View allAll Photos Tagged recursive
This is the same model as Mélisande*'s "Stars Unlimited", David made an independent discovery.
Folded from a hexagon cut of a square of 30 cm on the side of Torreón paper.
Ad infinitum, thought can bend ideas themselves as each pensive notion gets so deep that absolutes fall into the abyss. Eventually, our thoughts think thoughts of their own and the sideways spiral of ideology creates its self out of itself. Meaningless jabber or insightful reasoning worth considering as a wicked wisdom of this world. You be the judge.
Best when viewed in LIGHTBOX.
If you like my photo(s), please add me as a Flickr contact!
I promise not to disappoint!
Follow Me (Elsewhere Across The Internet)
Twitter • Facebook • Digg • StumbleUpon • YouTube • Google Buzz • MySpace • Vimeo • Friendfeed • Mixx • Picasa • Yelp • Reddit • Newsvine • Netvibes • Flickr • Orkut • deviantART • Last .fm • LinkedIn • Blogger • SoundCloud
(Cloudscapes - Digital Artwork Blog)
(Geopolitics & Philosophy Blog)
(Electrosymphonic Music - Online Radio Station)
• Species Identification Group on Reddit
(A crowdsourced method of identifying unknown species of any organism through discussion with up or down votes and comments from tons of people including a bunch of biologists.)
• Artistic Photography Group on Reddit
(Showcase your favorite artistic photography from your peers, pros, amateurs, or even yourself.)
There are all together only two models.
related ones:
www.flickr.com/photos/119967028@N08/27688564531/in/datepo...
A nine-patch of nine-patches made from a nine-patch ... the starting point is here and in the first comment.
Mosaic of my Recursive Chessboard set. See that set's description for explanations.
See also my Recursion set for other recursive subjects.
*******************************************************************************
This image and its name are protected under copyright laws.
All their rights are reserved to my own and unique property.
Any download, copy, duplication, edition, modification,
printing, or resale is stricly prohibited.
*******************************************************************************
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Just a simple Julia recursive-spreading design.
Exper - www.hobosedizioni.it
Designed using: Apophysis - Rendered using: Flam3
*******************************************************************************
This image and its name are protected under copyright laws.
All their rights are reserved to my own and unique property.
Any download, copy, duplication, edition, modification,
printing, or resale is stricly prohibited.
*******************************************************************************
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Momma Cat photo made from repetitions of the same photo
Created with www.dumpr.net - fun with your photos
Does not qualify for Siamese Cats and their Feline Brothers
Install GoogleEarth .. & Shot !
__________________________________________________
Outlining a Theory of General Creativity . .
. . on a 'Pataphysical projectory
Entropy ≥ Memory ● Creativity ²
__________________________________________________
Study of the day:
"Nous devons penser autrement si nous voulons comprendre la complexité croissante du monde. Nous devons penser en intégrant trois principes fondamentaux:
1 - La "récursivité des processus organisateurs", au contraire du principe linéaire de causalité, les causes réagissent contre les effets et les effets contre les causes, toute interaction est faite de rétroactions récursives.
2 - Le principe "dialogique", qui consiste à associer les notions plutôt qu'à les cloisonner, les idées et les vérités qui sont à la fois complémentaires et contradictoires dans le but de saisir une réalité vraie.
3 - Le principe "hologrammatique", selon lequel ce ne sont pas seulement les parties qui sont dans le tout, mais également le tout qui est dans chaque partie."
" We have to think differently to understand the growth of the world complexity. We have to think according to three fundamental principles:
1 - The “recursivity of organization process”, on the contrary to lineal causality, causes react against effects and effects against causes, every interaction is made of recursive retroactions.
2 - The “dialogic” principle, which consists of associating notions, ideas, and truthes that are both complementary and contradictory in order to grasp a true reality.
3 - The “hologrammatic” principle, according to which it is not just the part that is in the whole but the whole that is in each part. "
( Edgar Morin )
__________________________________________________
rectO-persO | E ≥ m.C² | co~errAnce | TiLt
I just finished a warm fire 🔥 side chat with KK Jain, co-founder and Lead Developer of nCent, and this was their first public appearance (they even brought their crypto-puppy).
nCent is a decentralized protocol for incentive markets. Here is our video; we had 17K people watching it live!
