the class of computable functions and computable predicates. Indeed it was what the first introductory course in recursion theory which taught that determinitstic and nondeterministic Turing Machines have the same computational power.

It is my current view that as virtually everything was already done by logicians, late starter computer scientists "ventured" into this rather off problem of P = NP. This problem served the CS community perfectly well for decades to generates a mountain of one publishable unit mindless problems and a huge empire of pure nonsense was built world wide. At its peak, even a very small college in the USA had at least several "experts" working on the concrete complexity "problems" at the cost of other more important research fields. 

Practically speaking, as there is no feasible nondertministic computing machines, there is no point in arguing if a problem is NP hard or not. All we have to say here is that NP hard problems are exponential deterministic problems.  It is correct to say that these people who talk about NP hard problems are just trying to impress general public by putting a fancy cloth on some of the deterministic exponential problems. 

The problem computer science community has is something similar to that of theoretical physics. Computer scientists use mathematics without really understanding it. They do not teach mathematics properly in computer science department and so, they repeat old results of mathematics and mathematical logic in particular without knowing that their "results" are not theirs. A good example is what happened in the so called logic programming. A British computer scientist with the name Kowalski "invented" a programming system aka PROLOG which computes as a logical proof. No one in the computer science community, except Prof. Dr. Paul Voda of Bratislava University knew that PROLOG was a bastardisation of Smullyan's elementary formal system. When Voda told them about Smullyan, they .....

Anyhow, Prof. Voda pointed out that it was Kurt Godel who first showed how to compute within formal logic. He thus invented a better logic programing language TRILOGY which can not only program but also reason about programs. The first order arithmetic (theory of pairs) is more powerful than Elementray Formal Systems. Kowalski getting all promotion from British-American establishment, Dr. Voda's work was suppressed and got nowhere. 

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

CzDodds

3 Comments

  • 545 Days Ago
  • 08/11/2010

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Re: vertex

If you have nothing to say, you might as well shut up for your own good and for the good of the community.

To understand what I posted requires at least substantial post graduate training in pure maths and mathematical logic.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

luddite

407 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

mathological machinations

To P or not to NP, that is the question.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Re: mathological machinations

This problem has no pragmatic significance until we develop feasible nondertministic computational machines. Nondeterminism steps out of engineering norm. Moreover, it is not atomic bit level nondeterminsim we need to compute NP problems in P (nondeterministic) time. So, I do not know how QC will really help here.

The problem steps out of the culture of concrete complexity theorists and computer scientists in general. It is not a problem which can be solved by the NEOCON culture of rat race for grant and power.

The idiocy of American computer science does not understand that what is involved here is a type lifting. From nondeterminstic computation to deterministic computation, what is involved is clustering of nondeterministic states to a single state. This is what B. Russell called set as one v.s. set as many. This problem is directly linked to the nasty problem of power set axioms of the axiomatic set theory ZFC. Top thinkers of the last century could not figure out this mystery. ZFC is still unknown to be consistent nor inconsistent. Many set theorists agree that it is the power set axiom which causes problem.

So, P = NP problem is not something which bloody stupid concrete complexity people who work for  military industry complex can handle. It is not a practical problem either. It is of purely meta mathematical interest. It has been decades since we produced any decently trained metamathematicians. Bloody NEOCON reduced mathematics to just a tool to destroy our free market economy.

Best regards,

AKT


Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Standard?

A few decades ago, even in computer science, it was a common practice that students received M.Sc. degree by showing new NP complete problems. It was a project for undergraduate to show NP hard problems.

Never mind the encryption. The "proud" product of America, the "common key encryption" produced and marketed by prominent American complexity theorists was shown to be readily breakable by an undergraduate engineering student in India. Since then cryptography went back to good old random number method which is impossible to break.  So, after all this modern surge of cryptography was nothing but a job creation schema for complexity theorists.

