<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.5.4 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:37:36 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/"><rss:title>FractaLog Blog</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/</rss:link><rss:description>A non-linear space for students of chaos and fractals. By Richard DiDio</rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2009-07-06T01:37:36Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.5.4 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/6/4/to-boldly-determine-a-fractal-dimension.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/4/24/damn-yankees-stadium.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/11/4/538-and-counting.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/23/randomness-god-templeton-prize-2008.html"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/3/the-long-and-short-of-wikiprediction.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/6/4/to-boldly-determine-a-fractal-dimension.html"><rss:title>To Boldly Determine a Fractal Dimension</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/6/4/to-boldly-determine-a-fractal-dimension.html</rss:link><dc:creator>R.A. DiDio</dc:creator><dc:date>2009-06-04T16:44:44Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Fractals</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It happens very quickly, and is very easy to miss, unless one is either an inveterate fractalogist or Vulcan, or both.</p>
<p>In the eminently entertaining <a href="http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/index.html">Star Trek movie just released</a> there is a scene of young Spock's school which appears to be a cavernous room with a floor made up of indented hemispherical shells (as if you were on the inside wall of a very large pimple ball).  of each "pimple" while a Vulcan student in each "pimple" listening to a lecture, or reciting a lesson while Mathematical expressions are illuminated on the walls</p>
<p>The film takes us for a brief visit to a few of these math-pimples. In one, a pointy-eared student begins his recitation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The dimensionality equals the log of N...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The statement is not completed, but clearly this is the beginning of the expression for the <a href="http://davis.wpi.edu/~matt/courses/fractals/intro.html"> Hausdorrf-Besicovitch dimension</a>:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-size: 120%;">d = Log(N)/log(s)</span></strong></p>
<p>This expression has many different variants (I am guessing that this is the one used in Vulcan grade schools), and can be used to easily calculate the dimensions of deterministic fractals. So, e.g., the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set">Cantor set</a> weighs in at a dimension of log(2)/log(3) = 0.6309..., while the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpinski_carpet">Sierpinski Carpet</a> is a more robust log(8)/log(3) = 1.8928...</p>
<p>Combined with clever statistical counting techniques, the dimension of random, and even naturally-occurring fractals can also be determined. The boundary of regular Brownian motion has a dimension of 4/3 = 1.33, while the surface of the human brain has a dimension of approximately 2.79.</p>
<p>In case you're wondering what naturally occurring object your brain most closely resembles, note that the dimension of a typical piece of broccoli is 2.66</p>
<p>See this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fractals_by_Hausdorff_dimension">list of fractals sorted by Hausdorff-Besicovitch Dimension</a> for more!</p>
<p>In the lists that regularly appear comparing the mathematical performance of US school kids vs. children in other countries, thank goodness Vulcan is not listed. Not only do they all know about the H-B dimension, they instinctively know the definition of a fractal: an object whose Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension is greater than its <a class="mw-redirect" title="Topological dimension" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_dimension">topological dimension</a>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Live long and prosper, measuring your fractals wherever you find them.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/4/24/damn-yankees-stadium.html"><rss:title>Damn Yankees' Stadium</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2009/4/24/damn-yankees-stadium.html</rss:link><dc:creator>R.A. DiDio</dc:creator><dc:date>2009-04-24T05:14:46Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://go.rwdi.com/technotes/t07.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.fractalog.com/storage/post-images/baseballaero.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1240865962012" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 244px;">How Does a Baseball Fly?</span></span>I'm loving the controversy swirling around the opening of the new Yankees Stadium.&nbsp; The number of home runs hit <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2009/04/20/2009-04-20_why_are_there_many_home_runs_at_new_yankee_stadium_answer_is_blowing_in_wind.html">is already far exceeding the pace of past seasons</a>, leading to the inevitable pointing of big, angry New York fingers at those who are at the front lines, or at least at the foul poles, of stadium building.</p>
<p>That would be the wind modelers, of course.</p>
<p>Give them a Bronx break. The complexities involved in predicting airflow over such a complicated shape are staggering.&nbsp; Wind tunnel simulations using scale models of the stadium can only provide so much information - mostly about macroscopic responses of structural elements to wind gusts.&nbsp; (Just think about&nbsp; how tiny the balls and bats would have to be in order to simulate the home run frequency.)</p>
<p>The new stadium has the same dimensions as the one just demolished, so the homer explosion must be due to the different wind patterns that exist.&nbsp; The outside shape of the stadium, it's different compass orientation, concourse dimensions, angle of the seats, are just a few of the possible design suspects&nbsp; leading to the homer fest currently playing out.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Of course, knowing why a baseball flies the way it does is an essential component of any prediction.&nbsp; It is certainly not clear that wind modelers know this physics, or whether they talk to those who do. Maybe if they read <a href="http://go.rwdi.com/technotes/t07.pdf">How does a baseball fly?</a> the baseballs would not be flying the way they are in the Bronx.&nbsp; This site was put together by Rowan Williams Davies &amp; Irwin Inc, a "wind engineering and microclimate consulting firm" that have modeled wind conditions at&nbsp; a number of American League parks.</p>
