This work would span months… started on this about that date June 25 2015—may be a little

before that date…

Anatomy of the Infamous Artificial

Example by Caesar Ogole
In response to the email about the sometimes arbitrary use of “and/or”, and the like…

I agree that English is not our first language, and so our constructions are prone to errors.
However, let me make a clarification on some important errors – some of which were not due to
typos nor [due to] lack of mastery of language.

1. My use of “and/or” in the following sentence:

“There are two sets of points that you must address here. Listing the Board member's
names (who voted and/or who abstained) is immaterial …”. See the complete message
here.

In fact, that was deliberate a response on my part because I felt it was at the time a
stubborn enough response to the following construction (to which I was responding).:

“The following is therefore exactly how each Member of our Board of Directors voted on the
motion to remove Ms. O’Dero from office.
_____________________________________________________________

The following five members voted YES to remove Ms. O’Dero from office:-
Charles Emer
Thomas Omara-Alwala
Charles Owot
Hudson Ayo
Florence Ocen
______________________________________________________________
The following member abstained from voting:-
Margaret Odoch-Jato
______________________________________________________________
The following two members did not vote:-
Sarah Alobo
Alex Atim
“
“ To see the complete messages, see the original emails: one and two for (mis?)usage of the
phrases above.

Here, “abstained from voting” and “did not vote” meant the same thing, much as the said
members might have not participated in voting for different reasons. Of course, my correct
response had to be “listing members who voted or who abstained is immaterial”. You realize
that at the back of my mind, when I use the logical conjunction operator (AND), logical
disjunction operator (OR), etc… I am thinking of something like this [boolean algebra – 1st year
computer science/engineering undergrad, electronic/electrical engineering undergrad]. Yes, it
is a grave mistake to use and/or arbitrarily. But the seriousness of the consequences in day to
day use in sentences depends on the seriousness of the matter. That’s why when a member asks
others to do a review of a document, it is to help fix some of these issues… as a member had
done before in the software progress review(March/April 2013). That is what they call
cooperation. It is no different even in professional settings (journals, etc); there are editors and
reviewers regardless of whether or not English is the first language of the authors and/or
reviewers. So, it is a grave mistake to use and/or arbitrarily. In some cases, negative data (e.g.
misspelling, error in grammar) is good.

2. This also gives me a chance to clarify on the

commonly misquoted example (here referred to
as the “crazy example”) that I generated
artificially.

Here is how I generated the “useless joke”:

i) The phrase “I have, this time round, noted with grave concern…” was picked to
mimic an earlier contribution by a different member 2 which did not represent a
proper position (e.g. using fallacy) prompting a bandwagon of respondents who take
any authority’s position as “this is it!”. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field
of the original email (click the link) person A ]

ii) The phrase “… and engaged in bitter duels” was picked from yet another earlier
contribution by a different member 3. Same reason: misrepresenting position of
another person. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the original email
(click the link) person B ]

iii) The phrase “.. the Chair …. and his henchmen…” was picked from the phrase in yet
another earlier contribution by a different member 4 . Goal post shift: For shifting
goal posts when heat is turned on him. When other’s reputation (etc) is at stake, to
him, the Chair doesn’t have henchmen for at such occasions, he is “very close to the
Chair”, enjoying seeing others “stump” each other even if it is crystal clear that a
 given proposition (about another person) is devastatingly false. [Let’s call this
contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person B ]

iv) The phrase “… Not only was the Chair’s mail to the whole Manager sent with US
high priority mail …” was picked from the phrase in yet another earlier contribution
by a different member 6. Reason is that it appears “suing one under the US Law”
seems to be a common threat, as if the US Law only favors certain people! This “US”
seems to be used as a tool to scare people- or taking people to be too naïve? Here is
another example, among others. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the
original email (click the link) person C ]

