the scientific process

There have been two well-publicised mathematical and scientific breakthroughs in the news recently, that have got the community all a-buzz, and that illustrate two quite different approaches to advancing understanding.

Yitang Zhang

In the first, a "virtually unknown" mathematician has made a breakthrough in the twin prime conjecture, a deep question in number theory.  A beautifully clear write-up from the Simons Foundation explains both the mathematical problem, and the process by which Zhang's contribution was handled by the mathematical community.  Zhang wrote a paper and submitted it to the Annals of Mathematics, a highly respected journal.  There is was refereed, and swiftly accepted, since, not only was it correct, it was "written with crystalline clarity and a total command of the topic’s current state of the art".  Being right is crucial, but being comprehensible to the community is also important: it is hard to check someone's work if they have written it in a language all their own.  So, kudos to Zhang for his achievement, and to the mathematical community for recognising it.

Eric Weinstein

The second well-publicised "breakthrough" is Eric Weinstein's "Geometric Unity", a contribution to particle physics.  Or is it?  Here we have another unknown worker, but this time his idea has been launched on the world through a public lecture and a newspaper article written by his sponsor and friend, mathematician Marcus du Soutoy. No publication, no journal submission, not even an unrefereed pre-print, and so no peer scrutiny is possible. Several commentators, including writers at New Scientist and Scientific American, and many science bloggers, have been highly critical of this process that amounts to "science via press conference".

Andrew Wiles

So, two announced breakthroughs by virtual unknowns, given two very different receptions.  Why the difference?  Well, because the conduct of science and mathematics is a process, not (just) a result. It's not some bizarre club, where you have to go through the right channels, jump through the community's hoops, in some arbitrary hazing process.  Those hoops are there for a reason.  It is so very easy to make a mistake, and the hoops are part of the process to help ensure that any mistakes are caught.  Remember the story of Andrew Wiles, slaving away in secrecy for seven years, proving Fermat's last theorem. Well, his first proof had a flaw. Fortunately, the error was correctable, after a lot of effort, and his proof stands. But other equally eminent mathematicians have thought they had made breakthroughs, only for peer review to determine otherwise.

Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process.  It's not there to keep out "outsiders". It's there to keep out errors.  Put up or shut up.  And show your working.

Read More

why proofreading is hard

Proofreading is hard, because there's a lot of processing going on between seeing and reading.

After reading the
the sentence, you are
now aware that the
the human brain
often does not
inform you that the
the word 'the' has
been repeated twice
every time.

We are pretty insensitive to letter shape (fortunately, given the plethora of fonts), so can quite readily overlook O-0 and I-l-1 problems, although these are worse in some fonts than in others.  An extreme example doing the rounds at the moment (although it's not new), based on maximal substitution of digits for letters, is:

‎7H15 M3554G3 53RV35 7O PR0V3 H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5 1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5! 1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG 17 WA5 H4RD BU7 N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3 Y0UR M1ND 1S R34D1NG 17 4U70M471C4LLY W17H0U7 3V3N 7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17

By it's not just doubled words and simple substitution that we can overlook.  The most extreme example I've seen is:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Spell checkers, though, are a boon for many of these problems.  So today's proofreaders can concentrate on higher-level issues

---

Sources:

1. After reading the...
2. an early reference to 7H15 M3554G3
3. the research behind Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch

Read More

ambiguous instructions

So, I'm preparing a large document.  There are instructions for the layout.  One reads:

All margins (top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

Hmm. Does it mean that, when measuring the margins, do not include any headers and footers in that measurement (that is, measure from the edge to the main text), or, when measuring the margins, do not include any headers and footers in the margins (that is, measure from the edge to the top of header/bottom of footer)?

Instructions are always unambiguous when you write them, because you know what you mean, so don't even see the alternative interpretation.  They become ambiguous only when someone else reads them. Sigh.

Read More

still here

Guardian item on Mayan apocalypse

I see the world didn't end after all, only the Mayan calendar did.

I suppose that means I still have to do my Christmas shopping, and mark all those exam scripts....

Ah, well.

