Trevor John Hastie (born 27 June 1953) is an American statistician and computer scientist. He is currently serving as the John A. Overdeck Professor of Mathematical Sciences and Professor of Statistics at Stanford University. Hastie is known for his contributions to applied statistics, especially in the field of machine learning, data mining, and bioinformatics. He has authored several popular books in statistical learning, including The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Hastie has been listed as an ISI Highly Cited Author in Mathematics by the ISI Web of Knowledge. He also contributed to the development of S. == Education and career == Hastie was born on 27 June 1953 in South Africa. He received his B.S. in statistics from the Rhodes University in 1976 and master's degree from University of Cape Town in 1979. Hastie joined the doctoral program at Stanford University in 1980 and received his Ph.D. in 1984 under the supervision of Werner Stuetzle. His dissertation was "Principal Curves and Surfaces". Hastie began his professional career in 1977 with the South African Medical Research Council. After receiving his master's degree in 1979, he spent a year interning at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and the Biomath department at Oxford University. After receiving his doctoral degree from Stanford, Hastie returned to South Africa to work with his former employer South African Medical Research Council. He returned to United States in 1986 and joined the AT&T Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey and remained there for nine years. Working with John Chambers, he co-directed the development of the S programming language. He joined Stanford University in 1994 as Associate Professor in Statistics and Biostatistics. He was promoted to full Professor in 1999. During the period 2006–2009, he was the chair of the Department of Statistics at Stanford University. In 2013 he was named the John A. Overdeck Professor of Mathematical Sciences. == Awards and honors == Hastie is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society since 1979. He is also an elected Fellow of several professional and scholarly societies, including the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the American Statistical Association, and the South African Statistical Society. He is a recipient of 'Myrto Lefkopolou Distinguished Lectureship' award of Biostatistics Department at the Harvard School of Public Health. In 2018, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 2019 Hastie became a foreign member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Hastie was named for the C.R. and Bhargavi Rao Prize in 2025. Hastie and Hui Zou received the 2025 Founders of Statistics prize for their elastic net paper. == Publications == Hastie is a prolific author of scientific works on numerous topics in applied statistics, including statistical learning, data mining, statistical computing, and bioinformatics. He along with his collaborators has authored about 125 scientific articles. Many of Hastie's scientific articles were coauthored by his longtime collaborator, Robert Tibshirani. Hastie has been listed as an ISI Highly Cited Author in Mathematics by the ISI Web of Knowledge. He has coauthored the following books: T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani, Generalized Additive Models, Chapman and Hall, 1990. J. Chambers and T. Hastie, Statistical Models in S, Wadsworth/Brooks Cole, 1991. T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning: Prediction, Inference and Data Mining, Second Edition, Springer Verlag, 2009 (available for free from the author's website). G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R, Springer Verlag, 2013 (available for free from the co-author's website). T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, M. Wainwright, Statistical Learning with Sparsity: the Lasso and Generalizations, CRC Press, 2015 (available for free from the author's website). Bradley Efron; Trevor Hastie (2016). Computer Age Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107149892.
