November 14, 2007

How to do an online competition draw

excerpts from my emails :

ACSSNL-Amsterdam will organize an inter-city badminton competition on 25th. There will be 8 teams. We want to divide them into 2 groups(A,B) in advance for some reason. Here is a very concrete problem we need to solve:

Given 8 participants, we want to find a fair way of randomly assigning them exclusively with the labels : A1,A2,A3,A4 or B1,B2,B3,B4. The condition is that these 8 participants can’t meet each other in advance and we need to do the "lottery" in a fair and observable/checkable way(preferably online).

Thanks to Fangyue(VU) Jens(CWI) and Mengxiao(CWI)

We have now 3 "solutions" (all involve Trusted Third Party, in the following call it TTP).

Let’s recall our requirements first:
a. Fairness: people get equal chance to get each label.
b. Verifiable: The procedure is checkable by public later.

We assume that TTP is trustworthy. And every team wants to win (to compete with weaker team and get to the final). There could be coalitions among teams given the above goal e.g Amsterdam and Groningen might want to be in different groups at the first round. We assume the knowledge of the capability of teams is known to all (there is a commonly known partial/total order of strongness.)

Please roughly verify the following procedures against the above assumptions and requirements.

"Solution" I. Time stamp by email(Fang yue, revised by Yanjing):

1 Select an email address which is only accessible to TTP, e.g. the email address of Chinese embassy.

2 Fix a time interval e.g. 12:00-12:10 on 16th, 2007 Amsterdam time.

3 The 8 team leaders have to send an unique empty email to the above email address within the above interval (if someone failed to do so
then redo the procedure).

4 After completing the above procedure. order the emails by time (checkable later by showing the email records of TTP) First will be
assigned A1, second A2…. last B4.

5 TTP release the original emails.

"Solution" II Random number guessing (By Jens)

1. TTP generate a random number X in an big interval of reals e.g.(1,1000000) and keep it secret.

2. for all i in [1,8], team i should send their own random guess of this number X_i to TTP’s private email address.

3. We order the absolute values of (X-X_i) and assign i with A1 if |X-X_i| is the smallest number and assign j with A2 if |X-X_j| is the second closest number etc…

4. TTP will release the email record to public later.

Solution III (By Mengxiao and his colleague) Use a publicly acessible random generator(website)

1 Fix a time interval  e.g. 12:00-12:05 on 16th, 2007 Amsterdam time.

2 Within the time interval, each team should generate a random integer in [11,99] and send to all the others.

e.g. 26 34  47  86  12  32  23 98

3 We order the teams by their numbers according to <= e.g. the team which submitted 12 is team 1, and… the team which submitted 98 is team 8
We then cancatenate them as a sequence: 1223263234478698

4 We go to this page http://www.random.org/sequences/?mode=advanced set smallest value 1 largest value 8 and use the above seqence number
as the persistent identifier to generate a random sequence of 1…8: e.g. input the above number we get 3 4 1 5 8 7 2 6

6 you can verify the generated number by redo the generation on the webpage.

The website has a secret algorithm to compute the sequenceand it is functional: with same input you get same result.

 

When I have time I will try to design a protocol on this issue, since it is highly related to my research…

A really good one

I heard this from Jens, but oringinally from Scientific American:

A hat seller, on waking from a nap under a tree, found that a group of monkeys had taken all his hats to the top of the tree. In exasperation he took off his own hat and flung it to the ground. The monkeys, known for their imitative urge, hurled down the hats, which the hat seller promptly collected.

Half a century later his grandson, also a hat seller, set down his wares under the same tree for a nap. On waking, he was dismayed to discover that monkeys had taken all his hats to the treetop. Then he remembered his grandfather’s story, so he threw his own hat to the ground. But, mysteriously, none of the monkeys threw any hats, and only one monkey came down. It took the hat on the ground firmly in hand, walked up to the hat seller, gave him a slap and said, "You think only you have a grandfather?"

The article shows that how important epistemic reasoning is to decision theory. That’s part of the use of epistmic logic — to construct the epistemic foundation of Game theory. 

