5 ms·

So I've been learning about expander graphs, and it seems like they preserve some of the good things about hierarchies (low fanout) while being very unlike hier

So I've been learning about expander graphs, and it seems like they preserve some of the good things about hierarchies (low fanout) while being very unlike hierarchies in other ways (higher # of paths, lower # of hops, between an arbitrary pair of nodes). Have any HBR types done a case study of non-traditional firm organisation, along expander lines?

gradschoolfail 2y ago
https://www.amazon.com/Team-Topologies-Organizing-Business-Technology/dp/B07VWYNGCQ https://www.amazon.com/Team-Topologies-Organizing-Business-T... Pace Wigner (at this point he deserves a “talisman” — FMD might agree now), those expanders are indeed unreasonably effective, just like bureaucracies (according to the ever optimistic Kafka). Emergent intelligence in governments and institutions, may not be just a Good Idea? (Abuse of Gandhi/de Maistre, sorry) > Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. EDIT: FrankWilhoit has some sayings regarding how, in order to reduce (Clausewitzian?) Friction, we should look at glue (interclique edges?)and not just syntax (cliques/juntas?) like what planners do. (The novelty of the idea seems to me to be in that planners usually dont attend to the strycture of egdes as much)
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  It just occurred to me that it's entirely fitting how often Kowalski refers to the Caudine Forks, for that battle is a metaphor for ping pong arguments: Suppose we have two statements (Romans), A and B. A priori, there are four possible situations: A & not B | A & B | not A & not B | not A & B However, as mathematicians, let us play the Samnite. First we close one pass, in proving A → B, which is equivalent to ruling out A & not B. Then we close the other pass, in proving B → A (ruling out not A & B). Now our romans, err, statements are confined to A & B | not A & not B, and (with no truth values having been harmed) must therefore pass under the yoke of equivalence: A ↔ B.
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    Note: algeria 1830s https://baheyeldin.com/writings/culture/how-the-dutch-got-their-funny-names.html https://baheyeldin.com/writings/culture/how-the-dutch-got-th... Thanks for application of irony to a thread about iron laws! Led me to the “unnamed” Ping-Pong Lemma, a great counterexample! Vespasian was, apparently, more inconsistent: https://sci-hub.wf/10.2307/1192680 https://sci-hub.wf/10.2307/1192680 (Im guessing he was as aware as MAA of the burdens of office) Hopefully we can return to the formalization of Nietzsche/Greco-Roman ethics/(New) systems of survival soon. State of my art, how to extend Boyd’s Ping-Pong Lemma* to Rao’s SoS (assuming it already works in JJ’s system) Maybe the eternal Culture War is indeed the Russell one (Banks’ having his Culture win the Mandate of H) . Hey, JAW was concerned too, we are now on the same hunt as the Masters? https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-and-the-it-from-bit https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-an... https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/ https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-arc... *the same old, but generalizing boss to adversaries, also noting in passing parallelism of your justice-prudence to guardian/commerce, so temperance-fortitude maps to Blue/Red hypernormal/weirdo??? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Boyd https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Boyd Front page activity indicates that cpython is becoming hypernormal ;) (even if GvR as a concept remains a Wojak)
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      > becoming hypernormal becoming -> being, typo, or rather, forgot my own earlier classification
      - aebtebeten 2y ago
        that reminds me, you might be interested in Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (1980). Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/2904/ https://xkcd.com/2904/
        gradschoolfail 2y ago

gradschoolfail 2y ago

https://www.amazon.com/Team-Topologies-Organizing-Business-Technology/dp/B07VWYNGCQ https://www.amazon.com/Team-Topologies-Organizing-Business-T... Pace Wigner (at this point he deserves a “talisman” — FMD might agree now), those expanders are indeed unreasonably effective, just like bureaucracies (according to the ever optimistic Kafka). Emergent intelligence in governments and institutions, may not be just a Good Idea? (Abuse of Gandhi/de Maistre, sorry) > Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. EDIT: FrankWilhoit has some sayings regarding how, in order to reduce (Clausewitzian?) Friction, we should look at glue (interclique edges?)and not just syntax (cliques/juntas?) like what planners do. (The novelty of the idea seems to me to be in that planners usually dont attend to the strycture of egdes as much)

082349872349872 2y ago
It just occurred to me that it's entirely fitting how often Kowalski refers to the Caudine Forks, for that battle is a metaphor for ping pong arguments: Suppose we have two statements (Romans), A and B. A priori, there are four possible situations: A & not B | A & B | not A & not B | not A & B However, as mathematicians, let us play the Samnite. First we close one pass, in proving A → B, which is equivalent to ruling out A & not B. Then we close the other pass, in proving B → A (ruling out not A & B). Now our romans, err, statements are confined to A & B | not A & not B, and (with no truth values having been harmed) must therefore pass under the yoke of equivalence: A ↔ B.
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  Note: algeria 1830s https://baheyeldin.com/writings/culture/how-the-dutch-got-their-funny-names.html https://baheyeldin.com/writings/culture/how-the-dutch-got-th... Thanks for application of irony to a thread about iron laws! Led me to the “unnamed” Ping-Pong Lemma, a great counterexample! Vespasian was, apparently, more inconsistent: https://sci-hub.wf/10.2307/1192680 https://sci-hub.wf/10.2307/1192680 (Im guessing he was as aware as MAA of the burdens of office) Hopefully we can return to the formalization of Nietzsche/Greco-Roman ethics/(New) systems of survival soon. State of my art, how to extend Boyd’s Ping-Pong Lemma* to Rao’s SoS (assuming it already works in JJ’s system) Maybe the eternal Culture War is indeed the Russell one (Banks’ having his Culture win the Mandate of H) . Hey, JAW was concerned too, we are now on the same hunt as the Masters? https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-and-the-it-from-bit https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/physicist-john-wheeler-an... https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/ https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-arc... *the same old, but generalizing boss to adversaries, also noting in passing parallelism of your justice-prudence to guardian/commerce, so temperance-fortitude maps to Blue/Red hypernormal/weirdo??? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Boyd https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Boyd Front page activity indicates that cpython is becoming hypernormal ;) (even if GvR as a concept remains a Wojak)
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    > becoming hypernormal becoming -> being, typo, or rather, forgot my own earlier classification
    - aebtebeten 2y ago
      that reminds me, you might be interested in Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (1980). Lagniappe: https://xkcd.com/2904/ https://xkcd.com/2904/
      - gradschoolfail 2y ago