Boy, oh boy. You'd think I could sneak under the radar with a meme (a.k.a. second-order OEE) and get away with it. In my recent post, Article: Einstein's Riddle (AER), I provided an example of a logic puzzle that has been floating around on the web without mentioning that it has been given false attribution to Einstein. Wesner Moise called me out almost immediately in Memes. Dangit. Stop being so efficient over there. There were a few purposes to that post, this follow-up being one of them. Before I begin, my editorial policy has been to leave a post as originally posted. In the case of this article and the blog post, I'll be modifying the beginning of each to include the MEME WARNING. Then, whatever search engine indexing (Google juice) I get from these posts will include the meme warning.
AER was my first article that I've posted up on the site and it should set the tone for what to expect of me. I may be a source for useful information (and even this is highly questionable), but I'm not a reference. I provide my opinions without public scrutiny or review. I'm asking you as a reader to be a skeptic, not just of my stuff, but of much of what you read.
No, those aren't the referees from the beer commercials
Anyways, let's start with the good part in all of this. I have considerable respect for the academic community. I mentioned a number of mathematicians in AER and in particular I linked to Dr. Lance Fortnow's blog, Computational Complexity . As Wes mentioned, the Einstein bit in AER is a meme. The academic community has standards to attempt to prevent such matters. There is careful consideration for acceptance into any advanced degree program at all universities. There is guidance and advice given to students to become proper professionals in their respective disciplines. When a student or professor publishes a paper in a journal, a group of referees are assigned to manage the journal and the papers submitted for publication. The referees are responsible for the quality, among other attributes, of the submissions. Computing Chris has a post on peer review (which opportunistically showed up in time for my post). The body of work that is a discipline, e.g. mathematics, is under constant scrutiny. The damage of a single piece of faulty information can have lasting effects. Imagine if there were no oversight of this nature in medicine. There were recent jokes made of software that produced "fake" research papers. While this is all fun in public, such papers can not only introduce faulty information, but also reduce the credibility of the discipline and those engaged in the practice to build and defend the discipline. Dr. Fortnow had a post that I've been meaning to link for some time in A Fine Line Between Prank and Fraud and provides a perspective for humor in Humor in Talks. He mentions that not all journals are refereed. In my opinion, the fake research paper is the equivalent to walking up to a gas station attendant, waving a gun, calling out for a robbery and then saying "Just kidding". The damage has been done. Another related theme here is plagiarism as mentioned by Bruce Schneier in this post here . There are similar problems, i.e. people attempting to provide valid information, but with false attribution.
Listen to me now and believe me later
Before I forget, I really do appreciate the work of Turing, Post, Church, Kleene and Blum (and Fortnow and Aaronson and . . .). I do believe that those at the academic helm of Theory of Computation and Computational Complexity and other related disciplines are providing a meaningful course. I also do believe that "Einstein's Riddle" is a reasonable puzzle of the grocery store "Logic Puzzle" variety and warrants a difficulty of three on a scale of one to five. One point was to demonstrate the approach to the problem regardless of the meme. I can't even argue with Wes' excerpt:
The logic puzzle looks deceptively simple, but is quite difficult, much like the ring in a keychain contraption.
Because AER ended with:
There are opportunities for a measure of complexity of this class of problems, but I'm trying to be friendly today and have just shown some of the basics rather than get into theory.
But he leaves the door open here with:
He should know better given his background in genetic programming, and the smart guy probably does.
My only response is a particle from my blog subtitle - humanIntelligence= off. Once my fingers hit the keyboard, I power down the brain to conserve energy.
I do get my puzzle books at the grocery store (and my Mom, rest her soul, used to snarf mine because she would complete puzzles in her books and need something to do; OK, I'm slow).
Always trust everything you read (there is a prize in the cereal box)
The next point that I wanted to make was made distinctly in Wes' post. I personally don't care for Richard Dawkins, but I read his stuff. The Blind Watchmaker was probably one of the worst books on a subject that I enjoy. Please don't misunderstand; Richard Dawkins covers fantastic material. I just don't care for his writing style and presentation. But my point here is simple. If you read something on the web, that doesn't mean that the information you've consumed is valid. I made this point in my recent post, Finance: Scalping options or do you have what it takes to trade your own account?. I'll make it again and state:
So this blog post is the only thing you will ever need to know about trading, period. Send me some money.
