Hello to beginners!

Some of us have been here for quite a while and have developed a common language with which to talk about things. Others at the forefront (such as Gene) must develop their own language to describe the uncharted territory they're exploring. I can understand how such communications may appear forbidding for a newcomer who may know little about the subject, or who may have developed his or her own way of talking about things.

Thus, I hereby issue a plea for all of those who are silently lurking in a state of confusion, to speak up now! This is _your_ list, and you have at your disposal an array of diverse minds, representing a vast store of experience and knowledge, to pick. You'll be sure to get many sides of potentially contentious issues here, unlike other smaller lists, which tend to be more one-sided.

So bring on the questions, and let the befuddlement end!

--- In tuning@y..., paul@s... wrote:
<<Some of us have been here for quite a while and have developed a
common language with which to talk about things. Others at the
forefront (such as Gene) must develop their own language to describe
the uncharted territory they're exploring. I can understand how such
communications may appear forbidding for a newcomer who may know
little about the subject, or who may have developed his or her own
way of talking about things.>>

J Gill: I could not help appreciating the irony of seeing this post
from Gene Ward Smith himself to Paul Erlich posted in the tuning-math
group at or around the same time as Paul's post quoted herein...

From: genewardsmith@j...
Date: Sun Nov 11, 2001 2:31 pm
Subject: Harmonic entropy

<<Is someone ever going to give a precise definition? One uploaded to
the files area of the entropy group would be nice. If you can
calculate it, you can define it--if nothing else works, say exactly
what you are calculating.>>

Paul Erlich's post (continued):

<<Thus, I hereby issue a plea for all of those who are silently
lurking in a state of confusion, to speak up now!
<SNIP>
So bring on the questions, and let the befuddlement end!>>

J Gill: It seems to me that - if Gene Ward Smith himself expresses
that he has, despite his best efforts, failed to receive a "precise
definition" of Paul Erlich's "Harmonic Entropy" concept from Paul
Erlich himself - then something is going on here which does not bode
well for us multitudes of "lurkers" in a "state of confusion" who, I
might wager to say, may well be considerably less "intellectually
endowed" than the amazing and impressive "Gene Ward Smith"...

I have no doubt that Paul Erlich is, himself considerably
intellectually "endowed". Yet, it appears that the "state of
confusion", leading to "befuddlement" of the "silent lurkers" may,
indeed, be less accidental than portrayed, and, in fact, may be
emblematic of a certain "modus operandi" which purposely results in
the "befuddlement" (of all participants in the discourse, regardless
of the size of their "intellectual endowment")... Hmmmmmmm...

Thanks for the entertainment, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "J Gill" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

> J Gill: It seems to me that - if Gene Ward Smith himself expresses
> that he has, despite his best efforts, failed to receive a "precise
> definition" of Paul Erlich's "Harmonic Entropy" concept from Paul
> Erlich himself - then something is going on here which does not
bode
> well for us multitudes of "lurkers" in a "state of confusion" who,
I
> might wager to say, may well be considerably less "intellectually
> endowed" than the amazing and impressive "Gene Ward Smith"...

To be fair to the amazing and impressive Paul, I should point out
that I'm a mathematician by training, and we've been indoctrinated in
a certain way--definition, statement, proof. The starting point are
definitions that conform to a certain standard. Hence mathematicians
sometimes have trouble communicating with others using mathematical
language (including notoriously, but not limited to, physicists.)
It's like programming a computer--if it doesn't come in just the
right form, your brain tends to spew out an error message instead of
understanding. This may be part of the reason why I sometimes drive
Paul a little nuts, I think. :)

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> To be fair to the amazing and impressive Paul, I should point out
> that I'm a mathematician by training, and we've been indoctrinated
in
> a certain way--definition, statement, proof. The starting point are
> definitions that conform to a certain standard. Hence
mathematicians
> sometimes have trouble communicating with others using mathematical
> language (including notoriously, but not limited to, physicists.)
> It's like programming a computer--if it doesn't come in just the
> right form, your brain tends to spew out an error message instead
of
> understanding. This may be part of the reason why I sometimes drive
> Paul a little nuts, I think. :)

Gene,

I agree with your statement to the effect that definitions (of
mathematical identities, as well as of what, exactly, someone is
talking about, describing, or modelling) are helplful indeed.

