Welcome to the S T A Y L A Z Y portal, a simple place to rest, relax, rethink... your ideas and perspectives
about work and play..
paradox:
Main Entry: par·a·dox
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"däksFunction: noun
Etymology: Latin paradoxum, Greek paradoxon,
from neuter
of paradoxos contrary to expectation,
from para- + dokein to think, seem --
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a
statement that is seemingly contradictory or
opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true>
2 b : a self-contradictory
statement that at first seems untrue
2 c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory
conclusions by valid
deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases.
Who is Parrondo? J.M.R. Parrondo is a physicist based at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain, working on research that is at the convergence of information theory and thermodynamics. He is the foremost researcher in this area and is regarded by many as the natural successor to Rolf Landauer in this regard. An amusing anecdote is that Parrondo attended a conference in 1999, where all the papers were double-blind reviewed. To test the efficacy of the blind review process, the reviewers were asked to try to guess the author of each paper. All five of Parrondo's reviewers said he was Rolf Landauer! Of course, 1999 was the year Landauer died and many reviewers obviously hadn't caught up with that fact. During the conference banquet, as a gesture to mark this event Parrondo was given an informal "Landauer award.".
Journal Entry: offer entry here.
Is Parrondo's paradox really a "paradox"? This question is sometimes asked by mathematicians, whereas physicists usually don't worry about such things. The first thing to point out is that "Parrondo's paradox" is just a name, just like the "Braess paradox" or "Simpson's paradox." Secondly, as is the case with most of these named paradoxes they are all really apparent paradoxes. People drop the word "apparent" in these cases as it is a mouthful, and it is obvious anyway. So no one claims these are paradoxes in the strict sense. In the wide sense, a paradox is simply something that is counterintuitive. Parrondo's games certainly are countertuitive—at least until you have intensively studied them for a few months. The truth is we still keep finding new surprising things to delight us, as we research these games. I have had one mathematician complain that the games always were obvious to him and hence we should not use the word "paradox." He is either a genius or never really understood it in the first place. In either case, it is not worth arguing with people like that.
.
What are the applications of "Parrondo's paradox?" In a sense this is the wrong question. It is akin to asking what the applications of "Simpson's paradox" or "Olber's paradox" are. Study of apparent paradoxes, such as these and that of Parrondo, give us an interesting starting point when examining various natural phenomena. Parrondo's games in their original set-up form a toy model that maps directly onto a flashing ratchet. Toy models don't necessarily directly map exactly onto any real system. What they are mainly about is the underlying physical principles. In physics, the phrase "toy model" is a technical phrase used to describe a highly simplified system that doesn't necessarily structurally map onto a particular physical system, but the behaviour it possesses does map onto real physical phenomena. A toy model is one that is sufficiently simplified, that we can use it to understand more complex systems. In the case of Parrondo's games, there are many concepts such as (i) convex linear combinations, (ii) feedback, (iii) noise-induced ordering, (iv) stochastic resonance, (v) fractals etc. that all meet together in one remarkably compact model. It is this richness in physical phenomena all packed into one tidy model that has made Parrondo's games a focus of research.
Journal Entry: tactical here.
In cosmology, black holes in themselves might never be useful, but they attract the attention of researchers because they are a melting pot where thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, general relativity and information theory all converge. Similarly with Parrondo's games, various concepts in complexity theory, stochastic theory, Markov theory, ratchet theory, theory of martingales etc. all converge. This is why it is useful and fascinating.
>brainwashcafe
>mcgill
>angelina 24/7
>best search engine
>harvard
>biblio Files
Journal Entry: turn signals here.
Strategy can be boring. Consultants are often worse than academics, not to mention 'planners'. Everyone is so serious. If that gives better strategies, fine. but it often than not gives us worse ones... generic, uninspiring, insipid cookie cutter templates. Strategy should inspire and interest. Most interesting companies we know, like people, are often the most successful and least boring. They have innovative inspiring sometimes even playful strategies. By taking the whole 'business of strategy' less seriously, they end up with more serious profits.. and have some fun in the bargain.
archival files here
