FourbyFour: An Index for Image Categorization

Following the pattern of the 15 patterns of visual perception, one
wants to categorize images based on that. But it will be difficult
to put a lot of the images in that pattern, namely since the image
variability in terms of color is usually, in real life pictures,
high. Therefore we introduce a different index that assimilates the
degree of dominance of any color in each of the four quandrants.
Usually again there will be small or weak dominance since there will
be a lot of colors.

But if we denote l1, l2, ln as the sequence of colors in a
quadrant, in order sequence, then the degree of dominance is

        if(i==j) meas[1]=1; else meas[1]=(xy[j]-xy[i])/(l*wc*hc/4.);

        xy[j] is the highest non-and xy[i] is the lowest non-zero
        color.

        We use reduction in the XY space where the x-y
        chromaticities are measured in a n1xn1 quoantized space

        the color then is x+n1*y

this doesn't count the continuity of color that is if the
colors of the same value bunch up together in the same space or are
distributed around.

l is the number of non-zero colors found on that square

low values mean a lot of different colors of little variability

1 means there is only one color

colors with high variability will reflect into high values of the
measure

The complete algorithm is as follows:

      int[] pix=bim.getRGB(0, 0, wc, hc, null, 0, wc);
        int n1=10, n2=n1*n1;
        int[][] XY=new int[n1][n1];
        int[] pix2=computeXYColor(pix, XY);

        int[] xy=new int[n2], indx=new int[n2];
        for(i=0; i        for(i=wc/2; i        for(j=0; j        VD.qSort(xy, indx, 0, xy.length-1);
        i=0;
        while(xy[i]==0) i++;
        j=xy.length-1;
        while(xy[j]==0) j--;
        double[] meas=new double[4];
        l=0;
        m=0;
        while(m        if(i==j) meas[1]=1; else meas[1]=(xy[j]-xy[i])/(l*wc*hc/4.);


where

 public int[] computeXYColor(int[] pixels, int[][] xyArray) {
  int i, j;
  double red, green, blue, Z, X, Y;
  int[] pix=new int[pixels.length];
   for (j=0; j       for (i=0; i     for (i=0; i         red=(pixels[i]&0x00ff0000)>>16;
         green=(pixels[i]&0x0000ff00)>>8;
         blue=pixels[i]&0x000000ff;
         X = (0.607*red) + (0.174*green) + (0.200*blue);
         Y = (0.299*red) + (0.587*green) + (0.114*blue);
         Z = (0.066*green) + (1.111*blue);
         if((X+Y+Z)!=0) {
           X = X/(X+Y+Z);
           Y = Y/(X+Y+Z);
         }
         else X=Y=0;
         pix[i]=(int)(xyArray.length*X)+xyArray.length*((int)(xyArray[0].length*Y));
//               System.out.println(red+" "+blue+" "+green+" "+X+" "+Y+" "+pix[i]);
      }
      return pix;
}

Here are some examples of a known tv show

the measures are

[0.05666280864197531, 0.014199074074074074, 0.013543669871794872, 0.012049305555555556]
[0.016871843434343434, 0.013857159961685824, 0.014730179398148148, 0.015558619281045752]
[0.05359375, 0.012198275862068966, 0.043934461805555554, 0.010064380787037037]
[0.009635416666666667, 0.0063762626262626266, 0.008587319958847737, 0.015591613247863248]
[0.017122189153439153, 0.011901276276276277, 0.007659313725490196, 0.006080142642642642]

they have been amped by 10 to show some color otherwise it would be too dark to differentiate

most images fall into pattern 15; and wouldn't you know it

in/out

the in/out question cannot be resolved in a positivist scientific way
but it can be fudged up

"probabilistically we are there"
"probabilistically we are there too"
"probabilistically we are all there"

so what's the difference?