Audio inpainting
Audio inpainting (also known as audio interpolation) is an audio restoration task which deals with the reconstruction of missing or corrupted portions of a digital audio signal. Inpainting techniques are employed when parts of the audio have been lost due to various factors such as transmission errors, data corruption or errors during recording. The goal of audio inpainting is to fill in the gaps (i.e., the missing portions) in the audio signal seamlessly, making the reconstructed portions indistinguishable from the original content and avoiding the introduction of audible distortions or alterations. Many techniques have been proposed to solve the audio inpainting problem and this is usually achieved by analyzing the temporal and spectral information surrounding each missing portion of the considered audio signal. Classic methods employ statistical models or digital signal processing algorithms to predict and synthesize the missing or damaged sections. Recent solutions, instead, take advantage of deep learning models, thanks to the growing trend of exploiting data-driven methods in the context of audio restoration. Depending on the extent of the lost information, the inpainting task can be divided in three categories. Short inpainting refers to the reconstruction of few milliseconds (approximately less than 10) of missing signal, that occurs in the case of short distortions such as clicks or clipping. In this case, the goal of the reconstruction is to recover the lost information exactly. In long inpainting instead, with gaps in the order of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds, this goal becomes unrealistic, since restoration techniques cannot rely on local information. Therefore, besides providing a coherent reconstruction, the algorithms need to generate new information that has to be semantically compatible with the surrounding context (i.e., the audio signal surrounding the gaps). The case of medium duration gaps lays between short and long inpainting. It refers to the reconstruction of tens of millisecond of missing data, a scale where the non-stationary characteristic of audio already becomes important. == Definition == Consider a digital audio signal x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . A corrupted version of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , which is the audio signal presenting missing gaps to be reconstructed, can be defined as x ~ = m ∘ x {\displaystyle \mathbf {\tilde {x}} =\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {x} } , where m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } is a binary mask encoding the reliable or missing samples of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , and ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } represents the element-wise product. Audio inpainting aims at finding x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } (i.e., the reconstruction), which is an estimation of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . This is an ill-posed inverse problem, which is characterized by a non-unique set of solutions. For this reason, similarly to the formulation used for the inpainting problem in other domains, the reconstructed audio signal can be found through an optimization problem that is formally expressed as x ^ ∗ = argmin X ^ L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) + R ( x ^ ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}={\underset {\hat {\mathbf {X} }}{\text{argmin}}}~L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )+R(\mathbf {\hat {x}} )} . In particular, x ^ ∗ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} ^{}} is the optimal reconstructed audio signal and L {\displaystyle L} is a distance measure term that computes the reconstruction accuracy between the corrupted audio signal and the estimated one. For example, this term can be expressed with a mean squared error or similar metrics. Since L {\displaystyle L} is computed only on the reliable frames, there are many solutions that can minimize L ( m ∘ x ^ , x ~ ) {\displaystyle L(\mathbf {m} \circ \mathbf {\hat {x}} ,\mathbf {\tilde {x}} )} . It is thus necessary to add a constraint to the minimization, in order to restrict the results only to the valid solutions. This is expressed through the regularization term R {\displaystyle R} that is computed on the reconstructed audio signal x ^ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\hat {x}} } . This term encodes some kind of a-priori information on the audio data. For example, R {\displaystyle R} can express assumptions on the stationarity of the signal, on the sparsity of its representation or can be learned from data. == Techniques == There exist various techniques to perform audio inpainting. These can vary significantly, influenced by factors such as the specific application requirements, the length