"Boost how we harness our collective talent, and you will boost every problem-solving effort on the planet.” — Douglas Engelbart
nCent's formation was inspired by the DARPA Red Balloon Challenge. DARPA offered a $40K bounty to the first team to find 10 balloons scattered across America. Using a recursive incentive tree, the MIT team mobilized a large group of people to help in a small way, and they found all 10 balloons in under 9 hours! The company is at ncent.io
P.S. Brian Fox of Orchid also gave a great talk. FD: I am an original investor in both companies.
Upper left to right: Karl Marx (1818 - 1883), Adam Smith (1723 - 1790), G.W. Hegel (1770 - 1831);
Lower left to right: Thorstein Veblen (1857 - 1929). Gyorgy Luckacs (1885 - 1971), J.M. Keynes (1883 - 1946), Milton Friedman (1912 - 2006).
Abstract - PhD (2013) - Quadralectics
Christopher W. Smithmyer
Nova Southeastern University, 2015 - 752 pages
Quadralectics is a study of the magnitude of conflict that occurs when a society shifts from one socio-economic phase to another. The purpose of this study is to quantify levels of conflict due to societal shifts in order to better prepare for the results of the conflict. This study uses a hybridization of qualitative meta-synthesis (QMS), recursive frame analysis (RFA), and Grounded Theory (GT) research methodologies to survey the historical record for instances of social change and then comparatively analyzes the resultant conflict. The heart of the Quadralectic study is the Quadralectic paradigm which integrates four dialectic models to create a four-dimensional space in which known forms of socio-economic phenomenon exist. The model is similar to a house with rooms, each room is a socioeconomic phenomenon, and the further rooms are from each other, the more conflict is created by the change. We call these movements transitions. Once in place, the Quadralectic model can be used to forecast conflict during periods of social upheaval and allow for the domestic and international community to be better prepared to respond to said conflict.
---
Smythmyer’s Quadralectics - A Reply – by Marten Kuilman - September 2018.
Every occurrence of the word ‘quadralectics’ arouses my interest since I coined the word in the early nineteen-eighties of the previous century. I had busied myself for a couple of years with an intellectual quest to understand the complexities of life. After several failed efforts, the penny dropped (on the 31st of March 1984): division and movement are the crucial components in every communication. And a four-division in a circular environment would be the most practical tool to understand the ever-expanding brine of information known as knowledge. A further theoretical examination resulted in the birth of a ‘quadralectic philosophy’ (KUILMAN, 2009/ 2011).
The kernel of the new approach consisted of two theoretical four-divisions shifting along each other. Measurable shift-values were produced at the intersection of the division lines (of the various quadrants). The sixteen values formed a sequence, which can be expressed in a graph. This graph represents the receding and approaching actions that take place between communication partners in any conceivable interchange based on a four-division.
It took another sixteen years – after the introduction of the internet in my life (Dec, 1999) – to start a worldwide search for ‘soul mates’. The initial harvest at the start of the new millennium was poor. The oldest referral to the term ‘quadralectics’ was traced back to 1996 when the term was used in an (anonymous) article about the enigmatic writer Thomas Pynchon and his novel “The Crying of Lot 49’ (1966). Two years later there was also a lead to Taoist sources as recorded by Roger T. Ames (1998, p. 169).
Kent PALMER (2000) mentioned the term for the first time in a scientific environment in several articles and later in his Ph.D. (Quadralectics of Design, 2009/2010). He was a system engineer, who put an emphasis on non-dual forms of thinking. It was clear - although I could not follow some of his terminologies - that he was concerned with the same widening of thinking as proposed in my quadralectic endeavors.
Over the years the use and occurrence of the word ‘quadralectics’ on the internet grew steadily – not only due to my own contributions. At present (2018) some 38.200 results are recorded (in 0,50 seconds). And Smythmyer’s Ph.D. on ‘Quadralectics’ was in 2013 a new star in the quadralectic firmament (SMYTHMYER, 2013).
A shining star, well written and a great piece of work. It was a pleasure to read such a clear display of socio-economic currents and individuals (with Marx as their leading actor) from the past to the present – capped off by the introduction of the ‘infant theory’ of quadralectics. Maybe the title of the Ph.D. is slightly misleading since the main subject of study is not the quadralectic method itself, but the application of a particular modus operandi (four-fold way of thinking) in the field of economy and sociology.