November 10, 2007

电影们

3个月没用电影卡最近补了一下

超短点评

Stardust:指环王加勒比海盗之元素们+会发光的星星女朋友 很浪漫的想象力 我喜欢 推荐给诸位情侣 现在真是流行魔幻啊。。。

Control:感同身受,能理解Ian振荡在两个女人间的那种荒谬且自我伤害的种种行为 别早结婚啊 摄影很好 最后那道很烟真的让人很难过 制片之一是Ian的遗孀 另外 演员长得也像原型。。

Knocked up:比较弱智的电影 但是看看无妨,强烈建议男士跳过最后生孩子那一幕。。。

Show me love:无所谓是不是同性 关于青春懵懂的感情 自然清新 两位主演很棒很棒 吐血推荐 谢谢Suki告诉我 如果一个男的的初吻也是男性会影响他一生吗?

太阳照常升起:中国没啥魔幻写实主义 这算是一个不错的尝试 但姜文这个片子里有太多象征 背后可能倾注了太多他自己对那个时代的理解与诠释 削弱了故事本身 反而不容易让人”看懂” 看了这个影评觉得不错。我个人是非常偏爱很多小故事(有机)组合在一起的电影的 以后有机会说说。

room eleven updated

话说那天去爱因霍恩听了room eleven的演唱会

19:30进场之前排队的人已经从停车场排到了大街上

爱因霍恩的Effenaar比阿市的Paradiso要大

进场之后非常郁闷的等了两个小时才正式开演

之前有一些热场的笑话表演

都是荷兰语很没劲

尤其是俺就一个人

周围都是一对对/一队队的没看见有黑头发的。。

终于看到room eleven上来调音的时候

真的有点怒 早干嘛去了。。。

不至于这么大牌啊

但是演出开始后 我就没话说了

尤其喜欢他们的主唱

很少有西方女孩这么可爱(sweet)的

精灵古怪

虽然不是什么大美女 但是真的狠迷人。。。

他们喜欢和台下互动

很随性

不是简单的让大家一起吼

而是用各种方式控制大家配合

几段即兴solo也很棒

不多说了 大家有机会去现场看吧

但是我还是觉得他们的风格更适合再小一点的场子

酒吧什么的 会更棒

另外他们没唱bitch

还有其实他们的音乐一点不忧郁

尤其那首开场和结束的someday

网站上的”bittersweet”也许是一个好的形容

那天我坐了最后一般火车回阿姆

值了

Life goes on

今天在房间里看电影

越看越冷

已经到了手脚冰凉浑身发抖的地步了

一摸暖气 一点热乎气都没有

这种情况已经延续了好几天了

虽然我的抗冻能力很强

(我的历任房东都是冬季节能高手

因而我也锻炼出了极强的抗寒能力)

但是这才是冬天的开始啊

下楼去找房东

一摸他们的暖气是热乎乎的

我的气就不打一处来

把老头拉上来摸我的暖气

结果他说”I can do nothing”

我说我总得survive吧

还有卧室也是冰凉

他说卧室装暖气本身就不normal

我使劲压住火 说我只要最基本的权利

结果这老先生下楼的时候来了这么一句:

“别跟我argue,否则把你从这kicked out”

我觉得我当时的涵养真是太好了

一句话也没说

直到他再上楼来才彻底爆发

大吵了一顿

我说我真的不能理解为什么一个人能这么rude

我争取的只是最基本的权利

他又拿偶尔几次出门不关暖气不关灯说话

(我的房间里有远程温度监控)

我说人总有疏忽的时候

多少次车库被反锁我在外面没法进去我都没多说过一句话

总之我真的怒了

要求他为了那句kick out 道歉

他说有时候可能心情不好确实说话过了

我说你都说过不只一次了

之前我都忍了

现在我心情也正不好呢

吵就吵吧

总之又吵了一大通

感觉最近以来的种种烦闷总算找到个发泄的地方

终于可以被打回原型

放下所有的笑容忍耐责任吵一大架了

他最后道了个歉 说不应该那么说

我和房东的故事通常到这里就结束了

但是他的下一句话让整个故事发生了转折

“不过你确实要搬走了,”他说

“因为我和J要分开了”

