## Seeking Logical Mathematic Coaching Assistance

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Furthark
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:39 pm

### Seeking Logical Mathematic Coaching Assistance

Hello,

I am a retired Marine that has decided to go back to school and am currently working on paper that discusses the future of Mobile Computing. In this paper I am introducing a hypothetical process that assist us in forecasting the future of mobile computing. To do this there are three arguments that must be established as true, before we can forecast where mobile computing is heading. To complicate things, I decided to incorporate logical mathematics into this by taking each argument and writing it out in logically. Now, I have been trying to teach myself this for about 7 to 8 months - I think that I have done it correctly but would like your opinion on what I've done.

If you could please help me correct what I am working on, that would be great. My objectives here are to properly present these in paper and further my education by taking in your constructive criticism and advise. Don't worry - I am a Retired Marine and that comes with plenty thick skin. Your advise is valuable and greatly appreciated.

First Argument. Establishing Integrated Circuits. As we know, integrated circuits can be forecasted through the use of Moore’s Law (1), hence the verbally defined equation for integrated circuits is: Integrated Circuits double every two years.

Moore's Law - tcf=tcc(2^(y/2)
• forecasted transistor count (tcf)

• current transistor count (tcc)

∴x=(tcf=tcc(2^(y/2)))

Here x represents the forecasted count of integrated circuits which are calculated using Moore’s Law.

Second Argument. Establishing Technological Miniaturization. There’s only one basic rule when it comes to technological miniaturization and that is: In order for technological miniaturization to be true, the evolution of integrated circuits has to be established.

(∃x→x)↔Q

Here Q represents technological miniaturization, only if integrated circuits can be predicted.

Third Argument. Establishing Technological Convergence. In order for technological convergence to be true, the proper computing technology (A), communication technology (B), and software platforms (C) must be established.

(A→B→C)↔P

Here P represents technological convergence, only if the determining factors are true.

Wrapping all up together. Establishing the Logical Equation. In order to forecast mobile computing we must establish where integrated circuits will be and by doing so, we can establish technological miniaturization and technological convergence only if the proper computing technology, communication technology, and software platforms are established.

M(y)↔((∴x=(tcf=tcc(2^(y/2) )))↔Q)∧((A→B→C)↔P)

Here M represents Mobile Computing while y represents forecasting, which can only be established only if the other elements are established as true.

Now, there is no requirement for me to add this to the paper - I believe it will be an added bonus and something that will also help me along the way as seek to further my higher learning. So, this is where I am at with this element of the paper.

Am I on the right path - did I do this correctly? Please let me know.

Respectfully

Furthark
wtf
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

### Re: Seeking Logical Mathematic Coaching Assistance

Furthark wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:27 pm paper that discusses the future of Mobile Computing.
I have a couple of general comments. Aren't you missing all the marketing aspects? In other words let's take for granted that mobile devices will get smaller and more clever. In fact just today Apple released their new computer glasses and everyone's all excited about it, as if nobody remembers the Google "glass-holes" from a few years ago.

The question isn't just a matter of how much more smaller and more powerful devices can get. The question is, who will buy them?

For example over the past ten or fifteen years since Apple introduced the iPhone, the world has been in a frenzy of buying a new phone every year or two. But that's leveling off. First, people are figuring out that they don't need to get a new phone every year. The year-to-year improvements in features aren't that exciting anymore.

Secondly, there's the huge issue of form factor. Technologically a computer could get really tiny. But if a human is going to use it, it has to interact with our fat fingers and within the limits of our vision. The wearable glasses are a step in the direction of trying to solve the problem but at the end of the day you still have screens. Eventually you'll have smart contact lenses; but even that's a limit. It can't get any smaller than that unless it jacks into your optic nerve or the base of your spine. We're in William Gibson territory now.

These things may happen but they're far off. Right now in 2020, mobile devices are definitely hitting a wall of consumer fatigue and the limits of human interfaces. Those are the factors controlling the future of mobile devices.

So maybe you can say more clearly what you are trying to do?

Secondly, even things like Moore's law are not laws of nature, they're heuristics that have worked for twenty years and are now failing. See for example The Death of Moore's Law or any of the many other links that popped up in response to the search query, "end of moore's law." The point is that not only are consumers getting tired of the endless product cycle, even the technology is straining at the limits of physics. The improvement curve is leveling out.

You can't just extrapolate the tech trends of the past 20 years. The past 20 years have been special. The public was introduced to these shiny new objects. Now they're not so shiny anymore and people will be more interested in the next big thing, whatever that turns out to be. Just like cars once had tail fins and were cool, and now they're just polluting things that need to be retired. The public is always in search of something new.

To summarize, the future of mobile devices is governed by a leveling off of consumer demand combined with hard manufacturing and user interface limits. It's simply not accurate or sufficient to merely project the trends of the past.

Well that's my two cents on the future of mobile computing. In my opinion we're approaching the limits of current technology; and the next great leap, a direct neural connection, is probably 20 or 30 years off.

ps ... Here's the latest on smart contact lenses. I think this is the next big direction. Remember there are two fundamental limits. How small can a computer get; and how do we interface it to a clunky human.

"As a vision-based technology, smart contact lenses are an obvious way to explore virtual and augmented reality, and camera technologies. Samsung is working on a way to project visual information directly into the retina of the eye so that the field of vision is altered. It functions like a tiny version of Google Glass and would create a mixed reality experience.

Sony has applied for a patent for a smart contact lens which can convert eye movement into electrical power, which you control through blinking your eyes. The lens can actually store images or video once recorded."

https://www.visiondirect.co.uk/blog/sma ... our%20eyes.

Amazing article. Cops with smart contacts instead of body cams. Military applications, you might be interested in that. Lot of amazing stuff going on.

pps - Here's another article about smart contact. Apparently this startup called Mojo is in the game to make the first consumer smart contact. This could be happening sooner than I thought.

https://www.slashgear.com/mojo-vision-s ... -16606978/

Several years away. Needs medical approval etc. But there are real companies out there doing this.

So bottom line this is how I think about the future of mobile computing.

Also, to give specific feedback: Your mathematical expression for Moore's law looks right, though as I mentioned there's no reason to think it will be true in the future and we already know it won't be.

But this is not right:
Furthark wrote: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:27 pm (∃x→x)↔Q

I do not know what ∃x→x means at all. That's not a well-formed sentence of any logical system I know. Usually you say "there exists a number that's both prime and even," or "there exists a solution to such and so equation." I don't know what either of the arrows means. This is not standard notation. In any event, integrated circuits have been around since the 1960's. They're one of many enabling technologies for mobile computing.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: Seeking Logical Mathematic Coaching Assistance

I don't know what to make of your formula, but I do think you might find these references useful in context of your topic.

One from 1959: There's plenty of room at the bottom.
One from last month: There's plenty of room at the top