Since the NEOCON who destroyed our free market economy took over academia, the standard certainly fell dramatically. Now showing Origami is NP hard is a big deal. Now we are living on the Planet of Idiots where NEOCON "professors" dress in black. When professors  looked like hippies questioning the political authorities, America's science had better time.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

Wunderbarb

11 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Re: Standard?

To which algo do you refer by "Common Key Encryption"?   Public key cryptography uses NP problems.  Its most known algo RSA is still robust provided you use keys of reasonable size (to avoid brute force attack).

In security, using random number is a sine-qua-non condition for most protocols, but not sufficient to be unbreakable.  BTW, no real security/cryptography expert would dare to use the term unbreakable. It does not exist (at least not in practicable way)

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Re: Standard?

Common key and public key are the same. If you want to take risk, please go ahead and use it.

I do not remember the details because it happened more than a decade and half  ago and I have not been involved in theoretical computer science for a long time. However, the problem was something like that the generation of prime numbers was not as difficult as believed by the bloody concrete complexity theory people.

The problem with concrete complexity theory is that it is intensional. The result depends upon the way how we represent numbers. For example, using Godelisation, we can make addition very hard and multiplication trivial.

The same problem exist in the folklore interpretation of Godel's second incompleteness result. Most people are intimidated by the lengthy complex process of Godelisation of first order arithmetic and they have no capacity left to think about it critically. Hawkins and Penrose are typical victims of this. They are wrong when they said that because of the second incompleteness result of Godel, there should be no such thing as the theory of everything.

Godel's second incompleteness result is intensional too. The Godel sentence which means that the first order arithmetic is consistent  under the standard interpretation of the first order arithmetic. Godel showed that this specific sentence is not deducible from the first order arithmetic. He did not show that no sentence of the first order arithmetic which means  the consistency of the first order arithmetic under the standard interpretation is deducible. Indeed, Mostowski and Fefferman independently showed other sentences for consistency which can be deduced from the first order arithmetic.

Godel wanted to show that it requires more than first order arithmetic to show that the first order arithmetic is consistent. This is an entirely different issue. I agree with Godel on this metaphysical issue. Gerald Gentzen's proof theoretic proof of the consistency of the first order arithmetic clearly showed that we need transfinite induction of the length (transfinite) of the proof to prove the consistency of the first order arithmetic. He made this rather metaphysical argument mathematical by pinpointing what has to transcend.

With the problem of Godel, one has to take that Godel's sentence means what it is to mean only under the standard interpretation. All first order theories are relative. So they have nonstandard models. This shows that Godelisation is not a powerful enough tool to deal with the claim that validity is not reflexive.

Indeed, the reason why Godel manage to get the second result is because his sentence of consistency is not true under some nonstandard interpretation of the first order arithmetic. First order theory proves only those sentences which are true under any possible interpretation.

Ah, if you are bright you amy ask what about Mostowski-Fefferman results. Well, their sentences are true under all possible interpretations of the first order arithmetic. But they do not mean the consistency of the first order arithmetic under all possible interpretations.

Einstein once complained about the so called "mathematical physicists": He said they can calculate but they cannot think. I am quite sure it is happening everywhere now in America driven science. Nobody seems to think anymore. I cannot blame them. I cannot imagine how it is to survive the stupid rat race in which one has to publish 30 junk papers.

There is no unbreakable encryption. For example, it is believed that using a specific book and pick each word from the book representing the position of the word in the book numerically will make the decoding impossible unless you torture somebody involved in the encryption to confess the book used. However, there is also a little more civilised way of doing it without breaking the international law and human rights code. try all books available. Mathematically it is possible to break this encryption in either way.

I am not an expert, so I cannot tell. However, I presume that considering a text as a linguistic entity makes it easier to break the code. All major encryption breaking happened because of this. You cannot hide the linguistic structure by number theory based encryption. It appears that you are an expert, so tell me how feasible to use geometric transformations to the geometric image of documents. Due to the transformations on locations, the the problem of failing to hide the frequency of the same words such as articles disappears. 