I have, in my own postings (no doubt) managed to "befuddle" others,
and I have (on more than one occaision) made statements which have
proven (through my own scrutiny, and the scrutiny of others) to be
false. While my own intellectual capacities are limited, I have
sincerely attempted to communicate in a manner which attempts to
elucidate, rather than obscure, the definitions of what it is that I
have spoken of in my posts. This seems essential for substantive
communications to take place, and seems to be a reasonable
expectation in the course of spending one's time and energy
interacting with others concerning subjects (established or new).

It is not the inevitable give-and-take of such intellectual discourse
which concerns me, but the sincerity with which those engaged in such
discourse (yourself not included) proceed, where it comes to
specifying (rather than evading) the specific details and definitions
involved which would serve to allow other persons viewing such public
posts to, with such knowledge in hand, actually attempt to contribute
to the discussion(s). It is presumed that the "posting" of such ideas
(as opposed to the private communication of such ideas) would be
intended to serve a purpose beyond the private gratification that a
large majority of the audience will (by design) remain "befuddled".

Please note that, while I am "befuddled" (though impressed) with a
great majority of your own posts, I have never gotten the impression
from your statements that any such obscurifications have/are intended.

Best Regards, J Gill

--- In tuning@y..., "J Gill" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

> While my own intellectual capacities are limited, I have
> sincerely attempted to communicate in a manner which attempts to
> elucidate, rather than obscure, the definitions of what it is that
I
> have spoken of in my posts.

And you're saying that I try to obscure the definitions.

> This seems essential for substantive
> communications to take place, and seems to be a reasonable
> expectation in the course of spending one's time and energy
> interacting with others concerning subjects (established or new).
>
> It is not the inevitable give-and-take of such intellectual
discourse
> which concerns me, but the sincerity with which those engaged in
such
> discourse (yourself not included) proceed, where it comes to
> specifying (rather than evading) the specific details and
definitions
> involved which would serve to allow other persons viewing such
public
> posts to, with such knowledge in hand, actually attempt to
contribute
> to the discussion(s).

And you're implying that I'm insincere and evasive.

> It is presumed that the "posting" of such ideas
> (as opposed to the private communication of such ideas) would be
> intended to serve a purpose beyond the private gratification that a
> large majority of the audience will (by design) remain "befuddled".

I don't even want to think about what you're implying here.

> Please note that, while I am "befuddled" (though impressed) with a
> great majority of your own posts, I have never gotten the
impression
> from your statements that any such obscurifications have/are
intended.

But from me you do.

Look, J, I'm sorry that I tend to try to compress a lot of
information into very short posts. I know that each one is geared to
be understandable by at least a few other list members, and does not
amount to "self-gratification" or "masturbation". I can see that, if
you haven't been following this list for the last five years, you
might get the wrong impression about that, but let me assure you, you
have.

On many, many occasions, at so much as the drop of a hat, I've
stopped and taken the time to compose a little "gentle introduction"
to this or that topic. Everything I discuss on this list, I could sit
down with a 10-year old and explain from the beginning (though it
would take a while). And I'm more that happy to do so, great
patience, until the idea in question is clearly understood and fully
absorbed by the questioner. But there has to _be_ a questioner --
otherwise, there's simply too much interesting stuff to discuss with
certain others on this list (and boy, do we all have our share of
communication difficulties!).

If you look, you'll see that I IMMEDIATELY answered Gene Ward Smith's
question to his satisfaction. And I will do this for _anyone_ on this
list. That's a promise. The things you're implying about me are
simply untrue, and you're certainly the cause of "de-obfuscation" by
casting these aspersions my way (I wouldn't want to ask this "paul"
guy any questions after reading what you wrote). But I forgive you --
you're certainly not the first or even second person on this list
who's taken me the wrong way.

So let's get on with the business of being friends and answering
questions!