So, of course, the next end of the world is Monday 31 December 2012, when the Western calendar ends.

What do you mean, that calendar starts again on Tuesday 1 January 2013?

Read More

narrating complexity

Our new interdisciplinary network on Narrative and Complex Systems is having its first workshop, in York.  Yesterday we had a great time explaining to each other what we did, from narrative in fiction, in films, in computer games, to the narrative of complexity and emergence, and trying to discover common concepts.  We finished the day by brainstorming a mindmap:

This process was amazingly helpful in distilling our ideas.  The result, however, is pretty incomprehensible to anyone who wasn't there!

Read More

the scam returns

[phone rings]
"Hello?"
[crackle]
"Hello?"
"Hello ma'am, this is [rapid mumble I couldn't make out] check-up on your computer..."
"Do you know that this is a scam?  Are you a criminal, or are you being fooled by your employers?"
[pause]
"Hello ma'am, this is [rapid mumble I couldn't make out] check-up on your computer..."
"Do you know that this is a scam?  Are you a criminal, or are you being fooled by your employers?"
[dial tone]

background to this (I was less bored this time)

Read More

gopher tuna

I've posted about alternative lyrics to Carl Orff's O Fortuna before. However, I recently came across another version, and realised there are alternative alternatives.  There are several versions on YouTube, with their surreal lyrics (but little more so that some possibly drug induced lyrics of real songs) made even more surreal by the accompanying pictures. (A few pics may be mildly NSFW, depending where you work, but they are uniformly wonderful.)  My favourite version (which is the one I stumbled across today) has hand-sketched internet meme figures.

Realising that there are several versions, and that some extremely different readings seem to fit just as well, made me look up the original medieval Latin lyrics, and do a compare and contrast:

O Fortuna (O Fortune)	Oh, four tuna // Gopher tuna
velut luna (like the moon)	Bring more tuna
statu variabilis (you are changeable)	Statuary on his knees // Statue of big dog with fleas
semper crescis (ever waxing)	Some men like cheese // Cement like cheese
aut decrescis; (and waning;)	Hot, temperate cheese // Hot Democrat cheese
vita detestabilis (hateful life)	Vimto can taste of kidneys // Green chalk can taste like hippies // We took a taste of me knees
nunc obdurat (first oppresses)	Lukewarm two rat // You caught two rocks? // Look up, you brat
et tunc curat (and then soothes)	Bet too cool, rat // Pet two cool rats // That took cool rat
ludo mentis aciem, (as fancy takes it)	You don't get cheese or chicken // Luke don't make tea. Sore chicken
egestatem, (poverty)	Bend chips all day // Play chess all day
potestatem (and power)	Hot and salty // Hold his sock tip // Poke Tess all day
dissolvit ut glaciem. (it melts them like ice.)	Dip sore feet. Good, hot chilli // She sold me good, hot chicken
---
Sors immanis  (Fate - monstrous)	Saucy codpiece //  Saucy hot peas //  Saucy mommies
et inanis,  (and empty)	Ate spleen of neice //  Get me cod, please //  Get in on knees
rota tu volubilis,  (you whirling wheel)	Brought up too full food in me //  Rock talk to boy who believes //  Broke up to follow minis
status malus,  (you are malevolent)	Suck juice from moose
vana salus  (well-being is vain)	Fun with some goose //  Fun, handsome goose
semper dissolubilis,  (and always fades to nothing)	Second these so rude big knees //  Cement pizza? Noobie please! //   Second this, all who believes
obumbrata  shadowed)	Open bra top //  Open bar tab
et velata  (and veiled)	Get them loved up //  Get him locked up
michi quoque niteris;  (you plague me too;)	Leaking foot when near cherries //  Leaky aquariataries
nunc per ludum  (now through the game)	Look, they look good //  Look there! Fruitloop! //  Look, them look dumb //  Look there look good
dorsum nudum  (I bring my bare back)	Dogs sure look cute //  Don't sue YouTube //  Hot soup look good
fero tui sceleris.  (to your villainy.)	Farewell to knees and berries //  They wrote teh dictionary //  Farewell to ancient berries
---
Sors salutis  (Fate is against me)	Salsa cookies
et virtutis  (in health)	Windmill cookies
michi nunc contraria,  (and virtue)	They'll give you gonorrhea! //  They gave you gonorrhea!
est affectus  (driven on)	This octopus //  This know is loose
et defectus  (and weighted down)	Let's give him boots //  Let's cook this goose
semper in angaria.  (always enslaved.)	Send him a carburetor //  Send him to North Korea //  And give him half a pizza //  Send him a car or pizza
Hac in hora  (So at this hour)	Lovely Torah //  Ow, paper cut! //  Monkey, Dora
sine mora  (without delay)	Send me more of //  Sandpaper, ahh!
corde pulsum tangite;  (pluck the vibrating strings;)	Potato soup and chicken
quod per sortem  (since Fate)	What mess again? //  Go taste the dip! //  I miss old friend //  Hot mess all day
sternit fortem,  (strikes down the string)	Sing it, ugly //  It's made with cool whip!
mecum omnes plangite!  (everyone weep with me!)	Be good for Peace Monkey's sake //  Make room for a piece of lovely cake //  Be good for a piece of cake