of the gaps and the available data. In the literature, these techniques are broadly divided in model-based techniques (sometimes also referred as signal processing techniques) and data-driven techniques. === Model-based techniques === Model-based techniques involve the exploitation of mathematical models or assumptions about the underlying structure of the audio signal. These models can be based on prior knowledge of the audio content or statistical properties observed in the data. By leveraging these models, missing or corrupted portions of the audio signal can be inferred or estimated. An example of a model-based techniques are autoregressive models. These methods interpolate or extrapolate the missing samples based on the neighboring values, by using mathematical functions to approximate the missing data. In particular, in autoregressive models the missing samples are completed through linear prediction. The autoregressive coefficients necessary for this prediction are learned from the surrounding audio data, specifically from the data adjacent to each gap. Some more recent techniques approach audio inpainting by representing audio signals as sparse linear combinations of a limited number of basis functions (as for example in the Short Time Fourier Transform). In this context, the aim is to find the sparse representation of the missing section of the signal that most accurately matches the surrounding, unaffected signal. The aforementioned methods exhibit optimal performance when applied to filling in relatively short gaps, lasting only a few tens of milliseconds, and thus they can be included in the context of short inpainting. However, these signal-processing techniques tend to struggle when dealing with longer gaps. The reason behind this limitation lies in the violation of the stationarity condition, as the signal often undergoes significant changes after the gap, making it substantially different from the signal preceding the gap. As a way to overcome these limitations, some approaches add strong assumptions also about the fundamental structure of the gap itself, exploiting sinusoidal modeling or similarity graphs to perform inpainting of longer missing portions of audio signals. === Data-driven techniques === Data-driven techniques rely on the analysis and exploitation of the available audio data. These techniques often employ deep learning algorithms that learn patterns and relationships directly from the provided data. They involve training models on large datasets of audio examples, allowing them to capture the statistical regularities present in the audio signals. Once trained, these models can be used to generate missing portions of the audio signal based on the learned representations, without being restricted by stationarity assumptions. Data-driven techniques also offer the advantage of adaptability and flexibility, as they can learn from diverse audio datasets and potentially handle complex inpainting scenarios. As of today, such techniques constitute the state-of-the-art of audio inpainting, being able to reconstruct gaps of hundreds of milliseconds or even seconds. These performances are made possible by the use of generative models that have the capability to generate novel content to fill in the missing portions. For example, generative adversarial networks, which are the state-of-the-art of generative models in many areas, rely on two competing neural networks trained simultaneously in a two-player minmax game: the generator produces new data from samples of a random variable, the discriminator attempts to distinguish between generated and real data. During the training, the generator's objective is to fool the discriminator, while the discriminator attempts to learn to better classify real and fake data. In GAN-based inpainting methods the generator acts as a context encoder and produces a plausible completion for the gap only given the available information surrounding it. The discriminator is used to train the generator and tests the consistency of the produced inpainted audio. Recently, also diffusion models have established themselves as the state-of-the-art of generative models in many fields, often beating even GAN-based solutions. For this reason they have also been used to solve the audio inpainting problem, obtaining valid results. These models generate new data instances by inverting the
Markov partition