Smythmyer indicated (p. 51) that he moved on new ground when he coined the title ‘Quadralectics’: ‘Hegel and Marx thought in two dimensions, this model worked in four. As a tribute to their works, I selected the title Quadralectics, as a symbol of a system with four parts in a four-dimensional matrix. Now all that was left was to create a way to take this theorem and forge it into a theory.'
In the next part of this essay, I will try to incorporate Smythmyer’s understanding and utilization of the term ‘Quadralectics’ into my own interpretation of this particular form of four-fold thinking.
The reading started off on the wrong foot. Shivers went down my spine when, early in the book (Ch. I), the word ‘quadralectics’ was connected with conflict and proposed as a tool to measure and predict the magnitude of aggressive encounters. Furthermore, quadralectics is seen as an integration of four dialectic models. Both descriptions are way-out of the interpretation of ‘my’ quadralectics (KUILMAN, 1996/2011).
In fact, the roots of my epistemology can be found in the critical rejection of historical writing in terms of conflict. The rhetorical question: ‘is it possible to write history without the unsavory markers of conflict?’, was asked early in my life. And my subsequent intellectual development was geared towards finding an answer to that question. One of the achievements of a quadralectic worldview (as I see it) is its ‘neutral’ character – in contrast to lower forms of division thinking.
Therefore the ‘conflict’, which is present in every communication (or ongoing history) is incorporated in quadralectics – but it is not the leading agent. ‘Conflict’ has to make a cognitive move from its common dualistic understanding to a quadralectic environment. The nature of conflict is rooted in a misunderstanding of division thinking between the communication partners. Its cause has to be redefined in terms of incomprehension rather than the measure of the implementation of force.
After the initial shock of Smythmyer’s introduction, it soon became clear that our mutual suppositions (as expressed in the name ‘quadralectics’) had – as far as the basic mechanism goes – a lot in common. He describes ‘conflict’ as a ‘transition within a paradigm of interconnected socioeconomic elements’ (p. 14). This definition leads directly to the importance of ‘shift’. Displacement, as a result of movement, played a crucial role in the conception of ‘my’ quadralectics in the 1980s. The transition/shift can be measured, either within the paradigms and/or the division environment (the Technological Coefficient versus the Communication Coefficient).
I wholeheartedly underwrite Smythmyer’s stimulating objective (p. 20): ‘By increasing the objective capabilities of defining socio-economic paradigms and status shifts within those paradigms, quadralectics will be more useful for the analysis of current socio-economic shifts, thus allowing for better preparation in the case of any conflict that may or may not happen’.
The literature review (Ch. II) is the Master Template in which the great names in socio-economic history provide the substratum of research. Smythmyer’s idea, I presume, is to find ‘the beginning’ in communication with thinkers like Hegel, Marx, Friedman, Luckacs, Veblen (my favorite) and many others (including Adolf Hitler and Ross Perot). Most of these thinkers operate in the realm of lower division thinking (dialectic) and are therefore unable to see the potential of the area ‘in-between’. Many of their theories and observations are the result of creative thinking, but only within the limits and the confinement of an oppositional straightjacket.
Smythmyer’s intention to ‘broaden the lens’ away from a dialectic research and a bifurcated universe is exactly the viewpoint I took in the early stages of my research of the four-fold. However, to see ‘Quadralectics’ (only) as the relationship between conflict and social change (p. 51) is, in my opinion, to narrow a view. The ‘four parts in a four-dimensional matrix’, as envisaged by Smythmyer, are bound to become the essential tools of modern, post-dialectic thinking. The choice of this epistemology is appropriately chosen. But the application of a general and a specific form of quadralectics – as a philosophical framework - should be noted.
The use of ‘quadralectics’ (or even ‘quadralectic theory’, p. 124) in the socio-economic context is just one of the many fields of knowledge were the specific way of four-fold thinking (quadralectics proper) can be applied. The very moment the X-as (first dimension) is divided in Anarchy, Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism and Communism and the Y-axis (second dimension) in Plutocracy, Hegemony, Capitalism, Populism and Communalism a (subjective) valuation frame is introduced (based on either control of means of production or the control structure of wealth).
There is nothing wrong with these choices, as long as it is realized that the divisions follow a linear trend from maximum to minimum. Capitalism is on both X- and Y-axis nicely tucked in the middle - implicit pointing to the Golden Mean, the zenith of beauty, consisting of symmetry, proportion and harmony. When ‘hegemony’ is ‘near the middle of the paradigm’ (p. 194/195) it implies close to be ‘good’ and versatile. This viewpoint might be true, but only within a dialectic inspired discours.
