It seems that Markov process is easily demonstrated in the possible order of letters in a word. If one were to extend the relationship in such a way that it were a bit less ballistic and had some greater scope of memory, it would produce more consistent results. It does seem that it might be possible to make a simple sensible machine with a very concise algorithm.

This particular digraph or directed graph is a bit more like my mind than a typical person or bot. It is often true that I may go through a dozen passes on any given sequence to get a rational product. I would suppose it has to do with inter-modulation distortion of multiple simultaneous process.

digraph BOTTLE {What has drawn me to this is the fact that

node [shape=ellipse,style=filled,color=lightgrey]; "B"; "O"; "T1" ;"T2" ; "L"; "E"; "Space"

B->O[label="0.8" color="green"]

B->T1[label="0.1" color="red"]

B->E[label="0.1" color="red"]

O->T1[label="0.9" color="green"]

O->L[label="0.1" color="red"]

T2->L[label="0.5" color="blue"]

T1->T2[label="0.5" color="blue"]

L->E[label="1" color="green"]

E->Space[label="1" color="green"]

label = "\nEntity Relation Diagram BOTTLE";

fontsize=30;

}

*probability itself*may not be properly defined. It has been said (by whom IDK , but certainly popularized by Twain) that there are "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". The issue is that it may be self consistent within context and provable, but the context of the universe is not subject to adjudication by man. There is a very large rabbit hole that is avoided in all sciences and constitutes a kind of exploration of the infinite. I suppose Hilbert and Cantor would be the footmen for that Hilbert hotel hell.

In any case, the digraph or Markov chain of written content would certainly have more layers than a simple memoryless state transition. What is also interesting is how it relates to finite element analysis, electrical current, and pretty much everything else. And there is why I type funny. When I think of Markov chains, I am also thinking of FEA, E=IR , A||B , for ( i=... , SHL 2 , λf=c , snow , PV=nRT , dancing bears , ∫ wordδ(letter). The universe is more than complex and difficult in any usual sense. I have trouble with consistency in things as simple as making mashed potatoes. The previous sentence is an example. I was unable to see that I had mixed LaTeX with HTML ( \lambda and λ=λ in two different ways )as it was translated before I read in the same way that some f'(x) isn't even seen or differentiated in the real world. The universe is certainly (10

^{100})! complex without even considering what the quantum limit might be, which puts it to things that are subjectively infinite. They can never be modeled perfectly and certainly not in their entirety. But, like the properties of continued fraction expansion analysis, there are patterns that form and I suppose it is enough to appreciate that it stays the same long enough to take a snapshot for my scrapbook and blog.

It isn't possible to know any fraction of infinity or to compare against it. I suppose it is similar to the continued Bernoulli of red and green marbles of understanding, there is still an infinite number of marbles beyond, no matter how many you have in your pocket. And so it gets back to Cantor and I am not going down that infinite rabbit hole today as I have clothes to wash and dry. My dreams tell me there is an interesting rabbit there, but realistically you have to be able to find your way back home when hunting rabbits, no matter how interesting they might seem.

Markov modeling of Calcium channels in the brain seems like one of those places where a person could easily get wrapped around the axle.

And so the randomness of the physical universe intercepts again.

Wow, an intersect with infinity squared

Wow, an intersect with infinity squared

Not my fault. A weak spring in a poorly designed mechanical device aggravated by random noise and chemical decomposition. There are some very dangerous holes in complexity and some are only comical.

## 0 comments:

Post a Comment