fiddled filter design - Page 7

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: fiddled filter design
On 12/11/18 20:26, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It wasn't intended as an insult.

You chose to snip/ignore the counterpoint in the
discussion (FSM observably being a grotty forgetful
engineer), which supports my point!

Re: fiddled filter design
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:20:20 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No error-detection and -correction scheme is perfect. They just offer a mechanism for reducing the error rate in the output to something lower than the error rate you'd see if they weren't there.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It did.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/transposons-or-jumping-genes-not-junk-dna-1211

Transposable elements are fairly long sequences of DNA.

Single nuclear polymorphisms mostly do nothing, and those that do anything mostly wreck the organism. Transposons can be whole genes, which can become incorporated in new functions.

The homeobox genes seem to have got duplicated four times on the path that that lead to the human genome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4901127/


It's still random noise.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 7:09:54 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Occam's Razor is not a formal mathematical logic principle, but
an economic one.   It's not 'that you can imagine', it's the simplest
hypothesis that FITS THE OBSERVED BEHAVIOR that is
of interest.    

After all, one can explain a wonky risetime by a succession of miracles
occuring near the edge... but we can also explain it by known
capacitive effects.   Which is simpler, because it doesn't introduce
new principles, but relies on the old established ones.   Following
Occam's Razor keeps  you from following up on the pixies-did-it
theory, and that's good advice.

It's odd, that you could even imagine that science
can be stopped in its tracks by good advice.  

Re: fiddled filter design
wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Where do hypothesies come from? A standard reference text of
hypothesies?
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it


And you can spend weeks chasing that imagined-simple capacitive
effect, when the goofy rise time was an inner layer transmission line
stub, or (as we found last week) a current spike in a ground wire
bond.  

Or, lately, all inside your oscilloscope.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/khaddbwyr2o5ke0/4054_1M.JPG?dl=0


Once you focussed on "known capacitive effects" you elected to look
away from other possibilities.

It's astounding how complex, downright sinister, some electronic
problems turn out to be. It's sensible to be open to considering any
explanation, even highly improbable ones.

Each very complex explanation is improbable, but there are so many of
them. That's just one defect in Occam's Razor.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Prejudice against any class of explanations doesn't sound like good
advice to me. More like laziness.

It's been said that science progresses as the current generation of
professors dies.



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 at 9:50:51 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Er... no, it doesn't take weeks to test an hypothesis of that sort.

Did your ground wire bond diagnosis have to wait for
the ritual sacrifice of a gerbil to appease the Master Gremlin?
There's nothing here that indicates a fault attributable to Occam.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The phenomenon of generational succession is more general than science;
it applies to any collective heritage we possess.    The only thing
that bon mot indicates, is that well-published articulate individuals do shape the
field of thought, often from professorial posts.    

That's a GOOD thing, compared to the Google-can-find-it model of  
expertise built on trolls' gibberings.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sunday, 11 November 2018 22:30:02 UTC, whit3rd  wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

it's a good thing when it's mostly right. It's a bad thing when routinely wrong, as in medicine.


NT

Re: fiddled filter design
On Monday, November 12, 2018 at 9:50:21 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
o  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 wrong, as in medicine.

NT doesn't know about the Cochrane collaboration designed to encourage evid
ence-based medicine.

https://www.cochrane.org/about-us

Medicine isn't routinely wrong. It used to be stuck in the authoritarian do
-what-I-was-taught-when-I-was-young system of education, but it is getting  
better. This didn't make it "routinely wrong", but it did make it unfortuna
tely slow in adopting demonstrably better treatment options.

Sadly, NT is a sucker for mystical revelations, which seem to offer demonst
rably bad treatment options (but mostly to people for whom there aren't any
 good ones).

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
On Monday, 12 November 2018 01:26:44 UTC, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org  wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
e;
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 do  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ly wrong, as in medicine.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
idence-based medicine.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
do-what-I-was-taught-when-I-was-young system of education, but it is gettin
g better. This didn't make it "routinely wrong", but it did make it unfortu
nately slow in adopting demonstrably better treatment options.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
strably bad treatment options (but mostly to people for whom there aren't a
ny good ones).