This bickering should not disguise the fact that Smythmyer gave a brilliant and clear exposé of the various human organisations and their power structures. But I have the feeling – mainly because of the linear character of the subdivisions – that the ‘neutral’ side of (theoretical) quadralectics is ignored.
Quadralectics - as a specific form of four-fold thinking - requires a different perception. It poses a cyclic nature versus the linear disposition (of the dialectic). The different mindset implies that dialectic notions, like the beginning, middle and end and such notions as ‘a Golden Mean’, need a new understanding: there is no beginning, middle and end on a divided circular line. We can only speak of a ‘First’ and ‘Last’ visibility – and have to understand what that visibility means. Also the ‘Golden Mean’ as a comparison of two lengths of lines becomes redundant in a circular setting. Dialectics uses the two-division as its guideline (and tool of analogy), while a quadralectic communication applies the (arithmetical) result of a shift between two four-divisions as its base for valuation. The difference is immense, but if one is unable to see outside the dualistic framework, it is neglectable. A comparison with Newton’s approach to physics and Einstein’s improvement (by introducing the speed of light) is relevant.
The statement (p. 169) ‘Marxism is the key tool in the Quadralectic paradigm’ looks, with good will, like a facsimile of the dialectic encounter of the two four-divisions in an embryonal quadralectic environment. It cannot be denied that the quadralectic model pays tribute and incorporates the two-division in its genetic history. Division and movement (shift) are the basic elements of its being, but not necessarily in an evolutionary way. Dialectic evolution is completely different from quadralectic evolution. The first is a line, the second is a graph. However the phrase ‘to create an interrelated structure to explain and predict social changes within the socioeconomic paradigm’ is also feasible in the operational phase of a quadralectic epistemology.
A further visualization of two types of control (of the masses) is given in Chapter XIII. The five-fold control of means of production (X-axis) meets the five-fold control of the structure of wealth (Y-axis). They form the first and second dimension, A reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Forms, in Part IV, makes up the third dimension. The Forms represent ‘a pattern of known socioeconomic phenomenon’ (p. 218). In particular the action of ’filling up the gaps (,,,) to fit into the quadralectic paradigm’ is a sound piece of original work, despite the fact that the methodology can be criticized from a (theoretical) quadralectic point of view. The full picture (on the Z-axis) consists of a nine-fold division (from simple to complex): tyranny, monarchy, meritocracy, technocracy, aristocracy, egalitarianism, mob rule, democracy and polity.
The above-mentioned lattice (or three-dimensional arrangement) moves through time to bring in the fourth dimension. Or, like Smythmyer put it (p. 220): 'we will see how they require only a temporal element to become a complete four-dimensional model.’ In Part V (not in the list of contents, but given as Part VI) the long-awaited moment was about to happen: the calculation of the conflict coefficient. The introduction of the Ph.D. (p. 20) promised a magic wand, which could predict the magnitude of a conflict within the socio-economic paradigm. If only that could be achieved then the world would be a better place…
The introduction of Morgan’s three stages (savagery - barbarianism - civilization) comes as a deception. (MORGAN, 1877). The descriptions in terms of a condition humaine is prehistoric and simplistic. On the other hand, the ten-fold scale of conflicts (with a linear increase in violence) can be helpful. The actual calculation from the shift in a socio-economic phenomenon towards a real conflict number (using -1, 0 and +1) is, in my opinion, insufficiently described. The map in the appendix (as promised ‘for those of you who are visually oriented’, p. 303) is not given. Maybe it helps to clarify the number of spaces (shift) ‘a society moves through the paradigm to figure out its conflict number’.
Despite these shortcomings (for me), I understand the principles behind the generation of the ‘conflict number’. There are reminiscences to a quadralectic approach (of shifting four-divisions), but I would not call the procedure of the creation of a conflict number ‘quadralectics’. Values are still generated in a linear environment (and often based on a subjective understanding of ‘high’ and ‘low’ and entities like minimum and maximum and the rigid digital world of plus (+) and minus (-). Three (linear) axes moving in time do not make a quadralectic cosmos. The quadralectic (scientific) reality consists, in my view, of an observer who used the universal communication graph (CF-graph) in the changeability of the partners in a the communication.
The universal character implies that any juxtaposition between whatever sort of topic can be put to the quadralectic test. So, a comparison between certain socio-economic manifestations and the occurrence and intensity of a conflict and subsequent violence is a viable research option. All we have to know are the boundaries of visibility in place and time of the communication units. A form of ‘intensity’ can be measured as soon as these boundaries are established. The place on the CF-graph provides (by analogy) a fairly confident picture (within the given communication) what is going to happen. So it is not the actual figure (CF-value) which determined its worth, but the place on the graph. Place is in the end more important than time. Although in the understanding of quadralectics the place (on the graph) is also the time…
A glance on the Theorems of Quadralectics (Appendix I) gives a certain preoccupation for (Neo)Darwinistic ideas. One cannot fail to notice statements about survival (2, 6), choice of desirable traits (3, 8), genetic material (5), natural selection (9) and sexual selection (11, 12). I have no clue as to what these theorems contribute to the subject at hand. Is it an effort to understand the nature of conflict? Is it a revival of the survival of the fittest? It is hard to say, but whatever explanation: it has little to do with quadralectics.
A closer look at the bibliography is relevant. The writings of the classical, communistic leaders are out in force (Lenin, 13 entries), Mao (29), Marx (15) and Stalin (14). Fortunately Stephen Gould, a much more amicable researcher, got 7 entries. Thornstein Veblen ’Theory of the Leisure Class’ (1899), Michael Young’s ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy‘ (1951) and James Burnham’s ‘The Managerial Revolution’ (1941) are sadly missed. Maybe their writings did not fit into the ‘conflict’ model.
All in all, Smythmyer’s Ph.D. is a refreshing study, which gives a deeper insight into the way human beings live together. The outset to combine expressions of conflict with a particular socio-economic phenomenon is challenging. The intention to use a wider scope is prize-worthy, but the name ‘quadralectic’ is not fully appropriate.
Suggested literature
AMES, Roger T. (Ed.) (1998). Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi. Albany: State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-3921-6/3922-4.
BURNHAM, James (1941). The Managerial Revolution. What is Happening in the World? New York: John Day Co.
KUILMAN, Marten (1996/2011). Four. A Rediscovery of the ‘Tetragonus mundus’. Falcon Press, Heemstede. ISBN 978-90-814420-1-5
tetragonusmundus.wordpress.com/inhoud/
KUILMAN, Marten (2009/2011) Visions of Four Notions. Introduction to a Quadralectic Epistemology. Falcon Press, Heemstede. ISBN 978-90-814420-2-2
wordpress.com/view/visionsoffour.wordpress.com
MORGAN, Lewis H. (1877/1974). Ancient Society, or Researching the lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarian In to Civilization. Gloucester MA, Peter Smith.
PALMER, Kent D. (1994). The Fragmentation of Being and the Path Beyond the Void. Apeiron Press, Orange.
works.bepress.com/kent_palmer/2
- (2000). Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Theory: An Approach to Emergent Meta-systems through Holonomics.
dialog.net/htdocs/homepage.02/autopoiesis.html
- (2010). Emergent Design. Explorations in Systems Phenomenology in Relation to Ontology, Hermeneutics and the Meta-dialectics of Design. A thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Electrical and Information Engineering Division of Information Technology, Engineering, and the Environment University of South Australia, 28 September 2009.
SMYTHMYER, Christopher W. (2013). Quadralectics. Nova Southeastern University, 2015. The Seven Swords of Strategic Business: Companion Book.
VEBLEN, Thorstein (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions.
YOUNG, Michael (1951). The Rise of the Meritocracy.
---
Additional remarks
Table of Contents does not mention the Chapters.
The latter are introduced on p. 18ff.
Chapters and parts become a confusing mix (for me).
My reconstruction of the table of contents is as follows:
Part I - ?
Introduction
Ch I - no heading, just description under ‘Chapters’
Ch II - Literature review
Ch. III - Methodology
Part II - Theory – is not mentioned in the text (p. 65) but called ‘in Chapters’
Introduction of Theory
At p. 67ff a division in parts (I – IV) is given
Part I – Marx
Part II – Plutocracy etc.
Part III – Aristotle
Part IV – Technological Coefficient
But where do these parts fit into the table of contents?
Ch. IV - Of the Applied Methodology
Ch. V - Theoretical Overview
Part III - Of the Marxist Dialectic - is not mentioned in the Contents as Part III.
Ch. VI - General Principles
Ch. VII - Of Anarchy
Ch. VIII - Of Feudalism
Ch. IX - Of Capitalism
Ch. X - Of Socialism
Ch. XI - Of Communism
Ch. XII - Conclusion Dialectics = Conclusion of the dialectic
Part III Quadralectic Vertices = Part IV in the text (p. 170)
A figure to show the outlay and division of the X and Y-axes would have been helpful. ‘Quadralectic vertices’ point to four (4) vertices (tetrahedron), but the text continues with a five division (Plutocracy, Hegemony, Capitalism, Populism and Communalism)
Ch. XIII - Introduction = Introduction to the Quadralectic Dialectic.
Ch. XIV - Of Plutocracy
What happened to Ch XV – XVI?
Ch. XVII - Hegemony
Ch. XVIII - Of Capitalism
Ch. XIX – Of Populism
Ch. XX – Of Communalism
Part IV Aristotle – In text: Aristotle’s Form
Ch. XVI - Introduction - should be Ch. XXI (see above)
Ch. XVII - Tyranny - should be Ch. XXII
Ch. XVIII - Monarchy - should be Ch. XXIII
Ch. XIX - Meritocracy - should be Ch. XXIV
Ch. XX - Technocracy - should be Ch. XXV
Ch. XXI - Aristocracy - should be Ch. XXVI
Ch. XXII - Egalitarianism - should be Ch. XXVII
Ch. XXIII - Mob Rule - should be Ch. XXVIII
Ch. XXIV - Democracy - should be Ch. XXIX
Ch. XXV - Polity - should be Ch. XXX
Ch. XXVI - Development - should be Ch. XXXI
Ch. XXVII - Conclusion
Part V - Missing
Part VI - TC - is part VII in text
Part VI - Navigating
Part VII – Catharsis
----
Corrections
p. 22 - p. Chapter 1 (Arabic) is written as Chapter I (Roman)
p. 22 - White et al – capital W
p. 22 - Freidman - Friedman
p. 23 - duel = dual
p. 24 - as Maritian states – who is Maritian?
p. 38 and p. 39 - Freidman = Friedman
p. 40 - these there element = these three elements
p. 95 - by an large = by and large
p. 102 - destabilize = destabalize
p. 103 - form of society
p. 105 - pleas not = please not
p. 106 - Doctor = doctor
p. 109 - maintianed is = maintained its
p.112 - now = no law or rule
p.114 - 369 sensence unclear
De Dion diamonds – de Beer diamonds?
p. 119 - her = here is an article
p. 129 - There is not real strong king = there is no real strong king
p. 131 - invasion – s
p. 132 - Myan = Mayan
p. 134 - structure – s
p. 139 - Di Vinci = Da Vinci
p. 148 - for person gain = for personal gain
p. 151 - not test = no test
p. 159 - many socialism = socialists
doe = do
p. 175 - heav?
p. 180 - can buy out a for profit corporation
p. 188 - A excellent example = An excellent exemple
p. 189 - duel = dual
p. 193 - Brittan = Britain
p. 201 - the people thought he building = through the building
p.205 - the focus in on keeping – the focus is on keeping
p. 214 - at out disposal – at our disposal
p. 218 - filling the in the blank – filling in the blank
p. 246 - have and have not’s
p. 252 - in a capitalism (2x)
p. 254 - Velbin = Veblin
p. 257 - a intrinsic worth = an intrinsic worth
p. 260 – as simple as
p. 293 - Out western civilization = our
p. 294 - ho = how
p. 296 - the survival or the artisan = survival of the artisan
p. 297/299 - Brittan = Britain
p. 300 - one the decline = on the decline
p. 328 - Jon Elster = John Elster
Doorways in huge cement rooms at the old Ahmeek Stamp Mill, in Tamarack City, Michigan.
If you like my photos, please check out Cliffs and Ruins, my photo blog, for photos and stories of my explorations.
The head of Romanesco broccoli is a visually striking example of an approximate fractal in nature. The pattern is only an approximate fractal since the pattern eventually terminates when the feature size becomes sufficiently small. In computer graphics, its pattern has been modeled as a recursive helical arrangement of cones.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Der Romanesco (Brassica oleracea convar. botrytis var. botrytis ) ist eine Variante des Blumenkohls, die in der Nähe von Rom gezüchtet wurde. Seit dem 16. Jahrhundert wird er auch in Deutschland angebaut. Der Romanesco gehört zu den wenigen Pflanzen, die in ihrem Blütenstand gleichzeitig Selbstähnlichkeit und damit eine fraktale Struktur sowie Fibonacci-Spiralen aufweisen.
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
A dichotomy /daɪˈkɒtəmi/ is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets). In other words, this couple of parts must be
jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.
If there is a concept A, and it is split into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they are mutually exclusive, since no part of B is contained in not-B and vice versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of A, and together again give A.
Such a partition is also frequently called a bipartition.
The two parts thus formed are complements. In logic, the partitions are opposites if there exists a proposition such that it holds over one and not the other.
Treating continuous variables or multicategorical variables as binary variables is called dichotomization. The discretization error inherent in dichotomization is temporarily ignored for modeling purposes.
Contents
1Etymology
2Usage and examples
3See also
4References
Etymology
The term dichotomy is from the Greek language Greek: διχοτομία dichotomía "dividing in two" from δίχα dícha "in two, asunder" and τομή tomḗ "a cutting, incision".
Usage and examples
In set theory, a dichotomous relation R is such that either aRb, bRa, but not both.[1]
A false dichotomy is an informal fallacy consisting of a supposed dichotomy which fails one or both of the conditions: it is not jointly exhaustive and/or not mutually exclusive. In its most common form, two entities are presented as if they are exhaustive, when in fact other alternatives are possible. In some cases, they may be presented as if they are mutually exclusive although there is a broad middle ground [2](see also undistributed middle).
One type of dichotomy is dichotomous classification – classifying objects by recursively splitting them into two groups. As Lewis Carroll explains, "After dividing a Class, by the Process of Dichotomy, into two smaller Classes, we may sub-divide each of these into two still smaller Classes; and this Process may be repeated over and over again, the number of Classes being doubled at each repetition. For example, we may divide “books” into “old” and “new” (i.e. “not-old”): we may then sub-divide each of these into “English” and “foreign” (i.e. “not-English”), thus getting four Classes."[3]
In statistics, dichotomous data may only exist at first two levels of measurement, namely at the nominal level of measurement (such as "British" vs "American" when measuring nationality) and at the ordinal level of measurement (such as "tall" vs "short", when measuring height). A variable measured dichotomously is called a dummy variable.
In computer science, more specifically in programming-language engineering, dichotomies are fundamental dualities in a language's design. For instance, C++ has a dichotomy in its memory model (heap versus stack), whereas Java has a dichotomy in its type system (references versus primitive data types).
In astronomy dichotomy is when the Moon or an inferior planet is exactly half-lit as viewed from Earth. For the Moon, this occurs slightly before one quarter Moon orbit and slightly after the third quarter of the Moon's orbit at 89.85° and 270.15°, respectively. Dichotomy occurs when the Sun-Moon-Earth angle is 90°. (This is not to be confused with Quadrature_(astronomy) which is when the Sun-Earth-Moon/superior planet angle is 90°.)
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
I started of sketching the chair and then added the rest of the elements around it. Finally ended up capturing a impression of what i am drawing in my skechbook.
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
From an octagon of Tant paper.
An attempt to turn a modified version of the Keller twist into a flower-tower recursive thingy.
A dead end, actually, the second twist is different, no opportunity to get a third one.
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Red 2, Orange II, Goldish, Yellow, Yellow green, Greens, Blue 4, Blue 3, Deep purple, Maroonish, Pink
Big tip o' the hat to fd's Flickr Toys
*******************************************************************************
This image and its name are protected under copyright laws.
All their rights are reserved to my own and unique property.
Any download, copy, duplication, edition, modification,
printing, or resale is stricly prohibited.
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
This image and its name are protected under copyright laws.
All their rights are reserved to my own and unique property.
Any download, copy, duplication, edition, modification,
printing, or resale is stricly prohibited.
*******************************************************************************
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Best viewed large
Made with Mandelbulb 3d
See more photos and abstract drawings in my gallery on DeviantArt:
Thank you!
Tonight's dinner (yeah, ramen noodles) gave me an idea for something a little different.
Done in the usual Droste style, but with a twist. ;-)
strobists: umbrella flash behind and above bowl and close, 1/4 power Sigma EF-500DG super triggered with ebay trigger, black foamcore gobo behind bowl.
©2008 David C. Pearson, M.D.