<p>Major League Baseball takes HR's very seriously because of the potential ratings they produce. But statisticians are even more serious, trying to come up with a way to compare the HRPF (Home Run Park Factor) of different ballparks in an effort to determine which one is the most favorable for hitting home runs.&nbsp; Check out the analysis of Greg Rybarczyk, who leaves no seam unstitched in his quest for quantitative surety.&nbsp; Rybarczyk uses <a href="http://www.hittrackeronline.com/howitworks.php">Hit Tracker</a>, a true baseball junkie's website that contains the parameters of all home runs hit, allowing for the total flight distance to be calculated.&nbsp; Let him describe his obsession...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hit Tracker in its usual form uses observations of hit outcomes (landing point, time of flight) to derive the hit&rsquo;s initial parameters (Horizontal Launch Angle or HLA, Vertical Launch Angle or VLA, and Speed off Bat or SOB, with spin assumed to be a function of these factors). But, with a few lines of code added, it becomes "Hit Whacker," using HLA, VLA, SOB and atmospheric inputs to generate a hit&rsquo;s outcome. With this capability, we can create a procedure for assessing how easy or hard it is to hit homers in any park.<br /> <br /> To cover the range of possible batted balls that could become homers, I created a &ldquo;test set&rdquo; of trajectories, representing 45 different HLA&rsquo;s (every two degrees from foul line to foul line), 41 different VLA&rsquo;s (15 to 55 degrees) and 26 different SOB&rsquo;s (95 to 120 mph). That&rsquo;s 47,970 different fly ball paths! I ran this complete test set in each park, in that park&rsquo;s actual altitude, in the park&rsquo;s average game time temperature from 2002-06, with no wind (I&rsquo;ll describe how to account for different winds shortly). The trajectories were evaluated as &ldquo;home run&rdquo; or &ldquo;not home run&rdquo;, and the results were compiled.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><a href="javascript:showFullImage('/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fpost-images%2Fhittracker.gif%3F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%3D1240866342702',228,563);"><img src="http://www.fractalog.com/storage/thumbnails/583047-2970798-thumbnail.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1240866348238" alt="" /></a></span><span class="thumbnail-caption" style="width: 302px;">Hit Tracker sample output. Click to enlarge</span></span>I won't list the results here, which are listed by Rybarczyk at the <a href="http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/home-run-park-factor-a-new-approach/">Hardball Times</a> site. These results date from 2007, so the new Yankee Stadium is not yet analyzed.</p>
<p>Now a lot of HR's are not a bad thing, of course. Hailing from Philly, I can tell you that Ryan Howard's blasts sound like a home run should. When the balls heave his bat, it's almost possible to imagine that his swing created the vortex that carried the ball along with it into the upper deck in right field. <br />Let's not forget that Citizen's Bank park was roundly blasted for the first few years of operation because of its too-friendly confines for hitters. Pitchers were scared of signing with the Phils because of the imminent danger to their ERA and subsequent contract potential.</p>
<p>How did this turn out? With the correct set of starting and relief pitching, the Phillies won the World Series in 2009 - thank you very much.</p>
<p>And now, back to Yankee Stadium.&nbsp; Even the best modelers are often way off base in their predictions because of the chaotic nature of weather and climate. In the ballpark case, it's hard to get more non-linearly complex than the interaction of the vector field of the wind velocity and the spinning baseball.&nbsp; Perhaps the best answer to why the new park is such a Home Run zone is a blog comment posted by one of the Bleacher Bums.&nbsp; It is an analysis of Hemingwayian economy and precision: The Middle Relievers S*CK.</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/11/4/538-and-counting.html"><rss:title>538 and Counting</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/11/4/538-and-counting.html</rss:link><dc:creator>R.A. DiDio</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-11-04T05:59:35Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-right ssNonEditable"><span><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com"><img style="width: 300px;" src="http://www.fractalog.com/storage/images/538map.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1225780452713" alt="" /></a></span></span>Well , it's finally here, and not a moment too soon. I haven't posted in months. I'll blame some of the procrastination on today's election. Like many former able-bodied workers, I have spent countless hours watching the web wires for the latest info on the moose hunter of all elections.</p>
<p>One place where I've probably spent 538 hours or so is at <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com">fivethirtyeight.com</a> - a meta-meta-polling site that claims to present "electoral politics done right."</p>
<p>Named for the total number of possible electoral votes, FiveThirtyEight.com is the creation of Nate Silver and Sean Quinn, who have developed a unique methodology for polling analysis:</p>
<ol>
<li>Many polls are used to produce a weighted average. The weights are based on a reliability index determined by that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll.</li>
<li>A regression estimate based on the demographics in each state is used to account for outlier polls</li>
<li>An inferential process allows states that have not been polled recently to have their results modified , effectively makeing them "currrent"</li>
<li>The election is simulated 10,000 times "in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes based on a historical analysis of polling data since 1952. The simulation further accounts for the fact that similar states are likely to move together, e.g. future polling movement in states like Michigan and Ohio, or North and South Carolina, is likely to be in the same direction."</li>
</ol>
<p>See the site for a much more thorough description of their methodology.</p>
<p>And especially visit it to see the display of results, particularly of the simulated elections.</p>
<p>Which is why I'm posting now, at 1:20 AM EST on November 4th. The latest simulations has Obama winning in 98.1% of the model elections, which ultimately leads to a prediction of Obama getting 52% of the vote to McCain's 46.1%. The electoral breakdown is predicted to be 346.5 to 191.5 for Obama (I could not find where the 0.5 electoral vote comes from)</p>
<p>Naturally I am as interested in the accuracy of these predictions as I am interested in the outcome. I will post an update to this piece as soon as the final numbers are tallied, to check the reliability of FiveThirtyEight.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/23/randomness-god-templeton-prize-2008.html"><rss:title>Randomness &amp; God: Templeton Prize 2008</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/23/randomness-god-templeton-prize-2008.html</rss:link><dc:creator>R.A. DiDio</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-06-23T04:00:08Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Chaos Religion</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-right"><img alt="michal_heller.jpg" src="http://www.fractalog.com/storage/images/michal_heller.jpg" /></span>This past march, Michal Heller was awarded the 2008 Templeton Prize, an honor that groups him with other prize winners as <em>&quot;entrepreneurs of the spirit&quot;&mdash; </em>defined by John Templeton as&nbsp; <em>outstanding individuals who have devoted their talents to those aspects of human experience that, even in an age of astonishing scientific advance, remain beyond the reach of scientific explanation.</em>