. . .
If you cannot distinguish between sources of competent information and pop-culture information, don't bother trading. Just turn the channel to the latest daytime talk show or cooking show and learn something useful instead of trading.
I'd add:
The validity of the information that is available in any source that has not had a review, whether editorial or peer or otherwise, has a higher opportunity for faulty information, whether it be misrepresentation, malicious dissemination of false information, improper (or fully lacking) attribution, omission of information, or any other example.
The Road Runner escapes
My last point is a sad point. It has to do with a topic for which I have no patience, for which I wish to bring no attention and for which I normally do not pay attention to in any manner. It seems that Wile E. Coyote - Super Genius is at it again. He's patting himself on the back for his skills and his abilities and alienating his own friends in the process. Read these links at your own risk. I know that CoyoteBoy displays the SubGenius "Bob" (with a blasphemous spelling of Subgenius; the G is upper case; no I'm not a minister) and is a buddy of DoubleI , but I can't be gentle here. So, to DoubleI - I'm not trying to mess with your boy. If you read the comments carefully (and waste a significant portion of your time in doing so) he's giving out secret rings to someone who posted the very meme I'm using as my exhibit "in a Grudge match to determine . . . who the real genius is then". One of the comments posted was:
Hey, thanks for telling me to be patient to await my key to the secret genuis society bathroom. I know the great burden you guys carry.
The only thing I can say to CoyoteBoy is: Use the genius bathroom to relieve that great burden. You are full of it.
----
Contact me here. Coherent opinions will be ignored as usual.
----
p.s. Scott - You know life is unfair when CoyoteBoy gets a moniker ahead of you. Be patient . . .
(Update: Meme Warning - Einstein has not been shown to have written this problem. Please see Part 2 for a further explanation)
I like to do mathematics and logic problems for fun. There are different classes of problems that I find interesting. If you look in the magazine racks at your local newsstand, you'll see crossword and other puzzle books. When I need some mental golf, i.e. I don't really want to think about math or other stuff, I grab a copy of one of these babies. Most of these puzzles are simply the recognition of simple patterns in a one-person game (no, not game theory) with the application of a set of simple rules for the solution.
I bumped into Einstein's Riddle the other day. Einstein's Riddle is a puzzle that Albert Einstein wrote way back before I was born. The problem was formulated as a "Logic Puzzle" in the form of those I mentioned in the above books. Einstein felt that only 2% of the people in the world could solve this puzzle. Perhaps in his day this was the case, but puzzles of this nature are commonplace in puzzle books in your local grocery stores. Having done a few of these puzzles in my day (my Mom would usually "borrow" these books when I visited her and Dad on vacation in Florida), I would rate Einstein's Riddle a three on a scale of one to five. It is somewhat difficult, i.e. beginners may find it a little difficult, but advanced puzzlers would likely complete it in under an hour (I can hear some now; 20 minutes baby!).
Thanks to Turing, Post, Church, Kleene, Blum and many others throughout the twentieth century, we have many disciplines including The Theory of Computation (TOC) and Computational Complexity (CC). These great explorers of mathematics, logic and the emerging disciplines of TOC and CC are the reason that you and I and everyone who is involved with computers have a profession in which to earn a living. Many of these names and the associated disciplines are still in their infancy, but have matured to a point in which I believe Einstein would be proud to witness. While there is much to learn in these disciplines, there are many great results that contribute to the common knowledge to solve problems of this nature as a pastime. How times change!
I've published a short article and an exhibit in the form of an Excel spreadsheet to demonstrate Einstein's Riddle and a simple approach to solving this problem. You can use the empty grid worksheet as a template to solve the problem on your own if you would like. I also only give the answer in the last few worksheets of the Excel workbook. I really don't go into the details of the techniques and details for solving the problem, but rather the approach to the problem. There are opportunities for a measure of complexity of this class of problems, but I'm trying to be friendly today and have just shown some of the basics rather than get into theory.
----
Updated: I mistakenly had the wrong percentage listed as "Einstein felt that only 98% . . ." and now reads "Einstein felt that only 2% . . .". Thanks to The Armed Geometer.
----
Contact me here if you have a comment.