Saturday, January 17, 2015

The quant-ificational view, again

Moral: Wherein we take up the technical slack with a re-look at Quants and their work.

Quants? Yes, there have been references in this and the related blogs to work that is highly mathematical, in scope, but is computational in practice and need. In other words, lots of things are done under various names (technology, progress) that are ripe for review by other than the players. As in, technical folks who might have a different perspective on these matters.

So, to date (search on quants): FEDaerated, truth engineering, 7oops7. In truth? My view more than differs; I am from an older set who has had a technical focus for several decades now. However, given the discussion, below, you will see that the issue is open.


What changed? Well, despite the cheeky prose, there never was any "luddite" tendency or leaning. Rather, think of the position as more quasi-empirical (to be discussed further) and as being of a small set compared to those rushing off after the genies and demons related to the ramifications of the philoabstract'd.

Now, recall that my recent thrust is asking us to think about normative mathematics (to be discussed further). Say what? Is there even any definition? Yes, in my mind (which is sufficient for me to keep going). Somehow (to be explained at some point), Galois' work was apropos to my ponderings, and I was doing searches (one benefit of technology has been the increasing set of material that seems to be endlessly emerging). Many times, this type of activity turns of questionable material.

But, I ran across this blog: In particular, I landed on what is called a "Leanpost" and looks like a very good idea. How many publications have I seen where people are copying on-line material that is far from complete? Plagiarism seems to have become a norm. I like this; perhaps, bloggers ought to use PDF (or similar) for things that are further along (with the default being that a post is sketchy, at best).

Now, the leanpost that I landed on was this one: Galois Theory for dummies. Great. It is a very good explanation. Too, I remember several years ago that a computational expert (applied mathematics) was using Galois as defense against some venturous approaches (some of these I can recount since I was close enough to know the details; others I need to look at in a deeper fashion as companies using proprietary cloaks covers a whole lot of mischief - and those who role it is to audit/review do not have the proper approach - too, getting down and dirty is beneath a whole lot of folks --- actually, for those of the younger set, I don't castigate yo'all as a group; rather, I would ask that you pay attention to potential, down-the-road ramifications from your current actions and choices that seem so brilliant and creative at the time of spawning).  


Enuf of that, for now. With the FED running amok like cowboys in the real-time experimentation on the whole of the economy and the world, how can we expect the computer/software people to have any other framework with which to work?

Well, we have ways to weigh in there.

Needless to say, it was good to run across this blogger who has dabbled in the arts and languages as well as in the numerical worlds. Nice.

Remarks:  Modified: 03/22/2015

01/17/2015 -- Two pages that represent good web material: one older (love this site), one newer (see 6 Further Reading - nice).

03/22/2015 -- Jealous? No way, Jose. FED gives Wall Street what it wishes.

No comments:

Post a Comment