v) The phrase “ … but for the first it was sent on LAONA headed letter!… This must be
a very serious case… ” was to imply that some of us had in memory that some people
treat letter heads very seriously (as proof of authority, etc )…. as noted here yet
another earlier contribution by a different member 7. But by this time, this particular
one was strengthened by the elusive “very unprofessional letter” – which supposedly
turned to be the first use of the letter head- at least to some of us. (And its associated
response). No resolution was made publicly (yet) at this time. [Let’s call this
contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person D ]

vi) The phrase “..I am sure the Chair is exercising his wisdom so that …” was picked
from the phrase in yet another earlier contribution by a different member 8 to signify
elements of authoritative preemption without appropriate[ly acknowledging] prior
knowledge of another’s position. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the
original email (click the link) person E ]

vii) The phrase “..so that LAONA Convention is not used obituary …” was picked from
the phrase yet another earlier contribution by a different member . Other related
extensions either picked or constructed included the phrase “..If LAONA proceeds
like that, I fear the mood will be somber at the convention..” and “LAONA eulogy”
from other members’ contributions [member one, member two, etc ]. [Let’s call this
contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person F ]
viii) The phrase “... We call those people party animals[like the one sent by one of my
comrades to celebrate the victory …; people who just go to eat goat or cow meat at
funeral]…. ” was picked from yet another earlier contribution by a different member.
[Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link)
person G ]

ix) The phrase “…We all fought hard to protect the name of LAONA being used
nefariously.” – a word too commonly used examples: one, two, three, four, etc. [Let’s
call this contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person H ]

x) The purported Lango translation of the English word “appendix” was in fact a more
euphemistic work around to air out some opinion from one of the early 2014 new
recruits whom one of the members introduced to me. Over the phone, the new
member told me, “I have seen people using profanity all over the place; one of these
day, I will tell them ni, ‘ an pe amito tim me appindiri.’.”. I had to ask for
clarification on this word, which I thought was new to me. I waited for the new
member to say it on the forum in vain, although the member who had introduced me
to her had also told me the same. That this new member said she would make an
utterance of “appindiri”. Basically, I also wanted to relate and remind us that people
just choose not to use profanity not because they don’t know it; rather, to most people
profanity and verbal attacks (as is any form of violence) is simply not appropriate…
as most people already know. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the
original email (click the link) person I ]

xi) Making it “appindiri verses Jo Lango” was to make a call to people who have (or
claim to have experience in judicial matters) to apply (transparently) their expertise in
resolving the problems facing us instead of just sitting on the sideline… only carrying
titles. Also the use of Jo Lango was to highlight that every Lango is a great Lango.
No such dichotomy as “Jo Lango”, “Greater Lango” or “Madame JJJJJ” verses “Hon.
ZZZZ” yet all those people are Board members. No need for prejudice. [Let’s call
this contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person J ]
xii) The line of reasoning “Besides that, the Chair sent the mail from a Postal Office Box
(P.O.Box) not from a Private Bag!!! Moreover, I fear he have also enclosed the s
LAONA President's business card in that mail sent with high priority!...” was an
instance of reasoning like a “scientist in embryo, a primitive philosopher”. [Let’s call
this contributor in the From field of the original email (click the link) person K ]

xiii) The business aspect as depicted in the phrase “that retired business executives usually
help coach business people in sectors such as SBA/SCORE Chapters. “.. was to
highlight to people that most average persons know a little bit about business e.g.
what counts as fact or fiction when to comes to sources of funding, IP filing, etc.
Knowing a source of funding is one thing; writing the proposal is another! And to call
on the retirees not just to sit on the sidelines – with aimless rhetoric. I found it odd
that this particular person who refused to share her own educational background had
to pick an exception on me… and repeatedly talking about other people’s mental
status as if LAONA were a haunt group. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field
of the original email (click the link) person L ]