A Markov partition in mathematics is a tool used in dynamical systems theory, allowing the methods of symbolic dynamics to be applied to the study of hyperbolic dynamics. By using a Markov partition, the system can be made to resemble a discrete-time Markov process, with the long-term dynamical characteristics of the system represented as a Markov shift. The appellation 'Markov' is appropriate because the resulting dynamics of the system obeys the Markov property. The Markov partition thus allows standard techniques from symbolic dynamics to be applied, including the computation of expectation values, correlations, topological entropy, topological zeta functions, Fredholm determinants and the like. == Motivation == Let ( M , φ ) {\displaystyle (M,\varphi )} be a discrete dynamical system. A basic method of studying its dynamics is to find a symbolic representation: a faithful encoding of the points of M {\displaystyle M} by sequences of symbols such that the map φ {\displaystyle \varphi } becomes the shift map. Suppose that M {\displaystyle M} has been divided into a number of pieces E 1 , E 2 , … , E r {\displaystyle E_{1},E_{2},\ldots ,E_{r}} which are thought to be as small and localized, with virtually no overlaps. The behavior of a point x {\displaystyle x} under the iterates of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } can be tracked by recording, for each n {\displaystyle n} , the part E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} which contains φ n ( x ) {\displaystyle \varphi ^{n}(x)} . This results in an infinite sequence on the alphabet { 1 , 2 , … , r } {\displaystyle \{1,2,\ldots ,r\}} which encodes the point. In general, this encoding may be imprecise (the same sequence may represent many different points) and the set of sequences which arise in this way may be difficult to describe. Under certain conditions, which are made explicit in the rigorous definition of a Markov partition, the assignment of the sequence to a point of M {\displaystyle M} becomes an almost one-to-one map whose image is a symbolic dynamical system of a special kind called a shift of finite type. In this case, the symbolic representation is a powerful tool for investigating the properties of the dynamical system ( M , φ ) {\displaystyle (M,\varphi )} . == Formal definition == A Markov partition is a finite cover of the invariant set of the manifold by a set of curvilinear rectangles { E 1 , E 2 , … , E r } {\displaystyle \{E_{1},E_{2},\ldots ,E_{r}\}} such that For any pair of points x , y ∈ E i {\displaystyle x,y\in E_{i}} , that W s ( x ) ∩ W u ( y ) ∈ E i {\displaystyle W_{s}(x)\cap W_{u}(y)\in E_{i}} Int E i ∩ Int E j = ∅ {\displaystyle \operatorname {Int} E_{i}\cap \operatorname {Int} E_{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} If x ∈ Int E i {\displaystyle x\in \operatorname {Int} E_{i}} and φ ( x ) ∈ Int E j {\displaystyle \varphi (x)\in \operatorname {Int} E_{j}} , then φ [ W u ( x ) ∩ E i ] ⊃ W u ( φ x ) ∩ E j {\displaystyle \varphi \left[W_{u}(x)\cap E_{i}\right]\supset W_{u}(\varphi x)\cap E_{j}} φ [ W s ( x ) ∩ E i ] ⊂ W s ( φ x ) ∩ E j {\displaystyle \varphi \left[W_{s}(x)\cap E_{i}\right]\subset W_{s}(\varphi x)\cap E_{j}} Here, W u ( x ) {\displaystyle W_{u}(x)} and W s ( x ) {\displaystyle W_{s}(x)} are the unstable and stable manifolds of x, respectively, and Int E i {\displaystyle \operatorname {Int} E_{i}} simply denotes the interior of E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} . These last two conditions can be understood as a statement of the Markov property for the symbolic dynamics; that is, the movement of a trajectory from one open cover to the next is determined only by the most recent cover, and not the history of the system. It is this property of the covering that merits the 'Markov' appellation. The resulting dynamics is that of a Markov shift; that this is indeed the case is due to theorems by Yakov Sinai (1968) and Rufus Bowen (1975), thus putting symbolic dynamics on a firm footing. Variants of the definition are found, corresponding to conditions on the geometry of the pieces E i {\displaystyle E_{i}} . == Examples == Markov partitions have been constructed in several situations. Anosov diffeomorphisms of the torus. Dynamical billiards, in which case the covering is countable. Markov partitions make homoclinic and heteroclinic orbits particularly easy to describe. The system ( [ 0 , 1 ) , x ↦ 2 x m o d 1 ) {\displaystyle ([0,1),x\mapsto 2x\ mod\ 1)} has the Markov partition E 0 = ( 0 , 1 / 2 ) , E 1 = ( 1 / 2 , 1 ) {\displaystyle E_{0}=(0,1/2),E_{1}=(1/2,1)} , and in this case the symbolic representation of a real number in [ 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle [0,1)} is its binary expansion. For example: x ∈ E 0 , T x ∈ E 1 , T 2 x ∈ E 1 , T 3 x ∈ E 1 , T 4 x ∈ E 0 ⇒ x = ( 0.01110... ) 2 {\displaystyle x\in E_{0},Tx\in E_{1},T^{2}x\in E_{1},T^{3}x\in E_{1},T^{4}x\in E_{0}\Rightarrow x=(0.01110...)_{2}} . The assignment of points of [ 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle [0,1)} to their sequences in the Markov partition is well defined except on the dyadic rationals - morally speaking, this is because ( 0.01111 … ) 2 = ( 0.10000 … ) 2 {\displaystyle (0.01111\dots )_{2}=(0.10000\dots )_{2}} , in the same way as 1 = 0.999 … {\displaystyle 1=0.999\dots } in decimal expansions.