I wrote,

> and you're certainly the cause of "de-obfuscation" by
> casting these aspersions

Whoops -- I accidentally deleted a few words and now this looks
positively vile! Let me assure you that I didn't mean this. What I
wrote was,

>and you're certainly not helping the cause of "de-obfuscation" by
>casting these aspersions

That said, I want you to think of me as your next-door neighbor who
you can turn to for anything you need -- to borrow a vacuum cleaner,
to share in a meal, if you need a place to stay for a night --
anything. Because that's the kind of person I am, though I imagine
you're identifying me with a different picture in your head.

aw, shucks, y'all...

I'm a beginner and I thought it was a nice invitation! I feel that my various befuddlements right now can be cleared up with a little homework on my part, and then the hope is that my questions will be germane and/or useful. And I have seen enormous patience and generosity here!

In the meantime I hope you won't mind if I lurk. It's become a pretty gratifying amusement.

Cheers!

Pete

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals.

--- In tuning@y..., "J Gill" <JGill99@i...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_30178.html#30292

> I have no doubt that Paul Erlich is, himself considerably
> intellectually "endowed". Yet, it appears that the "state of
> confusion", leading to "befuddlement" of the "silent lurkers" may,
> indeed, be less accidental than portrayed, and, in fact, may be
> emblematic of a certain "modus operandi" which purposely results in
> the "befuddlement" (of all participants in the discourse,
regardless of the size of their "intellectual endowment")...
Hmmmmmmm...
>

*My* endowment is bigger than *your* endowment, and they *both* are
larger than the current *National* endowment...

But, seriously, I doubt that Paul Erlich is trying intentionally
to "obfuscate." Maybe the concepts are just difficult to explain?
If you've been following this list, I believe you'll find that Paul,
although understandably impatient at times, will always back up and
spend an *inordinate* (or maybe *ordinate*) time assisting beginners
and "intermediates..." I have *much* concrete proof of this...

Joseph Pehrson

Some of us have been here for quite a while and have developed a common
language with which to talk about things. Others at the forefront (such as
Gene) must develop their own language to describe the uncharted territory
they're exploring. I can understand how such communications may appear
forbidding for a newcomer who may know little about the subject, or who may
have developed his or her own way of talking about things.

Thus, I hereby issue a plea for all of those who are silently lurking in a
state of confusion, to speak up now! This is _your_ list, and you have at your
disposal an array of diverse minds, representing a vast store of experience and
knowledge, to pick. You'll be sure to get many sides of potentially contentious
issues here, unlike other smaller lists, which tend to be more one-sided.

So bring on the questions, and let the befuddlement end!

I wrote,

> unlike other smaller lists, which tend to be more one-sided.

My apologies for writing this -- someone called me on this, and there
was very little thought involved -- just the idea that you'll get a
broader range of opinions here than on the smaller lists.

All I want is for more of the "shy" people to come forward with
questions and/or contributions -- this is YOUR list, everyone!

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "J Gill" <JGill99@i...> wrote:
>
> > While my own intellectual capacities are limited, I have
> > sincerely attempted to communicate in a manner which attempts to
> > elucidate, rather than obscure, the definitions of what it is
that
> I
> > have spoken of in my posts.

Paul:
> And you're saying that I try to obscure the definitions.

[and so on ad infinitum (almost)]

Bob Wendell:
I have found Paul to be most amazingly willing to help anyone else or
me to understand any term or concept no matter how trivial or
complex. From the many occasions on which I have interacted intensely
with him and his sharp challenges to some of my thinking, and having
witnessed his interactions with many others, I cannot imagine that he
deliberately tries to obscure anything in order to protect some kind
of imagined privileged intellectual status.

If anyone is trying to project such an ancient "high priest of
knowledge" mind-set on him as if he were trying to ensure his
position as one of an elite with unique understanding to which only
he and a few other insiders are privy, I view this is as a pretty
amazing stretch. The proof is right here in the archives.

Anyone tempted to use these same archives to promote such a view of
Paul should reflect that in order to do so, it will take some
extremely heavy personal polarization in perspective capable of
distorting reality in just about any form and with whatever degree of
clarity beyond recognition to all except those afflicted with the
same distortional capabilities and unfathomable motivations.

Lao Tsu said, "When you find an honorable man of great character,
look up to him and emulate him. When you find a man worthy of
criticism, look to yourself." We would all do well to follow such
sage advice.