xiv) The inclusion of the quiz that no one ever submitted a correct entry (since it was first
launched as a fundraiser riddle in Nov 2013) served to remind any person who likes
resorting to attacking people’s mental status (instead of addressing the message
content) that the creator of this “crazy example” was still in great mental faculty to
solve tough problems, so there was no ground to invoke the fallacy of attacking
someone’s mental state baselessly- as a defense. Instead, now we are drawn to think
of trying to do research to seek explanation of what one Neuroscience professor calls
“voluntary alteration of state of consciousness (that is, at will)”. Not everyone goes
through this experience (for some reasons) – it must be noted, and even people who
experience such phenomenon may not be in a position to comprehend it well! So care
must be taken before a person comments on another’s mental state! One can see that
the constituent elements of the “crazy example” was taken from various individuals…
and it is possible that none of the elements is defines the character or behavior of the
author! [And it was constructed on the fly, i.e “on top of the head” - just in a matter of
minutes, without looking up at the details provided in the links here.] It was created
and thrown back at the very individual contributors so that they could feel the effects,
the embarrassments, what it is when they impose or project their “undesirable”
behavior onto others. [Let’s call this contributor in the From field of the original
email (click the link) person M ]
 => Now, here is the catch: if someone was to praise, counsel or even rebuke the
author of the artificial example above, he/she would in fact most likely be
misdirecting such a reaction since the individuals who need such counsel such as “be
sensitive!!”- [that came later as a reaction to such an artificial example] - are the
originators of the elements cited above! [Well, you can react appropriately,
acknowledging me for putting it together!]. Treating symptoms and not root cause,
right? [Such an advice ideally must be offered in the civilized way used for resolving
flaws in arguments]. But before one delves into giving counsel or resolving any false
arguments, one must have appropriate understanding of records [prior knowledge!]
In the absence of (or in addition to) other prior knowledge, a critical (unbiased)
analysis of the present data or information is important, as illustrated here! [And if
situation cannot be discerned due to lack of sufficient prior information, it is OK to go
skeptical!]

An important note added on March 24 2019 – almost three years after the first draft of this
document was created in June 2015: The line “be sensitive!!”- and other keywords such as
“nama” below—was included by me.. .fully aware that there was some “record-setting”
obscenity to begin with… and I harbored that skepticism and anger why most people had just
remained silent without descending on the people who used such strong language… on
whomever!
“In fact, I was wondering why we did not explicitly ask the warring parties (kic and arok kic) to
get their acts together and reconcile. Members are so empowered that they cannot be
manipulated by cheap politics. We need not worry, for that matter. For example, once there is a
structure in place, a member can be excommunicated or suspended from the association for
violating written rules. No exceptions. Hopefully, we don't get to witness such an incident. I am
just saying. -:)

Apwoyo,
Caesar Ogole”

I had responded indirectly to that extreme obscene expression on Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM.
Some important concepts

If we were to devise some compact notation to represent the “values of the rhetoric” above, one
could choose to employ a column vector, whose elements are the values in highlighted texts.

A1
 A1, B2, C3 … J10 are called elements of
the vector. Oftentimes (in praxis), the
B2
values are encoded to be numeric
values. (We will see how… later)
C3  In our illustration, we will fill the values
with texts (strings) for now. Since the
element variables hold feature values
D4
of the “rhetoric” , the data objects are
called feature vectors.
E5
Note: The following may assume usually
assume a feature vector may contain
F6
elements of numeric values, though
they don’t have to be.
G7  The feature vector (also called pattern
vector) in this example consists of 10
features; we say the data object is a 10-
H8
dimensional feature vector.
 We could add more and more elements,
I9 increasing from 105, to 1070, to 10700,
to 10,000, etc. When the value is high
enough, we say that the vector is a
J10 high-dimensional feature vector.
 A simple case of feature vector where
there are only two elements
corresponds to a point in a two
dimensional space (Cartesian –x-y-
plane), the term is extended to higher
dimensional spaces. Therefore, the
feature vectors with 10 elements would
be a point in a 10-dimensional pace.
The term space here refers to a
geometrical space!
A1, B2, C3, … J10 are called elements of the vector. Oftentimes (in praxis), the values are
encoded to be numeric values. For our case, the vector represents some fictitious person whose
rhetoric combines all the crazy elements picked from person A, person B, person C … person J,
where we think of person A, person B … person J as originally represented by the feature vectors
below:

person A person B person C ….. person J

A1 B1 C1 J1

A2 B2 C2 J2

A3 B3 C3 J3

A4 B4 C4 ………. J4

A5 B5 C5 J5

A6 B6 C6 J6

A7 B7 C7 J7

A8 B8 C8 J8

A9 B9 C9 J9

A10 B10 C10 J10

, ,
So if we filled our feature vector with the values of the highlighted texts, then, the “crazy
example” derived from the different people may be summarized as follows:

“…I have, this time round,

noted with grave concern…” A1

“… and engaged in bitter B2

duels

“… the Chair …. and his C3

henchmen…”

with US high priority mail … D4

“ … but for the first it was sent E5

on LAONA headed letter!…

“..I am sure the Chair is F6

exercising his wisdom so
that …”
“… so that LAONA … is not G7
used obituary …”

“… We call those people party H8

animals”

“… to protect … LAONA I9
being used efariously.”

“… an pe amito tim me
appindiri.’.”. J10

Figure 1
If each of the elements of the feature vectors labeled red were to be interpreted by the
community members to be manifestation of elements of “nasty rhetoric” inherent in the
individual contributors, then one could think of the [resultant] feature vector (Figure 1) we
created above (that combines only the evil elements from the individual contributors) as a
representation of some “nasty rhetoric”. Of course, it is fictitious.

 In our illustration, we will fill the values with texts (strings). Since the variables A, B, C… J
hold values of features of the “rhetoric” corresponding to person A, person B, person C, …
person J, the data objects are called feature vectors. Here A = { A1, A2, A3, … A10}; B = { B1, B2, B3, …
B10} , etc

 Since in this example, the “rhetoric” is defined by 10 features, we say the data object is 10-
dimensional feature vector.

 We could add more and more elements, increasing from 10, to 105, to 1056, to 10,070, etc.
When the value is high enough, we say that the vector is a high-dimensional feature vector.

 A simple case (of feature vector) where there are only two elements corresponds to a point in a
two dimensional space (Cartesian plane). A 2-D space is an example of a low dimensional space.
When the dimensions of the feature vector are large, the point (represented by the feature vector)
is said to me in high(er) dimensional spaces. Therefore, the feature vectors with 10 elements
would be a point in a 10-dimensional pace. The term space here refers to geometrical space. So a
point in a 10-dimensional feature space lies in some geometrical space with 10 axes. It is hard to
visualize it mentally.

So, if there were some other persons whose rhetoric is captured in a feature vector (in the same
fashion, that is same dimension, same order of elements, etc), and we were interested in
comparing his/her rhetoric to see if the “language style” were to the nasty rhetoric
pattern/feature vector constructed in Figure 1, we would simply go on comparing the
corresponding individual elements of the feature vectors between the two feature vectors in
question. If there were other feature vectors to be compared (with the evil data point), we would
carry our comparison in a similar manner. The ones that score the highest number of “similarity”
in the elements would be considered the closest. This is what is called “similarity-based”
classification; - categorizing the “data points” based on how close or similar they are.

Yes, there (may) exist various methods (or metric) for determining the “closeness” or similarities.
Examples are:

1. Euclidean distance: this is the same as the distance of a straight-line from one point
(feature vector 1) to the second point (feature vector 2)- in any given n-dimensional
feature space. (where N is finite). We assume the values of the features are reals (real
numbers).

2. Edit distance:

Let’s start with a question: how does a “computer” (that is, word processor, for example)
automatically correct “Ceasor” to “Caesar”. Simple answer: A computer has a database (record)
of some valid words. So when a computer encounters a word that is not in its database, it
“compares” the alien word with those in its database, and makes a suggestion(s)[to the computer
user] t change it to those which are closest to it (that is , that are most similar to it). So it first
determines the so-called “edit distances” [a variant of which is called Levenstein distance]
(metric for comparing strings) between the misspelt words and the most likely ones– before
making suggestions for correction. [These are topics dealt with in computational linguistics, also
called speech and natural language processing].
Such similarity-based classifications are also sometimes called “distance-based” classification,
although the distances need not be straight lines! It is such distance measures such as Euclidean
distance, Mahalanobis distance, etc that you will find mentioned in the scientific review paper .
(Section 5.2.2.– second last paragraph) . [An update has been made to sample of the reviewed
papers for a reader’s benefit]. The features of an object used for such a purpose must be relevant.
Feature selection, as is it called in data acquisition is an important and challenging tasks in the
scientific community such as machine learning. Feature selection has been mentioned in various
sections of the scientific review paper ., e.g in section 4.1).

Irrelevant attributes:

When you look at the deconstruction of the “crazy example” above, we listed upto 13
highlighted/bulleted texts, but our resultant feature vector contains only 10 elements. Why did
we leave out the other three: “quiz”, “that retired business executives usually help coach
business people in sectors such as SBA/SCORE Chapters , and “scientist in embryo, a primitive
philosopher”. ? Answer: It goes back to the problem of feature selection. We are assuming (just
for illustration) that those last three attributes were not relevant to distinguishing between object
instances. So we deliberately left them out. Let us assume that we had included the irrelevant
attributes. The new feature vector would consist of 13 elements, as depicted below:
 A1

B2

C3

D4

E5

F6

G7

H8

I9

J10

K11
Irrelevant attributes (e.g. 1. judging people’s competence in performing some

L12 task based on gender, race, color, height, age,. .. when these attributes are not relevant in that

context. Or judging beauty of a woman based on physical size, height, skin color/complexion, size
M13
of body parts, etc) . Note: I would think in some of these cases, the attributes are not
necessarily irrelevant but subjective!
Now, any classification/comparison based on the above feature vector (with additional irrelevant
attributes) would not be correct with respect to the goal. Such a problem is given the term curse
of dimensionality. For example, one’s (in)ability to solve the quiz might be considered irrelevant
in telling whether or not a person is “evilish” or “stupid”, say, because, the (perhaps) quiz is too
difficult for any average person- and solving the riddle may require some specialists knowledge
(e.g. advanced logic) and/or special tool (e.g computer programming). On the other hand, if
there were too few attributes used to define a rhetoric, leaving out some relevant attributes, the
task (of comparison, classification etc) would not produce the desired results. Think of the latter
problem as the problem of oversimplification – an error in reasoning.

Prototypes and prototype-based classification

The devil vector that we created is a representative of “evilish rhetoric”, so we could say. It is
fictitious or artificial in our case because we just generated it by selecting some key terms from
various people in this community. If there were a community (or cluster) of people (person A,
person B, person C, …, person J) who are known to communicate in such rhetoric, then the
prototype would be a fairly good representative figure of such people . [If the representation
were an enlightened person, such a figure or prototype would be looked at as a model for
emulation].

Think of a prototype as an elected representative who represents the member’s interests and
exhibits their behavior in many key manners. He embodies the “culture” of crazy rhetoric, in this
case. In the case of tribes with clans, a prototype could be a clan leader or some carefully
selected member of the clan. It is assumed that selection of the prototype is done in such a
manner that the prototype really represents the group well! For our case, we could use the
prototype as a benchmark to gauge other people’s rhetoric (as we described above). Ours here
seems too perfect a prototype because the individual elements seem to be perfect matches from
the various individuals in the community. It is not always easy to pick exact feature values as we
have in this case, so.. in practice, the values in the prototype vectors are often approximate values
of data points in the feature space! Prototypes are reference data points used for classification;
the methodology is called “prototype-based” classification.

Community comprised of clusters (e.g. clans)

Prototypes (e.g. clan representatives)

Cluster C

Cluster B

Cluster A (singleton)

Cluster D

Cluster E
 A review paper such as ours could also be thought of as a prototype of the cluster of
papers (under the SVM theme, in this case) that it provides summary of, as illustrated
below:

Paper
Prototype
1 Paper
2

Paper
Review 3
Paper
paper
300

Paper
4

r
Paper
5

 One could then argue if one is original and the other (review paper) is not, for, in a
similar manner, another person could argue that the original papers themselves are not
purely original but extensions of prior works (as acknowledged in the reference sections
of the respective papers)! Our goal here is not to argue about that, but to illustrate the
idea of prototypes as some form of representatives of other entities.
 But here is some more related stuff to think about. The above prototype (review paper) also
ends up being a co-parent to other papers:

PapeChild Papers ITING the “prototype” (review

paper)
PaParent papers CITED by the
Child
“prototype” (review paper)
Paper
1

Child
Paper
Prototype 2

Paper
Child 1 Paper
Paper 2

500+
Paper Child
Review 3
Paper Paper
paper 3
300

Paper
4

r
Paper
5 Child
Paper
4

Child
Paper
5

Are the child papers more or less original than the review paper, ….?
A super prototype?

Prototype for Cluster C

Prototype for Cluster B

Prototype of prototypes

Prototype for Cluster A

Prototype for Cluster D

Prototype for Cluster E

Encoding feature values

One of the tasks in preprocessing (in most, if not all scientific disciplines) is to convert data from
one format to another. This is done for many reasons, but mostly to reduce the cost of additional
processing (or post-processing) and analysis.

Let’s suppose we have the task to covert elements the devil vector from string/text to integer:

“…I have, this time round,

noted with grave concern…” A1

“… and engaged in bitter B2

duels

“… the Chair …. and his C3

henchmen…”

with US high priority mail … D4

“ … but for the first it was sent E5

on LAONA headed letter!…

“..I am sure the Chair is F6

exercising his wisdom so
that …”
“… so that LAONA … is not G7
used obituary …”

“… We call those people party H8

animals”

“… to protect … LAONA I9
being used efariously.”

“… an pe amito tim me
appindiri.’.”. J10
How we do that depends on the domain of the data, the tools we have for preprocessing, post-
processing, among others.

But’s suppose we are concerned with ranking the elements of the “nasty rhetoric” on a scale of 1
to 10, with 10 being the nastiest(or most nauseating) and 1 being the least nauseating.

“string vector” “numeric vector” encoding of nastiness

“…I have, this time round,

noted with grave concern…” 8

“… and engaged in bitter 7

duels

“… the Chair …. and his 7

henchmen…”

with US high priority mail … 6

“ … but for the first it was sent 7

on LAONA headed letter!…

“..I am sure the Chair is 8

exercising his wisdom so
that …”
“… so that LAONA … is not 7
used obituary …”

“… We call those people party 8

animals”

“… to protect … LAONA 4
being used efariously.”

“… an pe amito tim me
appindiri.’.”. 8
The process of creating a numeric feature vector (from data in string text format) in this case
involves reading/studying each original element of the vector as composition [English language]
and assigning it a grade; but it also involves having and taking into account necessary prior
knowledge, for example, the message to which each of the elements was provided as a response.
[Think of the task of knowing prior knowledge as judging whether the respondent understood the
prompt/question well, say giving a score to K-12/high-school writing].

This is why, in our case, we are treating each email message (and prior knowledge ideally going
back to November 2012) as a data point. [Indeed, the dimensions of the feature vectors would
increase significantly if the we factored the information in the From, To, date, etc. For this
illustration, we will not attempt to include that info].

In the example above, we chose to rank “nastiness” on a scale of 1 to 10. If the scale was 1 to 2
i.e (0 for “not nasty”) and (1 for “nasty”), the numeric vector would look like this:

1
Depending on the goal and actual nature of the data of the project, the 1 to 10 cause could be a
good or bad (relative to a scale of 1 to 2).

Think of the 1 to 2 scale as a black or white view of looking at the world. It is a situation where
there are only two options; either 0 or 1; a pass or fail; black or white; us-versus-them; true or
false. There are many problems that smartly (i.e. naturally) lend themselves to the dichotomy of
discrete true/or false (binary) categorization, as illustrate below.

Color attribute feature vectors:

black 1 black
= = 0

white 0 white
1

“Well-bred” verses objectivity (and science)

But to force such black/white a categorization to every object or situation a person encounters
could be a real disaster (not only to the outcome of the scientific quest but to investigator’s own
world view)! Let’s look at the following text- one of our data points here. Let’s suppose that that
email data point can be categorized as 3 points on one side, and 3 points on the other side. It is
neither completely black, nor completely white. It is 50-50. It contains a mixture of black and
white in equal amounts, in this case. In this case, the feature vector would be presented as

50/50
Color attribute feature vectors:

black 0.5
=

white 0.5

Shades of grey

Instead of the black and white view of images where the grey values (as they are called) take on
the black or white values, a standard color attribute is marked on 1-255 scale. [These are issue
treated in much detail and more formally (applied) in fields such as image analysis, computer
vision

More about space, similarity measures and some tricks

Still, the data points can be thought of as situated in some geometrical spaces- defined by the
number of axes [.. for simplicity for now]. Earlier (about 3 days ago), I wrote that “it is hard to
visualize 10-dimensional space mentally”. That time, until now, I thought I could also make a
claim that I could visualize 3 dimensional space… but here is what I found out today(7/11/2015)
textbook “Einstein’s Mistakes – The Human Failings of Genius”( November 9, 2009) by Hans c.
Ohanian – that I stumbled on. Here is what Professor Ohanian says about visualizing spaces:

“Although Einstein was the greatest genius of the twentieth century, many of his groundbreaking
discoveries were blighted by mistakes, ranging from serious errors in mathematics to bad
misconceptions in physics and failures to grasp the subtleties of his own creations: … Curved
three-dimensional space, or, even worse, curved four-dimensional spacetime – is impossible to
visualize. If our three-dimensional space is curved, it must be curved into some dimension
beyond three dimensions. Our mind is attuned to three dimensions, and it does not permit us to
visualize anything with more than three dimensions. Some mathematicians claim they can
visualize a curved three dimensional space, but if so, they are crazy, that is crazy in the sense of
abnormal. The best a normal person can do is visualize a curved surface, such as the surface of
an apple or the surface of the Earth. Such a surface is two-dimensional curved space, which
curves into the visualizable third dimension”.

Following that, I have revised my belief: now I look at the curved surface as a two-dimensional
curved space, which curves into the visualizable third dimension, and not a 3-dimensional
space[as I used to think].

This page will be updated to further elaborate on the ideas presented here, and more about
overflow, underflow, kernel trick, ...
Let us examine how this happens:

Class 1 (nasty rhetoric) Class 2 (not nasty rhetoric)

In the example above, the double square represents a prototype (representative vector) for the
group of people whose language is characterized by nasty rhetoric. The double circle is a
representative of a cluster (or group) of people who DO NOT exhibit nasty rhetoric in their
language. But we note that the "nasty rhetoric" prototype is (initially) placed closer to the "not
nasty" rhetoric cluster, and the "not nasty rhetoric" prototype is (initially) placed closer to the
"nasty" rhetoric cluster- which defeats the purpose- right? Well, this could be due to a common
problem encountered in assigning the values of the elements of prototype vectors - during
"prototype initialization". Wrong 'artificial' assignment of the initial values of the prototype
vectors may place the representative vectors away from the group/cluster that it is supposed to
represent. This could occur when the prototype is initially selected a random.

A reasonable initial placement of prototypes would look like this (figure below) - with
prototypes positions we saw in the previous position swapped, that is, the "double circle
prototype' is moved so that it is resident closer to the all the data-points (single circles) that
represent the class 1 cluster, and likewise, the "double square prototype" is moved so that it is
resident closer to all the data-points (single squares) that represent the class 2 cluster.

Positions swapped

Point11 Point21

Proto21
Proto11

Point12 Point22

Figure

So it appears that to adapt the prototypes to their correct positions, we have to "move" them,
somehow. Yes! That "movement" or "transformation" is what is referred to as prototype
training/adaptation.
Basic mathematics

Let's label the data-points in our example:

Point11 Point21

Proto11
Proto21

Point12 Point22

Further, for simplicity, let's assume the points lie in a 2-D space, with the following coordinates:

Point 11 (4, 3) Point 21 (14, 10)

Proto21 (6, 6) Proto11 (12, 6)

Point 12 (4, 2) Point 22 (14, 2)

 y

Point11(4, 10)
Point21(14, 10)

Proto11 (12, 6)

Proto21(6, 6)

Point12(4, 2) Point22(14, 2)

Figure: Our data as points in 2-D space

The procedure used for adapting prototypes

1. Present, one at a time, stimuli to the prototype to be adapted. A stimulus is any of the data-
points - which is a not prototype vector. Let's say our goal
is to adapt prototype Proto11, that is, move the prototype to the right position. We will present
the stimulus vectors (Point11, Point12, Point 21 and Point 22),
each time:
 (i) carrying out comparison to see if the presented (current) stimulus has the same
label (that is, whether it is of the same class 2 as the prototype Proto21 to be adapted) AND:
-if the current stimulus (let's say Point 11) matches Proto11 in class
label (which turns out to be the case), then our first "step" in adapting Proto11 is to move
Proto11 towards (near) stimulus Point 11 (which generally moves Proto11 towards cluster 1), as
illustrated below:

y New position
Original position

Point11(4, 10) Point21(14, 10)

Proto11 (12, 6)

Proto21(6, 6)

Point12(4, 2) Point22(14, 2)

Figure....

- Next: -if the current stimulus (let's say Point 21) does not match Proto11
in label (which is true), then our first "step" in adapting Proto11 would be to move Proto11
AWAY FROM stimulus Point 21 (which generally moves Proto11 away from cluster 2), as
illustrated below:
y New position

Original position

Point21(14, 10)
Point11(4, 10)

Proto11 (12, 6)

Proto11 ( ??, ??)

Point22(14, 2)
Point12(4, 2)

Current stimulus is Point11(4, 10): Blue arrow

shows prototype is moved towards stimulus
Point11(4,10) because they are of same
class memberships

Current stimulus is Point21(14, 10): Blue

arrow shows prototype is moved away from
stimulus Point11(14,10) because they are of
same class membership
Figure....

Since adaptation of the prototypes need to take into consideration all the training examples (that
is, Point11, Point12, Point 21 and Point 22), the "moving away from" or "moving towards" of a
prototype from a presented stimulus during adaptation is done in small steps. The size of the
steps may not be fixed. Such a step size is called the learning rate.

y New position

Original position

Point21(14, 10)

Proto11 ( ??, ?)

Point22(14, 2)
Point12(4, 2)

On presenting the 1st stimulus, i.e Point11(4,

10): Blue arrow shows prototype is moved
towards stimulus Point11(4,10) because
they are of same class membership.

On presenting the 2nd stimulus, Point21(14,

10): Blue arrow shows prototype is moved
away from stimulus Point11(14,10) because
they are of same class membership
TO BE CONTINUED…

A quick question: why all these? A quick simple answer: The state of mind (or perception) is a
function of these values. The minds transition (or do not) transition, for better or worse, as
illustrated by the prototype dynamics. ….

 Return to main page