A triple whoosh in one post!


NT

Re: fiddled filter design
On Sunday, 11 November 2018 17:50:51 UTC, John Larkin  wrote:


Quoted text here. Click to load it

When looking for solutions I've sometimes chased the highly improbable, and
 sometimes it has led to a much better solution. Everyone else didn't get t
here because they didn't think it worth looking there. IOW there's somethin
g wrong with human estimates of what ideas are probable & what are not.


NT

Re: fiddled filter design
On Saturday, November 10, 2018 at 9:35:12 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

<snip>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sadly, there don't seem to be any examples around of creatures that use smart evolution.

Evolution has evolved us, and we have just discovered the tools that would let us implement intelligent design, so in a sense John Larkin is right, but he has never been able to come up with any examples of his "smart" evolution in action.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not exactly true.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But insisting that something is "likely" without having any supporting evidence is what you do when you start up a religion.  

John Larkin isn't really prophet material.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

John Larkin doesn't know much about biology.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: fiddled filter design
Quoted text here. Click to load it

We get that now with the debate ofer genetic modification done to
humans, and with eugenics and various pogroms and massacres.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, it'a logical method.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

And that's unrelated.  

The simple explanation is sufficient until it is shown to be  
insufficient.  We still teach Newton's laws of motion knowing  
them to be wrong, and most architectural projects assume the  
world is flat.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't see how that follows, can you explain?

--  
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

Re: fiddled filter design
On 09/11/18 17:13, John Larkin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Most organisms *do* go extinct; very few survive.

Re: fiddled filter design


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I disagree. Our own brains are indeed "biological life", and also operate as  
a Darwinian Machine within a Darwinian Environment. There is nothing special  
about our brains, there are still a 100% result of natural processes.

We, apparently as damit, have algorithms that that have evolved to be  
extremely goal directed. We go to work to pay the hookers etc...

In the larger schemes of things, nature might be argued to have no "goal",  
but the biological machines (animals with brains) that have evolved,  
certainly do by any pragmatic definition of "goal" or "purpose". Algorithms  
have arose, that "want" to achieve a purpose. If this were not so, we would  
not exist.

I would note though that the  random variation part of the GA is the only  
bit that can generate truly new information. That is, solve a problem with  
information that cannot be derived from simply copying and manipulating  
existing information.

Which is somewhat interesting in itself, either one copies something and  
piddles with it, hardly  a measure of greatness or one randomly generates  
something that is inventive". However, if it is random, we cant really feel  
great about that either....

Yep... Free will don't exist....

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: fiddled filter design
On 11/10/2018 06:30 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's culture, not biology. Nobody is born knowing how to go to work or  
what a hooker is or that you need to pay them.

I'm sure someone has proposed a biological-analogy to "evolution" of  
cultures (memes?) but the supporting evidence to construct a falsifiable  
theory of how that actually occurs in practice in a universal sense,  
invariant to particular human cultures (which vary rather widely) seems  
pretty lacking as compared to biological natural selection.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Man can do as he wills, but he cannot _will_ what he wills"

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: fiddled filter design

On 11/10/2018 06:30 AM, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Ahhmmmmmm...... you missed the point.

Its obvious that there are hardwired biological algorithms that "want" to  
survive. We are hardwired to survive and propagate our genes.  What is  
actually necessary in a given environment,  programs (software/nurture) what  
these hardware (nature) algorithms do in order to carry out their "goal".

For example, pre-programming what is or is not edible foods would  not be  
adaptable enough to ensure survival. So, there is an algorithm that seeks  
out food. What actually tastes good  that dives that algorithm is programed.  
e.g. feed a child spinach, and it grows up liking it.

In the above example, the base algorithms "want" to have babies to propagate  
their genes. The environment programs the algorithms ways to achieve that  
goal. i.e. sex...e.g . hookers. Its irrelevant if the  algorithms get  
confused though....



-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: fiddled filter design
On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:30:12 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Umm, speak for yourself on that one.