NONE

I'm smelling something like that in the quantum world but i'm holding up for "further clarification"

economists

economists are like mathematicians
but they are not really interested in equations they don't grab their interest they want to be social

so they pretent to solve equations they pretend to apply some equational model while patting you on the back lower upper whatever
they want to pat to be one of the crowd

sure everybody does don't be mind about that

but we have to examine the strict requirements do they offer something real? relevant?

no

they just want to hang out

big Marx showed the way

you hang out hang out grow a long beard hang out
and project

what you project is what the people want

your projections are their demand

so the equations remain unsolved

what to do?

you patch up
from here from there
all around

the final product is as good as gold

reflection

here's my current hypothesis:
people who have no connection to real life want a reflection of it in shiny things such as animation start trek paraphernalia and such

is the american way producing that?

noone in greece is talking about star trek - may be a niche very remote but certainly not making its appearance anywhere

or is it the anglo world?

neo-realism

neo-realism? what kind of crap are you piling again on me?

cinema is fantasy

if you want realism go to documentary go shoot a village and come back with the loot

it's less of a fairy tale of hollywood

it's more of grandma's fable story "and that's how we kids grew up ...""

but the director is in charge is in poza

he won't let the details get in the way of his myth making

different floweeers

Lindsay Wagner achieved prime about a decade before Shelley Long but both are of about the same age
what does that tell us?
that different flowers have different maturity

the 20th century

can anybody tell me why the 20th century is so much more important than any other century?
of course the americans will say so
and the rest because they are in it

any one else?

[let's cut to the chase then and stop being polite to ourselves]

Arthur Danto is a big fat idiot

[I don't know if he's fat but the other two stand]

Arthur Danto is an artist fan a whishful artist
if he starts with a quote from Kant and continues to extol Warhol as the big philosopher
I don't know what kind of other crap he's gonna serve us

I don't get at all a good vibration from him
maybe he wants to be nice to the good ladies who want to buy some painting
or visit him in the night

as for his short-time critiques they are too short-time to have any meaning
another hack for the screen

the science inventor

and the same people who promote aggressively those articles
the same pole who promote those illustrious and glossy results [the Science magazine]
go now and take an interview and feel sorry about the perpetrator

why don't they sit down and take an interview of themselves??

genuine deceivers

the science-coated sharlatanism has no end
and we won't go to the infomercial side
thats a complete shove of its own

I do enjoy watching some of these people
as they are genuine deceivers

the being needs deception
needs to hide
otherwise it will have no defense

it can put up the armour

but if you don't have the armour
you have to resort to deception and dissimulation

the being is self posited

another one in the line that the being is self posited
you get all these gals on youtube that propose books
"I heard only good things about it"
of course they position themselves to hear good things
where do they get all these things?
from other people who read the book

they don't go to the rest of 70% of people who don't read
they will say: "aaah this is crap"

the being has it in it

everything that stands in the way of human is made a religion and a god so that he can appease it and eventually break it down the latest in the long line is science
and i don't know if it can also also be found in animals
like the wolfe howling when there is crackling in the air
that's a proto-ritual
the being has it in it

word

heidegger didn't accept that the animal has the "word"
but I have a word for him
the animal is closer to the word than the human
when the tortoise raise its head every morning to the sky and the sun and then continues to pick up the grass
that's when it received the word
and it reacted with a profound expression that can only measured in its own measure

hypothetical model for global brain transmission

in the same way that electromagnetic signals like the telephone signal or the wireless signal are transmitted we can also assume that brain signals are transmitted
once you have established a connection with the "receiver" you can exchange signals
if you are in a cogent state the signal will be transmitted clear and the text message will be just the epiphenomenal
if you are not in a cogent state your signal will be transmitted unclear and the text message will be translated confused

and some people don't even open that message "oh i didn't see it" or "i deleted by accident" and all those excuses that the conscious presents but the unconscious is that which directs or undirects to avoid that message
or go to that message