Glushkov's construction algorithm
In computer science theory – particularly formal language theory – Glushkov's construction algorithm, invented by Victor Mikhailovich Glushkov, transforms a given regular expression into an equivalent nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). Thus, it forms a bridge between regular expressions and nondeterministic finite automata: two abstract representations of the same class of formal languages. A regular expression may be used to conveniently describe an advanced search pattern in a "find and replace"–like operation of a text processing utility. Glushkov's algorithm can be used to transform it into an NFA, which furthermore is small by nature, as the number of its states equals the number of symbols of the regular expression, plus one. Subsequently, the NFA can be made deterministic by the powerset construction and then be minimized to get an optimal automaton corresponding to the given regular expression. The latter format is best suited for execution on a computer. From another, more theoretical point of view, Glushkov's algorithm is a part of the proof that NFA and regular expressions both accept exactly the same languages; that is, the regular languages. The converse of Glushkov's algorithm is Kleene's algorithm, which transforms a finite automaton into a regular expression. The automaton obtained by Glushkov's construction is the same as the one obtained by Thompson's construction algorithm, once its ε-transitions are removed. Glushkov's construction algorithm is also called The algorithm of Berry-Sethi, named after Gérard Berry and Ravi Sethi who worked on this construction. == Construction == Given a regular expression e, the Glushkov Construction Algorithm creates a non-deterministic automaton that accepts the language L ( e ) {\displaystyle L(e)} accepted by e. The construction uses four steps: === Step 1 === Linearisation of the expression. Each letter of the alphabet appearing in the expression e is renamed, so that each letter occurs at most once in the new expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . Glushkov's construction essentially relies on the fact that e ′ {\displaystyle e'} represents a local language L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Let A be the old alphabet and let B be the new one. === Step 2a === Computation of the sets P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , and F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} . The first, P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , is the set of letters which occurs as first letter of a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The second, D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , is the set of letters that can end a word of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . The last one, F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , is the set of letter pairs that can occur in words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , i.e. it is the set of factors of length two of the words of L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} . Those sets are mathematically defined by P ( e ′ ) = { x ∈ B ∣ x B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle P(e')=\{x\in B\mid xB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , D ( e ′ ) = { y ∈ B ∣ B ∗ y ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle D(e')=\{y\in B\mid B^{}y\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} , F ( e ′ ) = { u ∈ B 2 ∣ B ∗ u B ∗ ∩ L ( e ′ ) ≠ ∅ } {\displaystyle F(e')=\{u\in B^{2}\mid B^{}uB^{}\cap L(e')\neq \emptyset \}} . They are computed by induction over the structure of the expression, as explained below. === Step 2b === Computation of the set Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} which contains the empty word ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } if this word belongs to L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L(e')} , and is the empty set otherwise. Formally, this is Λ ( e ′ ) = { ε } ∩ L ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')=\{\varepsilon \}\cap L(e')} . === Step 3 === Computation of automaton recognizing the local language, as defined by P ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle P(e')} , D ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle D(e')} , F ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle F(e')} , and Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle \Lambda (e')} . By definition, the local language defined by the sets P, D, and F is the set of words which begin with a letter of P, end by a letter of D, and whose factors of length 2 belong to F, optionally also including the empty word; that is, it is the language: L ′ = ( P B ∗ ∩ B ∗ D ) ∖ B ∗ ( B 2 ∖ F ) B ∗ ∪ Λ ( e ′ ) {\displaystyle L'=(PB^{}\cap B^{}D)\setminus B^{}(B^{2}\setminus F)B^{}\cup \Lambda (e')} . Strictly speaking, it is the computation of the automaton for the local language denoted by this linearised expression that is Glushkov's construction. === Step 4 === Remove the linearisation, replacing each indexed letter B by the original letter of A. == Example == Consider the regular expression e = ( a ( a b ) ∗ ) ∗ + ( b a ) ∗ {\displaystyle e=(a(ab)^{})^{}+(ba)^{}} . == Computation of the set of letters == The computation of the sets P, D, F, and Λ is done inductively over the regular expression e ′ {\displaystyle e'} . One must give the values for ∅, ε (the symbols for the empty language and the singleton language containing the empty word), the letters, and the results of the operations + , ⋅ , ∗ {\displaystyle +,\cdot ,^{}} . The most costly operations are the cartesian products of sets for the computation of F. == Properties == The obtained automaton is non-deterministic, and it has as many states as the number of letters of the regular expression, plus one. It has been proven that every Thompson's automaton can be transformed into Glushkov's automaton via a ε-transitions elimination method. == Applications and deterministic expressions == The computation of the automaton by the expression occurs often; it has been systematically used in search functions, in particular by the Unix grep command. Similarly, XML's specification also uses such constructions; for more efficiency, regular expressions of a certain kind, called deterministic expressions, have been studied.