Clearly these alternatives aren't all independent, but there's enough variety to be amusing. Most of the variation seems to be around lines that nothing fits very well.  Also, once a variant has been used, it appears to affect nearby versions: once you have rats in your head, they stay around.  I suspect that a trained historian could work out a family tree of which version influenced which.

Listening to any of the recordings whilst reading the original words is interesting: in some cases the words really being sung appear to fit just as poorly as some of the alternatives.  Presumably this is a combination of a large choir singing not quite simultaneously, in a foreign language, filtered through a non-perfect sound system.

Knowing what to listen for makes all the difference.  Once you are listening for "Vimto can taste of kidneys", it's easy to hear.  But then so is "Green chalk can taste like hippies".  These surreal lyrics are much easier to hear than alleged mumbled satanic phrases in rock music played backwards (but for the very same reason).

Read More

"Windows support" -- not

Just had another scam phone call -- someone with a strong Indian accent claiming to be calling from "Windows Technical Support" (or something close to that -- I wasn't taking notes), and saying that they had received reports of problems with my computer, that it had a nasty virus I didn't know about, and had I noticed my machine running slowly lately?

I was a tad bored (writing a tedious document will do that to you), so I strung them along a bit, to see what they were really after. They said they could prove who they were because they had my computer registration number, and only the registered owner and Microsoft would know this (along a bit of gobbledygook about how this happened).

I said I thought they were a scam and that they were trying to sell me something. (I didn't ask how Microsoft knew my phone number to contact me about the problem.)

Aggrieved, they offered to prove they were legitimate by telling me my machine's registration number. I should turn on my machine and look at its registration number myself, and compare them.

I said: "But you've just told me my computer has a virus. So how do I know that virus hasn't downloaded the number to you? You having the registration number is therefore no proof that you are who you say you are."

Pause. Then they repeated of all the stuff about only Microsoft knowing the number.

So I repeated my reason for believing that their having the number would not constitute proof that they were who they claimed to be.

Pause. Then a slightly plaintive: "so what can we do, then?"

This was not providing me that much amusement value really, so I terminated the conversation, then Googled "windows phone call saying they know your computer id". Top hit was “Windows Support” Scam Worsens / Money Watch. From the comments it seems many people have much more stamina than I do for keeping scammers hanging on the phone.

Scammers are scum.

---

Update 12 July 2012:  Aaaand I got a comment, from sanjay gupta-bot, on this post:

Nice Blog! Informative Content for Technical knowledge. Thanks for sharing your views.We resolve every issue arising in your computer operating system, windows,software,internet security,registry settings,sound drivers etc in one call.Visit this link XXXredactedXXX

Spamming a blog post about spammers.  Gah! 

Read More

seeing is believing -- orly?

We've all grown up with standard optical illusions -- the Ponzo illusion of converging lines making identical objects appear to be different sizes, that kind of thing.

These illusions have been getting more sophisticated.