(<a href="http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html">more</a>)</p>
   
<p>I have <a href="http://fractalog.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=templeton&moduleId=2331792">written before</a> about past winners, and of research sponsored by the Templeton Foundation. Yet I have not found explicit writing that attempts to join together the separate strands of science and the divine through the prism of chaos until I read some of Heller's works. This may be because of his very obvious dual hats: Heller is both a cosmologist and Catholic priest, who managed to thrive in communist Poland.</p>
   
<p>Heller is really interested in the ultimate beginnings of everything. His work and speculation must necessarily include theology because his target is the start of everything before there was a Start to Everything:</p>
   
<blockquote> <em> Various processes in the universe can be displayed as a succession of states in such a way that the preceding state is a cause of the succeeding one&hellip; (and) there is always a dynamical law prescribing how one state should generate another state. But dynamical laws are expressed in the form of mathematical equations, and if we ask about the cause of the universe we should ask about a cause of mathematical laws. By doing so we are back in the Great Blueprint of God's thinking the universe, the question on ultimate causality&hellip;: &quot;Why is there something rather than nothing?&quot; When asking this question, we are not asking about a cause like all other causes. We are asking about the root of all possible causes.</em>  </blockquote>]]></content:encoded></rss:item><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/3/the-long-and-short-of-wikiprediction.html"><rss:title>The Long and Short of Wikiprediction</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.fractalog.com/fractalog_blog/2008/6/3/the-long-and-short-of-wikiprediction.html</rss:link><dc:creator>R.A. DiDio</dc:creator><dc:date>2008-06-03T13:48:52Z</dc:date><dc:subject>Understanding &amp; Prediction</dc:subject><content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span class="thumbnail-image-float-right"><a href="http://www.fractalog.com/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=%2Fstorage%2Fimages%2Fthe_problem_with_wikipedia.png&imageTitle=583047-1625220-thumbnail.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'width=500,height=503,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no'); return false;"><img src="http://www.fractalog.com/storage/thumbnails/583047-1625220-thumbnail.jpg" alt="583047-1625220-thumbnail.jpg" /></a><br />
 <span style="width: 200px;" class="thumbnail-caption">The Problem with Wikipedia. (Click to&nbsp; enlarge)</span></span>In what may be a self-organized example of <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor?cat=technology">Occam's Razor</a>, consider the case of reliability of Wikipedia articles.</p>
   
<p>Recently, Joshua E. Blumenstock of UC Berkeley performed a statistical analysis of 1000's of wikipedia pages, looking for predictors of quality articles. (Where &quot;quality articles&quot; was taken to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles">featured articles</a>. These articles are given this rating by Wikipedia editors, using specific <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria">criteria</a>. &nbsp; As of this posting, there are approximately 2000 featured articles out of over 2.4 million wikipedia articles.)</p>
   
<p>In his paper<a href="http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ischool"> Automatically Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Articles</a> Blumenstock describes the search for correlation between &quot;featuredness&quot; and a a wikiload of possible variables. The variables included <em>surface features</em> (e.g. # of characters, words, one-syllable words), <em>structural features</em> (e.g. links , images, tables), a variety of <em>readability metrics</em> (e.g. Gunning Fog, Coleman-Liau Index), and <em>part of speech tags</em> (e.g. nouns, past participles, perterites). </p>
    	  
<p>He needn't have looked so deeply. It turns out that word count alone is an incredibly potent predictor. Amazingly, Blumenstock found that whether an article had greater or less than 1830 words was all that was needed to predict whether an article was featured with <em>97% accuracy</em>!</p>
   
<p>Now why is this?</p>]]></content:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>