Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- From: "FabrizioJBonsignore" <djbonsignore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:39:29 -0500
...
solution depends on all ps in the population
being aware of t. NOte that to act t must
communicate itself with at least one p and one c
to issue the __directive__. It means that a path
between p and t can be found even if several ci
s are used. The obvious strategy for t is to
incommunicate ...
the p s, so that it can turn at least some p s into ci s. The
counterstrategy for p is to communicate to all p s about t. Note that t
can be a composite party, so the ci s are also part of t, but only show as
ci s the moment they act. This is the case of an organized criminal group.
(Otherwise, p s are turned into ci s after they are hurt). Advantage is on
the side of t, as the cost of communicating to p s and ci s is less than
the cost of p communicating to all p s (and ci s). p requires the use of
media to reach the whole population, t only needs to get in contact with
some p s. It is important that authorities act on the paths to t as soon
as possible to avoid the anarchy of a whole population using the same
rule. In order to have the whole population using the same rule it has to
be communicated to all p s, of which some at least belong to government!
If those p s belonging to government dont act in favor of p s and against
t, they turn into ci s! That's corruption! Several inferences can be made
according to different communication paths and sub set regimes to
determine possible strategies. For p, the obvious goal is to minimize cost
(hurt), while for t goals can be diverse (exogenous) but dependant on p.
It also has the goal to minimize contacts and ci s as the more it acts the
easier it is to find a path from p to t (some p symbols should have a *),
irrespective of the ci s in between. The initial state of the population
of p s is also determinant in any particular situation being modeled, just
before the threat(s) is (are) issued. So we have a dynamic system composed
of subsets over a set of p s, beginning with a set of communication
relations, followed by a series of states composed by communications among
the parties and the actual acts performed by them, where any state will be
composed of the same suset of actors plus additional sets of (colored)
actors already operated on, either hurt, criminalized or caught. Of
course, more than one idependent t can be included in a real life
simulation. A simulation can end by turning p into p** where p** means
hurt, or continue beyond that point to add further dmages p**, p***,
p****, .... (sequence). Note that this sequence can be equated to the
sequence of degradation schizophrenia can force on some people. Hereby I
claim priority to this kind of models asper the sandclock in my left hand
and the eye-in-the-sky symbol in my right hand (as a partial way to
identify myself in this medium).
Those sick minds know perfectly well that most enraging is to be accused
of what one is innocent and is trying to prevent, Mexico.
Explain: what is the point of being alone, but that of self-cultivation?
Today it was Dr Pepper in McDonalds, a different one near a school, and
the effect is the same, it contains some substance.
Remember the Superheroe! situation (story).
So they are using key logging, right? Hope previous hidden here message
reached them.
I wrote to Lester in BuzzAnalytics.com. He uses the kind of math I have in
mind when I write this essays.
Fabrizio J Bonsignore now Danilo J Bonsignore
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- From: FabrizioJBonsignore
- Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- References:
- Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- From: FabrizioJBonsignore
- Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- From: FabrizioJBonsignore
- Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- Prev by Date: Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- Next by Date: Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- Previous by thread: Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- Next by thread: Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|