Michael Behe is a biochemist. He wrote an interesting book

https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge-ebook/dp/B000FBJHS0/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid15%41909168&sr=1-2&keywords=behe+michael&dpID41%1FBIzeTkL&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

in which he makes a pretty good case that there are biological,
specifically biochemical, mechanisms that could not have evolved in
any way that we can explain.



--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Re: fiddled filter design
Quoted text here. Click to load it

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:30:12 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"

Quoted text here. Click to load it




Not to me. It's pure twaddle.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

.any way that we can explain.

No he doesn't. All of those sorts of arguments are complete nonsense. Any  
argument that declares , well, such and such is too complex to have arose  
without an intelligent designer fails because such an intelligent designer  
must be even more complex,  so another designer would be required for that  
designer. Its turtles all the way up.

However, I agree, absolutely that if this universe were the only one, the  
probability of quarks, electrons, protons, Boltzmans constant, electronic  
charge, Planks constant, hydrogen, carbon etc all magically conspiring in  
such a way for us to exist is so low as to be not tenable. Behe gets that  
bit of the concept correct.

The solution to this issue, does not require a designer. It only needs more  
lottery tickets to be bought. That is, only someone as naive to believe that  
the Earth is at the centre of the universe will have trouble in  
understanding that it is pretty much absurd to believe that whatever physics  
created this Big Bang, only creates the one.

For example, String Theory pretty much requires 10^500 other universe, all  
with different laws of physics. More than enough to produce this one.

My take on why the basic laws of Physics in a universe that we have to exist  
in is here:

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/anthropic_physics.html

It references err... my other meanderings as to "Something from nothing" and  
"Universal existence".

Multi-universes is now a main stream idea in physics. Physicist Lawrence  
Krauss has a book "A Universe from nothing". It's just a fact that stuff  
gets created from nothing all the time in QM. I explain why above.

It all boils down to this:

Either the solution as to how we are here is that there is either a reason,  
or there is not a reason. That's it. No other choices possible.

If there is a reason, then the reason for that reason needs to be explained.  
This is never ending. The only reason that does not need another reason to  
explain it, is that it is random. That is no reason. I explain why a truly  
empty universe will generate stuff randomly. Essentially, there are no laws  
of physics in an empty universe, so there are no laws like conservation of  
mass-energy to prevent stuff just appearing. You need a reason to explain  
why stuff don't just appear in an empty universe. All explanations,  
ultimately resolve to laws of physics. No mass-energy, no laws. Its that  
simple.


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: fiddled filter design
On 11/9/18 6:41 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wrote something like that for my big-iron 3D EM simulator, for  
designing waveguide-coupled nanoantennas with a plasmonic  
travelling-wave region.  It can optimize any parameter the simulator  
knows about: shapes, materials, simulation geometry, illumination, ....

I wouldn't have been able to get technologically-interesting quantum  
efficiency without it.

It's not a genetic algorithm, just good old Nelder-Mead downhill simplex  
(Numerical Recipes calls theirs 'amoeba').

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--  
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: fiddled filter design
On 10/11/18 5:43 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes. Sometimes genetics or annealing can help overcome local maxima, by  
jolting or jumping out of them. But in other domains, brute force and  
slope descent are perfectly adequate.

A friend designed a truly excellent direction-finding antenna for the  
UHF ham band (which is quite wide) by wrapping such a thing around NEC,  
and using it to run about a million field simulations while tweaking the  
antenna elements. The heuristic measure is not gain, not front-to-back  
ratio, it's continuity of the directional effect due to the lack of  
prominent side-lobes (including polarisation effects because reflections  
can give you all kinds of crap). This means you can get a nice ellipse  
with the biggest point in the right direction, and no side-lobes to  
throw you off. Believe me, you do *not* want to be hiding your use of a  
UHF radio from this guy :), or competing against him to find such.

Clifford Heath.

Re: fiddled filter design
On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:43:04 -0500, Phil Hobbs

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Numerical optimization can be good, absent getting trapped in a local
maximum, but you need an idea to start with, and you have to be
careful that the sim han't missed a far-away, better solution.

Once you have a good idea, there are various ways to optimize it.


--  

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics  


Site Timeline