In the end, cryptography is less than mathematics. It is just a dirty application of number theory which most decent mathematicians of older generations will not take part in for the obvious ethical, moral and humanity reason. In the secretive society  mathematics is reduced to just cryptography. There is more to mathematics than just to serve special interest group. Ah, remember, science has many thousand years history. it did not start 200 years ago.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Wunderbarb

11 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: Standard?

"which most decent mathematicians of older generations will not take part in for the obvious ethical, moral and humanity reason..."

Knowing some of the founders of modern cryptography (starting more or less in 70's), and the new generation of crypto guys, I am surprised by this statement.  Those people have high ethical and moral standards.   I hope that you do not restrict the use of cryptography to military/governemntal applications.   Since two decades, cryptography helps in every day life. If you use Wifi, cryptographic algos protect your data.  If you use Skype or GSM, cryptographic algos protect your communication.  If you use a credit card with a chipset, cryptographic algos protect your account.  In TOR, cryptographic algos helps to fight for freedom, and so on.  Thus, I don't see why  moral and ethics are invoked.

For the dirty part, I suppose that you feel that it lacks purity.  May be, you're right.  But it helps people every day (even if they are not aware of it)

And yes, you're right, cryptography uses just a small part of Mathematics.  Nobody in our field claims differently.  And yes, History of science and mathematics is very old (I love epistemology).

BTW, it is always a pleasure to meet highly educated people on forums.  It is rarely the case. Thanks

  

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: Standard?

You are talking to yourself or to the community of spies.

George Cantor and Kurt Godel, great mathematicians, did their work not to please those who control this filthy corrupted world. They were into Christian theology and they tried to show us that divinity transcends out pathetic existence. They did not receive excessive financial merit either.

Without them, we have not computers now. So cryptographers had no handsomely paid jobs for spying with computers. They were still writing documents on a white paper using lemon acid and pen.

The same story with great Newton. He was never a physicists or mathematician. He did mathematics and physic (natural philosophy) for only a few years. He was a christian theologian through out his adult life. Funny, he did science better than all of his successors.

Anyhow, I have been saying that it is stupid to trust upon incompetent idiots like complexity theorists to protect intellectual property. They were beaten by an engineering undergraduate in India. These idiots do not understand that their theory is not about relations over numbers. They deal with relations over representations of numbers. They implicitly assume what some of the brighter ones call reasonable representations. This is the vulnerability of current encryption techniques. See I do not call it technology. It is way less than that.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: Standard?

"The problem with concrete complexity theory is that it is intensional. The result depends upon the way how we represent numbers. For example, using Godelisation, we can make addition very hard and multiplication trivial."

Let me beef up on this. Recursion theorists are pure mathematicians not computer scientists and we know quite well that we have to start with representation free theory of natural numbers. Turing was not a mathematician. He was more like a mathematical engineer. So, he used a concrete representations of numbers. Godel as a great mathematical logician corrected this problem and he started with the first order predicate theory of arithmetic.

Recursion theory was developed upon this foundation Godel built. Legendary S.C. Kleene brought this theory to near completion.

In this theory, H. Rogers presented a general way of representing recursive functions by numbers, aka acceptable numbering which is unique up to recursive isomorphism. Many more advanced results of recursion theory such as recursion theorems, arithmetic and analytic hierarchy theories, and degree of unsolvability were developed upon this acceptable numberings.

Dana Scott coming from the Quine school of thought was not happy with all of this dependence upon representations. He presented an alternative approach to recursion theory using graphs of recursive functions as recursively enumerable sets. This method failed as they ended up with representing numbers as recursive functions. This made the equivalence of natural numbers undecidable.

I myself played a role in bringing down this approach and I moved on to generalised recursion theory in the form of Malcev-Erschov numeration theory which was totally unknown to the west.

I personally believe that the recursive isomorphism due to H. Rogers made recursion theory representation free and recursion theory is a great example of how to strike a balance between extensional theory and intensional theory.

Upon this balance, abstract complexity theory was developed in the 60s. Some beautifle results such as speed up theorem and gap theorem were obtained. The implications of such results are not fully examined yet as the computer scientists under the pressure to please computer industry, typical mental disease of American science, had to move on to something more practical and sexier. My teacher Mike Symes had enough of this nonsense and left the field.

