sodium_nitride [any, any] @ sodium_nitride @hexbear.net

Posts

4

Comments

44

Joined

4 wk. ago

Matlab element wise multiplication indeed works in the correct way that you described.

sum(Leon.*l)

is equivalent to

l*Leon

which is why MatLab's "sum" function by default sums down columns rather than by rows. The sum(Leon.*l) notation keeps things explicit (helps me in coding consistently), but the MatLab compiler knows how to optimize these things.

I added in the explict checks. It turns out, a huge number of the matrices being produced were non-productive. Instead of trying to keep generating matrices, I made a different fix (which makes the technical matrices more realistic, so win-win)

I made it so that the average number of entries in each row of the technical matrix is (2*n)^0.5

This means that as the economy grows larger, the matrices grow sparser. This makes productive matrices much more likely (at which point, I just have a check which makes it so that non-productive matrices are regenerated).

Curiously, this change doesn't have that big of an effect on the outcome. I've verified. The model simply handles negative net production and treats it like purchasing commodities from the external market (so something like imports). Still, I have removed it for now.

Looking forward to the 10,000 year reign of the burger emperor, his golden throne (the toilet) fueled by the souls of a 1000 immigrants being sacrificed a day.

All of those sound interesting, I will check them out.

also love to hear about any updates!

I would love to share them. Hopefully I have something good by the end of the week.

I am very well aware that the dynamism is important for the law of value. I have tried making simulations of micro actors in the past to simulate commodity exchange, but those tended to become computationally intensive beyond what my cheap laptop could handle. (Either that, or trying model various effects to make it more accurate would start becoming like a full time job, forcing me to focus on my actual studies instead. )

This simulation is intended only to model a single time step (for now, adding more time steps comes in once I perfect the simulation for a single time step).

7. the 1000 different prices are there to see what happens to the reproduction condition with 1000 different prices. I am not directly calculating reproduction prices for each economy. I am just letting random guesses show me what happens to the reproduction condition at various price points.
8. The net income being normalised was there just to improve the visualisation. I have run the code with all sorts of parameters with and without the normalisation, and it is difficult to decide which is more useful for gaining insight.

I've tried generating economies with upto 100 sectors (my poor laptop), but right now, I am facing a different problem I am trying to solve (with more and more sectors, my current random price generation strategy rarely ever produces prices close to LTV. Law of large numbers and all).

unit cost = A^T p

This is what I have done in C (except I also multiplied by gross output yo get total costs per sector)

If you wanted an aggregate quantity across all sectors, this would be the p q - you have already calculated this as R.

R is a vector denoting the revenue by sector. I think part of your misunderstanding might be from MatLab's element-wise multiplication function, whose output can be difficult to understand.

O is a n long coming vector, P is a n long column vector, when element wise multiplied, the output is also a n long column vector.

And I do suppose that using standard notation (which I have never seen before tbh) would probably help greatly.

And perhaps this is what you’ve done, but just in an aggregate way.

6. uh, I haven't really read staffa or anything, but my approach for computing ltv prices was

Assume 1 unit of net output for a commodity

Calculate how much gross production would required for each sector in that case

Element wise multiply this with direct labor use to get needed labor from each sector

Add up all of the labors from all the sectors.

In formal terms, for sector 1

(I-A)^-1 * [1;0] = g = Gross product for 1 unit of sector 1

Then

sum(g.*l)

The "(eye(n)-A)\eye(n))" computes "g" for every sector at once (the output is [g1 g2 g3 g4 ...])

I believe this is equivalent to the equation you have also provided, except your equation involves fewer steps.

Also, just as a context thing, matlab, for some reason sums matrices down columns by default. So the output the ltv prices equation is a row vector of the summed labors (which I transpose using the apostrophe symbol ')

Indeed I am pretty sure that my code actually is using prices and values for each sector separately, otherwise the code should be giving me an error regarding the dimensionality of the code.

1. correct
2. correct
3. I was under the impression that since matlab's "rand" generates values between 0 and 1, all of the technical matrices should be automatically productive, but you are correct. I should add explicit checks
4. yes
5. I normalise the net product so that different economies are more comparable to one another. I am interested in the ratio of output between 2 industries, and not the scale of overall production

I normalise the gross labor use because that variable should actually be "share of workforce employed". The name is a relic from my previous attempt at the code where I had tried to incorporate the population into the sim. I seem to have forgotten to change the name.

Matlab's elementwise multiplication is not a dot product

I have some comments, questions, and possible suggestions.

Exactly what I'm looking for :)

I'm not exactly a mathematician, so I had intended the simulation to more so be a learning excercise. Feedback is appreciated. I'm going to take a look at your comments once I am done sleeping 😴

Hello

The echo chamber of pretending to care about trans rights.

My simulation model was built with scalability in mind, so I should be able to test Ian Wright's pricing strategy.

"Hufflepuff chuckfuck"

Does not need to be portmanteaud. The full form is clearer and has a lyrical quality.

The portmanteau sounds like a wierd sex act

#portmaNO

Imma quickly bookmark all these nice looking sources.

Me neither. I'm just going about the motions of life.

I learnt it from the guy in the first place. But yes, that's a great idea. I'll see if I can contact him.

You might be on to something, although I expect the curve to have something to do with logarithms as well (since it's on a log scale). Or it might be some really weird function.

Also, you can post images onto desmos?!

A senior banker in Paris said he was shocked by the letter. “It’s crazy . . . but everything is now possible. The rule of the strongest now prevails.”

Hasn't the EU being doing shit for a long time now? Strong arming companies abroad in the name of "human rights"?

Unlike pure fusion projects such as ITER, Xinghuo will combine fusion and fission. The high-energy neutrons from fusion reactions will trigger fission in surrounding materials, increasing energy output while potentially reducing nuclear waste.

So will the fission part of the plant will be processing nuclear waste?

Also, interesting that the hybrid nuclear plant has the opposite approach as hybrid nuclear bombs, where fission energy is used to trigger a fusion reaction.

They only reproduce. They do not metabolize.

Is reproduction not metabolic activity though? The "life cycle" of the virus is utterly dependent on the existence of other organisms, but this goes for any organism other than those which do not feed on anything.

I see viruses as the simplest possible life which lacks all functionality except to participate in the evolutionary process. This is really just a personal view, but I think of evolution as a special phenomena that only a living thing can undergo. It's kind of strange for me to think of a non-living thing evolving by natural selection.

I absolutely do not think LLMs are alive or in any way intelligent any more than a virus is.

It really depends on how you define intelligence, although I do agree.

From the definition of "system with a goal, a memory, an ability to sense its environment and an ability to effect its environment", which is the definition I would use, I also agree that LLMs are lacking true intelligence. Most crucially they lack a goal (they have been designed such that they lack any motives of any kind).

At that point we need to re-assess our definition of "life", otherwise we steer sharply into creating digital slaves.

I might be too pessimistic, but I think human society would much rather place limitations on the intelligence of AI so that a truly sentient AI cannot be made. Making a truly sentient AI and then not exploiting is not something I can see present day human society doing. We already have trouble treating human beings as humans