Stephen Muggleton
Stephen H. Muggleton (born 6 December 1959, son of Louis Muggleton) is Professor of Machine Learning and Head of the Computational Bioinformatics Laboratory at Imperial College London. == Education == Muggleton received his Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (1982) and Doctor of Philosophy in artificial intelligence (1986) supervised by Donald Michie at the University of Edinburgh. == Career == Following his PhD, Muggleton went on to work as a postdoctoral research associate at the Turing Institute in Glasgow (1987–1991) and later an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow at Oxford University Computing Laboratory (OUCL) (1992–1997) where he founded the Machine Learning Group. In 1997 he moved to the University of York and in 2001 to Imperial College London. From 2025, Muggleton has joined Nanjing University as a full-time professor. == Research == Muggleton's research interests are primarily in Artificial intelligence. From 1997 to 2001 he held the Chair of Machine Learning at the University of York and from 2001 to 2006 the EPSRC Chair of Computational Bioinformatics at Imperial College in London. Since 2013 he holds the Syngenta/Royal Academy of Engineering Research Chair as well as the post of Director of Modelling for the Imperial College Centre for Integrated Systems Biology. He is known for founding the field of Inductive logic programming. In this field he has made contributions to theory introducing predicate invention, inverse entailment and stochastic logic programs. He has also played a role in systems development where he was instrumental in the systems Duce, Cigol, Golem, Progol and Metagol and applications – especially biological prediction tasks. He worked on a Robot Scientist together with Ross D. King that is capable of combining Inductive Logic Programming with active learning. His present work concentrates on the development of Meta-Interpretive Learning, a new form of Inductive Logic Programming which supports predicate invention and learning of recursive programs.
I Am Rich
I Am Rich is a discontinued 2008 mobile app for iPhones which had minimal function and was priced at US$999.99 (equivalent to $1,495 in 2025). The app was pulled from the App Store less than 24 hours after its launch. Receiving negative reviews from critics, only eight copies were sold. In the years since, several similar applications have been released at lower prices. == Overview == I Am Rich was developed as a joke by German software developer, Armin Heinrich, after he saw iPhone users complaining about software priced above $0.99. The app only showed a glowing red gem and an icon that, when pressed, displayed the following mantra in large text: I am richI deserv [sic] itI am good,healthy & successful Heinrich told The New York Times that "I regard it as art. I did not expect many people to buy it and did not expect all the fuss about it." The application is described as "a work of art with no hidden function at all", with its only purpose being to show other people that they were able to afford it. Vox writer Zachary Crockett called it "the ultimate Veblen good in app form". == Release == Heinrich released and distributed I Am Rich through the App Store on 5 August 2008. The app was sold for US$999.99 (equivalent to $1,495 in 2025), €799.99 (equivalent to €1,078 in 2023), and £599.99 (equivalent to £978.12 in 2025)—the highest prices Apple allowed for App Store content. Without explanation, the application was removed from the App Store by Apple less than a day after its release. === Purchases === Eight people bought the application, at least one of whom claimed to have done so accidentally. Six US sales and two European sales netted $5,600 for Heinrich and $2,400 for Apple (respectively equivalent to $8,374 and $3,589 in 2025). In correspondence with the Los Angeles Times, Heinrich told the newspaper that Apple had refunded two purchasers of his app, and that he was happy to not have dissatisfied customers. == Reception == Discussing the app on the website Silicon Alley Insider, Dan Frommer described the program as a "scam", "worthless", and finally "a joke that smells like a scammy rip-off" on August 5, 6, and 8, respectively. Without purchasing the app, Fox News's Paul Wagenseil guessed that the secret mantra was "German for 'Sucker!'" (Heinrich is German). Wired's Brian X. Chen described I Am Rich as a waste of money to "prove you're a jerk", and contrasted the expenditure with donating to cancer foundations and Third World countries. Heinrich told the Los Angeles Times's Mark Milian that he had received correspondence from satisfied customers: "I've got e-mails from customers telling me that they really love the app [... and that they had] no trouble spending the money". In an interview with The New York Times, though, he told of receiving many insulting emails and telephone messages. == Similar applications == The next year, Heinrich released I Am Rich LE. Priced at US$9.99 (equivalent to $14.99 in 2025), the new app has several new features (including a calculator, "help system", and the "famous mantra without the spelling mistakes") to meet Apple's requirement that apps have "definable content". Some customers were disappointed by the new functionality, poorly rating the app due to its ostensible improvements. On 23 February 2009, CNET Asia reported on the "conceptually similar" app, I Am Richer, developed by Mike DG for Google's Android. The app was released on the Android Market for US$200 (equivalent to $300.14 in 2025), a limit imposed by Google, who had no objection to the application. With the same name, the I Am Rich that was released on the Windows Phone Marketplace on 22 December 2010, was developed by DotNetNuzzi. Described by MobileCrunch as equally useless as the original, this app cost US$499.99 (equivalent to $738.2 in 2025), the price cap imposed by Microsoft.
Laws of Form
Laws of Form (hereinafter LoF) is a book by G. Spencer-Brown, written by August 1967 and published in 1969. The book straddles the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. LoF describes three distinct logical systems: The primary arithmetic (described in Chapter 4 of LoF), whose models include Boolean arithmetic; The primary algebra (Chapter 6 of LoF), whose models include the two-element Boolean algebra (hereinafter abbreviated 2), Boolean logic, and the classical propositional calculus; Equations of the second degree (Chapter 11), whose interpretations include finite automata and Alonzo Church's Restricted Recursive Arithmetic (RRA). "Boundary algebra" is a Meguire (2011) term for the union of the primary algebra and the primary arithmetic. Laws of Form sometimes loosely refers to the "primary algebra" as well as to LoF. == Contents == The preface states that the work was first explored in 1959, and Spencer Brown cites Bertrand Russell as being supportive of his endeavour. He also thanks J. C. P. Miller of University College London for helping with the proofreading and offering other guidance. In 1963 Spencer Brown was invited by Harry Frost, staff lecturer in the physical sciences at the department of Extra-Mural Studies of the University of London, to deliver a course on the mathematics of logic. LoF emerged from work in electronic engineering its author did around 1960. Key ideas of the LOF were first outlined in his 1961 manuscript Design with the Nor, which remained unpublished until 2021, and further refined during subsequent lectures on mathematical logic he gave under the auspices of the University of London's extension program. LoF has appeared in several editions. The second series of editions appeared in 1972 with the "Preface to the First American Edition", which emphasised the use of self-referential paradoxes, and the most recent being a 1997 German translation. LoF has never gone out of print. LoF's mystical and declamatory prose and its love of paradox make it a challenging read for all. Spencer-Brown was influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein and R. D. Laing. LoF also echoes a number of themes from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead. The work has had curious effects on some classes of its readership; for example, on obscure grounds, it has been claimed that the entire book is written in an operational way, giving instructions to the reader instead of telling them what "is", and that in accordance with G. Spencer-Brown's interest in paradoxes, the only sentence that makes a statement that something is, is the statement which says no such statements are used in this book. Furthermore, the claim asserts that except for this one sentence the book can be seen as an example of E-Prime. What prompted such a claim, is obscure, either in terms of incentive, logical merit, or as a matter of fact, because the book routinely and naturally uses the verb to be throughout, and in all its grammatical forms, as may be seen both in the original and in quotes shown below. == Reception == Ostensibly a work of formal mathematics and philosophy, LoF became something of a cult classic: it was praised by Heinz von Foerster when he reviewed it for the Whole Earth Catalog. Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition: the ability to "distinguish". LoF argues that primary algebra reveals striking connections among logic, Boolean algebra, and arithmetic, and the philosophy of language and mind. Stafford Beer wrote in a review for Nature in 1969, "When one thinks of all that Russell went through sixty years ago, to write the Principia, and all we his readers underwent in wrestling with those three vast volumes, it is almost sad". Banaschewski (1977) argues that the primary algebra is nothing but new notation for Boolean algebra. Indeed, the two-element Boolean algebra 2 can be seen as the intended interpretation of the primary algebra. Yet the notation of the primary algebra: Fully exploits the duality characterizing not just Boolean algebras but all lattices; Highlights how syntactically distinct statements in logic and 2 can have identical semantics; Dramatically simplifies Boolean algebra calculations, and proofs in sentential and syllogistic logic. Moreover, the syntax of the primary algebra can be extended to formal systems other than 2 and sentential logic, resulting in boundary mathematics. LoF has influenced, among others, Heinz von Foerster, Louis Kauffman, Niklas Luhmann, Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela and William Bricken. Some of these authors have modified the primary algebra in a variety of interesting ways. LoF claimed that certain well-known mathematical conjectures of very long standing, such as the four color theorem, Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Goldbach conjecture, are provable using extensions of the primary algebra. Spencer-Brown eventually circulated a purported proof of the four color theorem, but it was met with skepticism. == The form (Chapter 1) == The symbol: Also called the "mark" or "cross", is the essential feature of the Laws of Form. In Spencer-Brown's inimitable and enigmatic fashion, the Mark symbolizes the root of cognition, i.e., the dualistic Mark indicates the capability of differentiating a "this" from "everything else but this". In LoF, a Cross denotes the drawing of a "distinction", and can be thought of as signifying the following, all at once: The act of drawing a boundary around something, thus separating it from everything else; That which becomes distinct from everything by drawing the boundary; Crossing from one side of the boundary to the other. All three ways imply an action on the part of the cognitive entity (e.g., person) making the distinction. As LoF puts it: "The first command: Draw a distinction can well be expressed in such ways as: Let there be a distinction, Find a distinction, See a distinction, Describe a distinction, Define a distinction, Or: Let a distinction be drawn". (LoF, Notes to chapter 2) The counterpoint to the Marked state is the Unmarked state, which is simply nothing, the void, or the un-expressable infinite represented by a blank space. It is simply the absence of a Cross. No distinction has been made and nothing has been crossed. The Marked state and the void are the two primitive values of the Laws of Form. The Cross can be seen as denoting the distinction between two states, one "considered as a symbol" and another not so considered. From this fact arises a curious resonance with some theories of consciousness and language. Paradoxically, the Form is at once Observer and Observed, and is also the creative act of making an observation. LoF (excluding back matter) closes with the words: ...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical. C. S. Peirce came to a related insight in the 1890s; see § Related work. == The primary arithmetic (Chapter 4) == The syntax of the primary arithmetic goes as follows. There are just two atomic expressions: The empty Cross ; All or part of the blank page (the "void"). There are two inductive rules: A Cross may be written over any expression; Any two expressions may be concatenated. The semantics of the primary arithmetic are perhaps nothing more than the sole explicit definition in LoF: "Distinction is perfect continence". Let the "unmarked state" be a synonym for the void. Let an empty Cross denote the "marked state". To cross is to move from one value, the unmarked or marked state, to the other. We can now state the "arithmetical" axioms A1 and A2, which ground the primary arithmetic (and hence all of the Laws of Form): "A1. The law of Calling". Calling twice from a state is indistinguishable from calling once. To make a distinction twice has the same effect as making it once. For example, saying "Let there be light" and then saying "Let there be light" again, is the same as saying it once. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} "A2. The law of Crossing". After crossing from the unmarked to the marked state, crossing again ("recrossing") starting from the marked state returns one to the unmarked state. Hence recrossing annuls crossing. Formally: = {\displaystyle \ =} In both A1 and A2, the expression to the right of '=' has fewer symbols than the expression to the left of '='. This suggests that every primary arithmetic expression can, by repeated application of A1 and A2, be simplified to one of two states: the marked or the unmarked state. This is indeed the case, and the result is the expression's "simplification". The two fundamental metatheorems of the primary arithmetic state that: Every finite expression has a unique simplification. (T3 in LoF); Starting from an initial marked or unmarked state, "complicating" an expression by a finite number of repeated application of A1 and A2 cannot yield