Concrete complexity engineer such as Hartmanis and Ullman took over the scene and computer scientists completely abandoned the balance of intension and extension in recursion theory. They shifted the balance to intension and the pseudo mathematical theory of concrete complexity theory was developed.

It is clear that when applied to cryptography, this problem of dependency upon representation of numbers will prove catastrophic.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

cachoalvarez

1 Comment

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: Standard?

Very interesting comments, though all of them are absolutely wrong... sadly I don't remember the reference to prove it, sorry. Oh, and I also could through a bunch of names and weird words here, but I just don't feel like doing it.

BTW, what you say is interesting, but you absolutely lost credibility by plainly saying something is wrong and the forgetting where you read it, sorry

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 541 Days Ago
  • 08/15/2010

Re: Standard?

This post is again buy one of those pseudo intellectual fools who have nothing to say anything intelligent.

The problem with this culture of instant experts is that those who are incompetent make sweeping statements. I was told that it is called "freedom" in this culture of pseudo intellectuals.

Of course in the country where virtually nobody knows that their Constitution, just like Koran, bans economic system which violates the gold standard, all kind of pure nonsense would happen and it has happened. The entire country was taken over by pseudo intellectuals who understands nothing but pure greed.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

luddite

407 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

let there be light

Mathematicians are a funny lot,
For while plotting a path to the stars,
They somtimes get lost,
In numerical black holes of thought.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 544 Days Ago
  • 08/12/2010

Re: let there be light

This idiotic post is yet another substantiation of the observation that pure mathematicians are hundreds times more intelligent that bloody idiots in theoretical physics.

It was I who pointed out that astronomers talk nonsense as they use optical information on stars to discuss gravitational dynamics of the universe. Unless we are sure that the light and the gravitation travels following precisely the same path and with precisely the same speed, we cannot make any conclusion about how the universe works as the gravitational location and optical location of stars become different.

It was I who pointed out that if space was curved as Einstein claimed, then we will never know how it is curved because to know that we have to know the spacial distribution of stars and to know that we have to measure the distance between stars and to do that we have to know how spaces is curved in between stars.

It was I who pointed out that SR deduces that

1. E^2/c^2 - p^2 is relativistic invariant and E^2 = m0*c^2 + (pc)^2.

2. Putting them together, we conclude that SR deduces that E is relativistic invariant.

3. v_g = c^2/w where v_g is the group speed and w is the phase speed. So, unless v_g = w =c, either group speed or phase speed of transformed wave exceeds c.

4. De Broglie's argument that w being faster than c is all right as the energy of waves travel with group speed is mistaken. SR is kinematics which rejects wave medium. So, the energy of waves is not to be discussed in SR. If we close our eyes to this complete nonsense, still we have a problem as we know that sound wave has the same group speed and phase speed and it is not c.

5. Einstein's zero rest mass speed c photon contradicts SR at the length contraction  formula

d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'.



It is a quite accurate estimate that the intelligence of top physicists is less than that of good undergraduate pure mathematics students. It is certain that most of the top physicists will not pass even qualifying exam  for M.Sc. in pure mathematics.

Before the upstart America took over half century ago, European intellectuals were allowed to say what they thought about idiots rather explicitly.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

luddite

407 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

AKT = meglomania

Chill out dude or you'll be primetime fodder for the funny farm.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: AKT = meglomania

I am simply showing that virtually all theories of physics we use are invalid as they are inconsistent.

You have supported this observation. Thank you. You failed to respond scientifically to all of these fundamental blow to the physics establishment. Stating scietific truth means megalomania only to people like you.

However, I am sure that I am absolutely correct about my view of pathetic physicists. They could not detect these basic errors which nailed them in the end. For trained mathematicians to do what I did is not a big job at all. In mathematics, standard is much higher. I am very sure that the so called geniuses in theoretical physics such as Hawkins and Penrose would not pass even qualifying exam for pure maths ph.d. I am a small guy in pure mathematics. Sorry, physicists just do not count. They meant something only because of politics.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: ..all theories of physics we use are invalid as they are inconsistent...

