Epistylometry
a forger’s skill becomes their signature.
epistylometry, from the greek “epistos” for
“knowledge” and “stylos” for “style”, is the knowledge
signature of a person. what someone does demonstrates what they
know, possibly what they don’t know, and possibly what they are trying
to obscure they know. the term borrows from the commonplace word
“stylometry”, which is used to describe someone’s writing style based on
various metrics.
you know in “breaking bad”, where it should have been obvious to
agent schrader that heisenberg was walter white, due to the advanced
chemistry knowledge needed to make blue meth? that chemistry is walter
white’s epistylometric signature.
this terminology pulls together a few other
similar-but-disparately-named terms and concepts from various places
(see the need for a nomenclator),
including:
in stylometry, analyzing writing patterns to identify
authors. this is how they unmask anonymous writers - your word choices,
sentence structures, even punctuation habits form a signature
in cyber attacks, security researchers analyze malware techniques,
coding styles, and operational patterns to identify threat actors
in art forgery, forgers must study not just technique
but the knowledge limitations of the period. anachronistic knowledge
reveals fakes.
counterfeiting currency
Epistemic Sentiment Modeling
1. knowledge
1.1 sentiment annotators
we introduce three symbols: plus + for positive
associations, circle o for neutral associations, and
dash/minus - for negative associations. we call these
sentiment annotators
when a sentiment annotators between two people are denoted over an
arrow indicating directionality (mono-directional or bidirectional)
A→+BA \xrightarrow{+} B
reads “A likes B”
A↔+BA \stackrel{+}{\longleftrightarrow} B
reads “A and B like eachother”
1.2 epistemic logic
it is possible that two people like eachother but don’t know the
other likes them, orr iso knows allo likes them, but allo doesn’t know
iso likes them. this becomes important in the construction of
self-reinforcing social structures (“granules” as they are called later
in the text). we bring in concepts from epistemic logic.
Knowledge and belief are represented via the modal operators
K and B, often with a subscript indicating the agent
that holds the attitude. Formulas Kaφ and Baφ are then read “agent
a knows that phi” and “agent a believes that phi”,
respectively.
: Epistemic Logic, Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
KA(B→+A)K_A (B \xrightarrow{+} A)
reads “A knows B likes A”
E{A,B,C}ϕE_{\{A,B,C\}} \phi
reads “everyone ...
Advert for Publisher
To the publisher: I have much to write. I suppose the best approach is to simply write what I am thinking about. It is the end of the year. Last year (not the year ending today, the one before that) was a pretty crazy year and I had some pretty crazy thoughts then. Thoughts about good vs. evil and spirituality. These were all things that I thought everyone knew, more or less… things that I thought everyone went about life not talking about it, because it wasn’t the type of thing you were supposed to talk about except in moments of birth and death, or falling in love, or making a blood oath of friendship or marriage, or betraying a friend, or taking a life, or attempting to resurrect the dead. Because these were all things that everyone knew, on some baseline deep instructions on what to do, that are kind of a requirement for being alive, for the whole rest of being a human to follow afterwards. The type of thing that everyone knows, and goes through life aware of, but not really talking about, because they are reserved for those sacred moments. I haven’t really shared thoughts of those things to other people very much. Kind of because I am scared of the reaction I might get, of speaking the unspoken, and awake some kind of terror in them that I had articulated the things they knew all along, and thereby putting myself at risk from them; and on the other hand, getting a response of, “yeah, of course, everyone knows that, why are you thinking so much about it? Everyone...