There's a whole set of colour illusions. First of all there are the ones that show two identically shaded squares (A and B), but one appears white, one black, due to our vision perception "correcting" for shade. Then there are ones that make black and white photographs appear to be in colour, thanks to a persistence of vision effect.

There are aural illusions, such as the ever rising or falling Shepard tone, too.

Aural and optical channels can be combined. I first came across the McGurk effect a few years ago. In this a person speaks a particular simple repetitive sound, and the sound you percieve depends on whether you listen only, watch only, or do both. Weird.

Although these are fun, and weird, I feel I have some kind of handle on how, and why, these happen. I think I can see what's being fooled. But then, via Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog, I came across the "Flashed face distortion effect". Watch the video at You Tube. If you look at the individual faces, they look fine. But if you stare at the central cross as the faces flash up, "some faces appear highly deformed, even grotesque. The degree of distortion is greatest for faces that deviate from the others in the set on a particular dimension (eg if a person has a large forehead, it looks particularly large)."

Now this is really weird. Disturbing, even. To me at least, some of these faces appear almost alien -- until looked at directly. I'm seeing stuff that isn't even there!

These illusions with their ever-increasing sophistication demonstrate how much better our understanding of perception and cognition is getting. And this increased understanding is showing how very fallible our perceptions can be. It graphically demonstrates the need for rigour, validation, and repeatability in observations, and just why anecdotal evidence should be so suspect.

Read More

Other minds, other worlds

I've recently read Devlin's Logic and Information. One example he gave in there got me thinking at a tangent; on p.103 he says:

Just as when you are thirsty you don't concern yourself with the complex biochemical processes that led to that state. Nor do you try to analyze just what constitutes that state. You may, conceivably, just say to yourself "I'm thirsty." Usually though, you simply go and get a drink, and think no more of it.

I have a somewhat different experience.

When I was younger, I got thirsty but didn't realise it. I got mild dehydration sometimes because of this. When I was a student, I once gave up coffee for a week, just to see if I could. I didn't crave coffee, but I had a constant bad headache, so decided the withdrawal symptoms weren't worth it. Only later did I realise the headaches were mainly dehydration: when I gave up the coffee I didn't think to substitute anything else.

Later on, I started making a connection between a certain physiological state---a particular feeling in my mouth, throat, and head---and the fact that if I didn't drink something soon, I would get a headache. I eventually deduced that this physiological state must be what people refer to as "thirst".

Now, when I recognise that state, I say to myself "ah, I must be thirsty", and go and get a drink. But I definitely do have to think about it. The experience is almost totally intellectual, and quite easy to ignore (despite the foreknowledge of the headache), qualitatively unlike hunger, where something inside me is going "food, food, food! now!!"

Okay---writing all this has made me recognise that I'm currently experiencing that physiological state again---I've analysed the state, and decided it means that I must be thirsty. So, having thought about it, I'd better go and drink a glass of water.

Read More

owl head stability

Yesterday I was at an interesting seminar given by Dr Tom Stafford (University of Sheffield) on "Inferring cognitive architectures from high-resolution behavioural data" -- about some interesting new results from psychological experiments on learning motor skills. Apparently it pays to be a bit rubbish at the start of learning, maybe because you're exploring more of the space.

Tom also recounted a great little anecdote about how Edward Thorndike, a late 19th century experimenter, thought the best psychological test subject was "a hungry cat": he repeatedly put the cat in a small box that had a foot pedal to release the door, and timed how long it took the cat to escape. Unsurprisingly, the cat got faster. More surprisingly, when the setup was changed to remove the foot pedal, the cat still pressed where it had been -- because it had learned where to press (or maybe it was going, "where's that fsking foot pedal gone?")

During the post-presentation conversation, the discussion turned to visual perception being hard wired for upright heads, to animals turning their heads upright even when they were upside down, to chickens keeping their heads stationary when their bodies are moved, to owls doing the same, to (inevitably) "there's a YouTube video of that!" A few minuted googling showed that indeed, there is. The bored-looking owl even keeps its head stationary when blindfolded. (The guy doing the waving about looks pretty grim, too.)

Read More