I explained here many times why is it so: if theories would be based on consistent postulate sets, we could substitute these postulates with single one and whole corresponding theory would change into self-referencing tautology. In such way we are required to maintain inconsistent theories for being able to predict at least something.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/02/awt-and-plicate-topology-of-ideas.html

AWT therefore predicts, every formal theory will become inconsistent and as such "wrong" in sufficiently distant perspective. But this inconsistency may not be fatal inside of the applicability scope of particular theory. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath watter.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: ..all theories of physics we use are invalid as they are inconsistent...

You should realise to whom you are talking to. You know nothing about logic. You have no background in logic.  It is unfortunate that some pople have to be told rather explicitly.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: ..all theories of physics we use are invalid as they are inconsistent...

> I explained here many times why is it so: if theories would be based on consistent postulate sets, we could substitute these postulates with single one and whole corresponding theory would change into self-referencing tautology. In such way we are required to maintain inconsistent theories for being able to predict at least something.

If A and A' are consitient assumptions, then certainly you can put them together and make it into one axiom of A&A'. What is the point? This says nothing about consistent theories. In logic, there is such thing as "deduction theorem" which says that if one can prove Q assuming A and A', then he can prove A&A' -> Q with out assumption. Not a big deal.

Inconsistent theories prove anything aka deductive explosion. It means that such theories prove nothing. When a person said A and notA, did he say anything? The stupidity of people like Einstein and Hawkins is that they think that even though relativity theory is inconsistent, some of its "results" are meaningful.

Let me see,

Assume that a train runs on a track. When a passenger in the train is on the right bisector of points A and B lighting hits these points. Then as Einstein said this passenger will observe that A and B are hit at different time as they are points of the frame of the track.  This is a classical argument and from this Einstein concluded that simultaneity fails in relativistic setting. But when we consider the Constancy of the Speed of Light, A and B are observed to be hit at the same time by this passenger as the light speed and light path has nothing to do with the motion of the emitter of the light.

So tell me which one is the meaningful result of an inconsistent theory SR.

As I said, logic is not something which physicists can handle, It is way more advanced way of precise thinking. Considering the crackpot you present, AWT, I am quite sure that you have no decent background in physics either.

Best regards,

AKT


Reply

Advertisement

luddite

407 Comments

  • 543 Days Ago
  • 08/13/2010

Re: AKT = meglomania

If you want anyone to take anything you say seriously then stop with the rants. Stop with the tirades. Stop with the convoluted arguments that pure mathematics holds all the answers. It's just another tool to manipulate information. And it's pretty obvious, because you have a particular axe to grind, that you don't know the difference between what is empirically observed, and a protracted theoretical process which may eventually lead to the same end.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: AKT = meglomania

This is not a scientific response to the inconsistency of relativity theory which I posted. This individual has no intelligence to make scieitific argument. All he does is to engage in persoanl attacks which says nothing about me but says everything about him. These people are usualy stupid idiots.

After all any inconsistent theory can prove anything and  so, it contradicts any experimental results.

This individual still does not understand what inconsistent theory will do. For example in SR, all thought experiments Einstein used to frame SR are invalid because there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of light. This is known as the light cone interpretation.

So, there is no such thing as relativity theory. What is the point of considering experimental verification of a theory which does not exist?

The problem with physics is that physicists know nothing about how to think correctly.

After all I do not need to be taken seriously by people like this chap who knows nothing about anything.I had a good talk with wonderberb who apparently is a good cryptographer. It is a fair thing to say a modern professional cryptographers are way way more intelligent than the "geniuses" in physics.  Theoretical physics is mathematical triviality  and yet they did it all wrong. Pity.


Best regards,

AKT

Reply

luddite

407 Comments

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: AKT = meglomania

You are a bonafide nutbar, that's what you are. But then this forum seems to attract it's fair share of them.