[locally we know in visual contact or even behind walls these signals are transmitted although are not translated to conscious effect
there will be a cough or a wild scream by a younger person]

how to have constant frequency in a group?

that's not possible, for every member

you can set down a certain frequency for one member, say every other chance and then set every other member around that

it's not possible to fit everyone in a certain frequency

e.g. another member every 3 and another every 4 etc

in special cases it might be possible like when you have only two members then everyone is alternating every other chance

thus their frequency of occurrence is 1/2

with 4 you could try to put the fourth element every fifth occurrence, the third element every fourth, the second element every third and the first element every other



in the above graph we first lay down the four elements and then try some way to have each as indicated above

we achieve 1/12 for the circle 3/12 for the triangle 2/12 for the square and 6/12 for the wiggly

it's only possible approximately and as a tendency as in n tends to infinity or 1/n tends to zero (if n tends to infinity)

in case of nine elements, if one were to fluctuate between every 8th and every 7th then the tendency would be towards the number



in n cycles we would have




and 0.133 is somewhere between 0.125=1/8 and 0.142=1/7

my thought is that that's impossible because all the frequencies added together will exceed 1 and as we know the total probability is 1

if you had 4 elements and wanted each to have its own frequency you would have to have

1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5

(1/1 does not exist since then one element would be there constantly thus rendering the whole idea of the group non-existing)




which is true

0.5(1/2)

0.5+0.33(1/3)=0.83

0.5+0.33+0.25(1/4)=1.08


Thus for any group larger than 2 we can't have constant frequencies for each member

american students

american students have had it with heidegger
they want semi-science expositions
wild thought experiments, what if, and parallel universes

Heidegger considers Kant as a wild eyed kook

considers his statements as (wild) suppositions that were at one time true or just as suppositions that were never proven (or decided)

enemies

I don't need to make enemies just to make enemies
i don't need to make enemies because i'm uncareful
what uncareful can mean is up to interpretation
for me it means being yourself even in the most unconspicuous of cases
and that brings be back to love
the face of love
the original love
for older people love means a need for companion it means "heeeeeelp"
but it can't really mean that
because help is for help
it means a distance that can be bridged
it means a distance that can't be bridged
the face stays there
with the open mouth
with the expression in the face
and it evaporates
i lost the poem

the field of measurable

when you enter the field of measurable you have to have a direction of goodness (and thus an undirection of ungoodness)
so that you know when you achieve optimization or even a single step dx of improvement
but what is the target? we can't know
we know the starting point
but there are infinite directions
of course we can try the thousand monkeys experiment let the monkeys try on their typewriters
and we may get something better some day
but that's what humans have done
you have thousands of writers who try their novels and poems and essays
and the better emerge
but who determines better?
do we have a single direction?
not
and then you have the middle level readers who read those funky novels with the funky covers
the higher novels don't have any meaning for them because they don't understand it they are put off
am I to say it's garbage? Yes I'm allowed to say it's garbage. Garbage for me
but you can't fail to see the light in their eyes
and that means a truth

Taylor series of nothing

How to Bend a Polynomial

The logarithm the difference of the difference and the division of the division

Through another more careful analysis you will notice that since we have 1/n n has to be above 0 so the sum

is actually

or

going back

In any case we arrive at logarithm and i should have expected it since 1/n and log(n) are somehow related
as you cut down the unit into smaller and smaller pieces you get to something (if you add them together) we call the logarithm

What is the division? the difference of the difference
if you divide 8/2 it's like subtracting 2 until you get to zero
now what is the logarithm? the division of the division

or more compactly

and that's natural since the exponent is the multiplication of the multiplication

unfortunately it seems we stopped there
there is no widely known name for the logarithm of the logarithm - there is of course polylogarithm but that's not a completely new name
or the power of the power


and the abstraction continues


[ i really enjoy these equations
so it's more like me doing these
and in the meantime seeing the progression of folding and moving on
]

The 15 Patterns of Visual Perception

or