这句话是那么的神奇

就像一盆冷水

把我熊熊的怒火一下就浇得只剩下几缕虚弱的黑烟

“啊 I ‘am so sorry to hear that…”

我最近以来的种种疑惑也终于得到了解释:

P前些天的失踪

J超乎寻常频繁的抽烟

几次罕见的争吵

。。。

“她在别的地方找到了一分工作,分开后我自己将不能负担这个房租”

我很清楚分开对P会意味着什么

“还有我的病”他说

“这是你所不能看到的。。。”

我突然觉得自己很虚弱

眼前这个满头银发的荷兰老人真的有点可怜

虽然他从来没有一分一秒真正显得可怜

我甚至有点后悔刚才的话了

“I am sorry I didn’t know that…”

“所以我尽量节省花费,包括能源”

至此为止 3分钟前的那个气焰嚣张的我已经彻底被摧毁

我甚至觉得有义务也为这样一个能源节约计划作出自己更大的贡献了

暖气经过调整终于温暖起来

“我会给你足够的时间再找新房的”

当这段对话行将结束的时候

我真的不知道应该说什么了

这显然不可能再是一个nice evening了

“Anyway, life goes on. Take care!”

唯有一声叹息。

November 9, 2007

青花瓷

 | | |炊| |天|
 | |隔|煙|而|青|
 | |江|裊|我|色|
 | |千|裊|在|等|
 | |萬|升|等|煙|
 | |裡|起|你|雨|
 | | | | | |

谢谢YQ推荐这首歌

让我想起了这张照片

还有三年前美好的回忆

这个非官方MV from youtube:


有空看看方文山的blog, 很有意思。

November 8, 2007

unusual news

前几天发现在CWI的网站上出现了一条很特别的新闻:

  Renowned international scientists and medical experts request the immediate reopening of the case against Lucia de B

这是一个新闻稿 说的是莱顿大学和CWI的两位学者牵头发起联署

上书司法部长及最高法院

要求最高法院重审Lucia de Berk的案子

这样一条新闻出现在我们的网站上 乍看下确实比较奇怪

经过大致了解之后觉得非常有意思 在这里写几笔跟大家共享

Lucia de Berk 曾经是一个护士

2004年因7项谋杀3项谋杀未遂罪名成立被海牙法庭二审判处终身监禁及强制精神治疗

自2000年九月至2001年Lucia在海牙三家医院的供职期间

在她身边发生了很多没有解释的意外死亡事件

直到2001年九月的一起婴儿死亡事件之后

人们才开始意识到

似乎每次发生这种事件的时候

总是轮到Lucia值班。。。

调查由此展开

这个Case本身听起来有点耸人听闻

但是调查的过程并不像我们经常在Dicovery频道经常看到的那样顺利

神勇的鉴证科并没有在最后的时候发现最关键的证据

验尸结果表明在两个死亡事件中死者的体内含有用于治疗心脏病的物质Digoxin

这不免会让人联想到在16年间杀害超过45名病人的连环杀手Charles Cullen

他也曾经使用Digoxin注射致人死地

但是这个证据并不充分

即使经过独立实验室的检测

仍然无法排除这种物质是死者自身产生的可能性

虽然没有完美的犯罪

但是也没有完美的调查

关键的证据原本来自于一名证人证实Lucia曾经说过

“我让那13个人从痛苦里解脱了”

但是这个证人在二审时翻供

这不免让人对一审的判决产生了怀疑

检查Lucia的日记也没有得到突破性的进展

虽然日记中有很多非常令人迷惑的叙述

比如她在一个病人死后写道:

“我终于屈从了我的冲动”

 还不时提到:

“我有一个很大很大的秘密”

但是这些文字都可以有多种解释

而Lucia自己的解释是说

这些话都是在说她对塔罗牌的热情

另外对精神正常的犯人进行强制精神治疗确实很奇怪

最初的目的原来是为了防止凶残的杀手重返社会

因为无期徒刑的犯人在实际上一般在20年的之后就会得到释放

在06年最高法院的终审中这一项也被取消

但是仍然维持原判终身监禁

也许大家看到这会问:这一切和CWI有什么关系?

在我上面的叙述中省略了一个不是直接证据但是却在实际上左右了法庭判决的数字:

1/342000000 

这是根据统计学家Henk Elffers在初审时的计算

一个护士在那三家医院供职而又“恰巧”遇到那么多非正常死亡事件的概率

显然这么一个数字实在让人无法相信Lucia运气差到如此地步

这个数字的公布 

引起了广泛的争议

尤其是吸引了一些也食人间烟火的统计学家的目光 

这里面就包括莱顿大学的Prof. Richard Gill(荷兰统计学会主席,科学院院士)

以及CWI的Dr. Peter Grünwald

他们坚信Elffers的统计从方法上有错误

实际的数字可能是1/48甚至是1/9

他们认为没有任何足够强的统计数据证明Lucia和医院里的死亡有任何关系

这回的联署找来了荷兰几乎所有的统计学教授

和世界上最顶尖的几位统计学家

在联署的正文里他们说该联署只是为了证明:

Lucia被定罪的证据在科学上站不住脚

不涉及她到底有没有罪这个问题

但是明显这个联署十分同情Lucia

所有的arguments都是倾向于在说明Lucia是无辜的

包括有关Digoxin的证据也被权威的药理学家驳斥

认为至少一个婴儿不可能死于Digoxin中毒

甚至统计学的研究表明可能根本就没有任何“凶手”

由于定罪时用的是基于那两项有“证据”谋杀

再应用Chain Argument

(一系列相关事件如果前几个定罪了后面的证据要求就可以放松)

所以如果前两项罪名不成立

那么后面的罪名也就自然不再成立

今年一月的《nature》也报导了这个案子

题目叫做:Statistics: conviction by numbers

如果真的是1/48的“巧合”概率 是不是就能证明清白?

还是只计算这个概率从方法上就错了?

有兴趣可以看看

确实 真正的科学理论在法庭上到底起多大作用

有什么限制

司法人员需要掌握多少的科学知识

太多的事情需要讨论

不过我觉得司法人员至少要学一点逻辑

法条至少要被某种形式化方法去检查一致性

今天实在太困了改天再说。。。。

原始新闻:http://www.cwi.nl/pr/press-releases/2007/pb-petitieGrunwald-English-021107.html

联署的网站:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lucia/

 

November 5, 2007

早上起来电脑蓝屏

去帮同学搬家结果等了两个小时没人来

跟朋友说Nov.7号到 但是其实是Dec.7号

不成了 我要休息。。。 

November 2, 2007

Cute titles in CS

From Jan Johannsen’s page 

 

Here’s a random list of papers in Theoretical Computer Science with cute titles.

Ah, la recherche! Du temps perdu.

  • Scott is not Always Sober. By Peter T. Johnstone, in Continuous lattices, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 871 (1981), pp. 282–283.
  • Coin Flipping By Telephone, A Protocol for Solving Impossible Problems. By Manuel Blum, in SIGACT News 15(1), 1983 , pp. 23-27.
  • One, Two, Three … Infinity. Lower Bounds for Parallel Computation. By Faith E. Fich, Friedhelm Meyer auf der Heide, Prabhakar Ragde and Avi Wigderson, in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1985), pp. 48-58.
  • How Hard is it to Marry at Random? (On the Approximation of the Permanent). By Andrei Broder, in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1986), pp. 50-58.
  • Theorems for free! By Philip Wadler, in 4th International Conference on Functional Programming and Computer Architecture (1989), pp. 347-359.
  • The Art of Pointless Thinking: a Student’s Guide to the Category of Locales. By Peter T. Johnstone, in Category theory at work, Research and Exposition in Mathematics 18 (1991), pp. 85-107.
  • Functional Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes and Barbed Wire. By Erik Meijer, Maarten Fokkinga and Ross Paterson, in Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (1991), pp. 125-144.
  • Mick Gets Some (the Odds Are on His Side). By Vasek Chvátal and Bruce Reed, in Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1992), pp. 620-627.
  • Lively Linear Lisp - ‘Look Ma, No Garbage!’ By Henry G. Baker, in ACM SIGPLAN Notices
  • Highway to the Danger Zone. By Marcus Kracht, in Journal of Logic and Computation 5(1), 1995, pp. 93-109.
  • Once and For All. By Orna Kupferman and Amir Pnueli, in Proceedings of the 10th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (1995), pp. 25-35.
  • Once upon a Type. By David N. Turner, Philip Wadler and Christian Mossin, in ACM Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, 1995, pp. 1-11.
  • The Satanic Notations: Counting Classes beyond #P and Other Definitional Adventures. By Lane Hemaspaandra and Heribert Vollmer, in SIGACT News 26(1), 1995, pp. 2-13.
  • See More through Lenses than Bananas. By La Monte H. Yarroll, in Theoretical Computer Science 169(1), 1996, pp. 113-121.
  • Buy One, Get One Free!!!. By Orna Kupferman and Orna Grumberg, in Journal of Logic and Computation 6(4), 1996, pp. 523-539.
  • To Weight or not to Weight: Where is the Question?. By Pierluigi Crescenzi, Riccardo Silvestri and Luca Trevisan, in Proceedings of the 4th Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, 1996, pp. 68-77.
  • Six Hypotheses in Search of a Theorem. By Harry Buhrman, Lance Fortnow and Leen Torenvliet, in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (1997), pp. 2-12.
  • When Scott is Weak on the Top. By Abbas Edalat, in Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 7(1), 1997, pp. 401-417.
  • When Hamming Meets Euclid: the Approximability of Geometric TSP and MST. By Luca Trevisan, in Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1997), pp. 21-29.
  • Pipes, cigars, and kreplach: the union of Minkowski sums in three dimensions. By Pankaj K. Agarwal and Micha Sharir, in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry (1999), pp. 143-153.
  • Achilles and the Tortoise Climbing Up the Arithmetical Hierarchy. By Eugene Asarin and Oded Maler, in Journal of Computer and System Sciences 57(3), 1999, pp. 389-398.
  • Repetitive Perhaps, but Certainly Not Boring. By W.F. Smyth, in Theoretical Computer Science 249(2), 2000, pp. 343-355.
  • A Smaller Sleeping Bag for a Baby Snake. By Johan H錽tad, Svante Linusson and Johan Wästlund, in Discrete and Computational Geometry 26, 2001, pp. 173-181.
  • Random 3-SAT: The Plot Thickens. By Cristian Coarfa, Demetrios D. Demopoulos, Alfonso San Miguel Aguirre, Devika Subramanian and Moshe Y. Vardi, in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2000, 6th International Conference, Proceedings. Springer LNCS 1894, pp. 143-159.
  • Many Happy Returns. By Olivier Danvy, in Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications 2001, 5th International Conference, Proceedings, Springer LNCS 2044, p. 1.
  • The Importance of Being Biased. By Irit Dinur and Shmuel Safra, in Proceedings of the 34th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2002), pp. 33-42.
  • A Bit of Abstinence (Provably) Promotes Satisfaction. By Dimitris Achlioptas and Chris Moore, in the 5th International Symposium on the Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2002).
  • Vacuum Cleaning CTL Formulae. By Mitra Purandare and Fabio Somenzi, in Computer Aided Verification, 14th International Conference, CAV 2002, Proceedings, Springer LNCS 2404, pp. 485-499.
  • Do Not Read This. By Juan Bicarregui, in FME 2002: Formal Methods - Getting IT Right, International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, 2002, Proceedings. Springer LNCS 2391.
  • No Coreset, No Cry. By Sariel Har-Peled, in FSTTCS 2004: Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, 24th International Conference, Proceedings. Springer LNCS 3328, pp. 324-335, 2004
  • This Side Up!. By Leah Epstein and Rob van Stee, in Persiano, G. and Solis-Oba, R. (Eds.), Approximation and Online Algorithms: Second International Workshop, WAOA 2004, Bergen, Norway, September 14-16, 2004, Revised Selected Papers. Springer LNCS 3351, pp. 48-60, 2005.