Best regards.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 542 Days Ago
  • 08/14/2010

Re: AKT = meglomania

Again, your post contains nothing scientific. I am talking about logical inconsistency of scieitific theories and the representation dependence of concrete complexity theory.

Sane minds appear "nutty" for those who are not sane. So, where do we stand? Have you any worthy publications in peer reviewed journals? Have you said anything scientific? Google for Akira Kanda and you will see a small fraction of my scieitific activity and you will see to whom you are talking to if you think that you are "really" talking to me at all.

This is not a place for instant experts to chat. Learn science properly and  post.

Best regards,

AKT

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Johannes

5 Comments

  • 539 Days Ago
  • 08/17/2010

AKT

Akira Kanda, the manga artist for the Star Ocean: Till the End of Time and Shining Tears role-playing games, will draw Shikiso about two detectives who tackle difficult cases.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 518 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2010

heh...

Simpler to google "scieitific" -- which will reveal a small handful of groups that "Dr. Kanda" has been kicked out of for abusive behavior. He doesn't learn. Doesn't spell very well, either, but at least THAT has improved a LITTLE bit over the last two years or so... In the meantime I've dug up one or two recent textbooks which address the SR "problems" he keeps repeating and repeating and repeating. He misunderstood several important parts. "English as a Second Language" I believe. And he's stuck.

Of course, from what I've googled, I believe he's currently under-employed (or headed that way; can't imagine why, in either case) and under a lot of stress, possibly for health reasons too.

Too bad, so sad. Moving on...

Reply

phyvyn

46 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: heh...

unfortunately your point makes his point.  no worries though as i am sure you have many more neurons than i and that i have not been true to my friend Tyche.

Reply

Advertisement

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

Re: "unfortunately, your point makes his point"...

Exactly. Except -- when you are spinning HIS inconsistencies around and looking closely at them (in mental phase space; an augmentedly-introspective kind of place), his "point" falls into the "validates both A and notA" category, where he can "assimilate" (as in "resistance is futile, you will be...") ANY statement and turn it into any OTHER statement he chooses. Or, more specifically, prove "all x = 0" because HE says so. Life is so simple being him.

But contrary to what he would have us all believe, your destiny (say hello to Tyche for me) IS an empirical process of ongoing discovery, as long as you can avoid the garderobe style of nihilistic philosophical theoria ("because everything is dreck") being peddled.

Other posts to decorate, spirit of the season and whatnot -- gotta go.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 516 Days Ago
  • 09/09/2010

"Proved"...

The original blog posting rings an odd "Déjà vu". Because the situation being described resembles, to some extent, experiences of extracting features from video input (a short-term "hands-on" project associated with a robotics vision course I was taking).

And what we were looking at was, essentially, how reliably we were able to define "adjacency" for multiple features by using eigenvalues to reduce the dimensionality (from 1024, for example, to about 50, re: "diminishing returns") of the cross-correlation process -- bringing the computational load down from "impossible", through "unrealistic", to a much simpler "lengthy but doable".

The headache being, of course, that there is a signal-to-noise degradation (intrinsic to the truncation errors due to conversion from analog to digital data, actually) built-in to the process (as is true for many estimation processes). This can easily reduce a twenty-four-bit input down to much more like six- or seven-bits of precision in the result -- and it IS possible to have a "meaningful" result with one (or less) bit of precision in the "answer"...

Sounds familiar, here recently, actually.

"Lost in translation".

BUT if you can successfully partition the granularity of your model, and allow "adjacency" to have a bit of "blur" (gaussian, etc), things work quite nicely.

Digression: there used to be a rule of thumb, pertinent to Origami, in life in general: it was commonly considered physically impossible to fold a single piece of paper more than six times. This has recently been disproved, with examples documented of 9, 10, 11, and 12 folds. And there's an equation, too -- with primary factors of "w = thickness of material being folded" and "n = number of folds being attempted", yielding "L = length of original material prior to folding". Fun facts...

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement