Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 77 of 77

Thread: Mathematics of War

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Therin lies the rub as they say...

    In war -- not just in combat but in preparation as well -- the skills to do that rudimentary analysis may not be in the right place at the right time. Time will always be detrimental to a reasoned analysis. I totally agree that the most common problem is misapplication of data or models but my point is that war will force such errors far more often than not. Therefor considerable caution in their development and use should be taken -- and it is not...
    I wouldn't go that far. Combat computation is certainly not the norm at the infantry company scale, but it's made its way to the battalion level. It's applications in the Air Force and Navy stretch back to almost immediately after the end of World War II. Nor is modeling static. Both Navy and Air Force (don't know about Army or the Corps) have dozens of active programs refining and when necessary replacing tools already in the field.

    Ah yes, I'm reminded of the famous Lancet study of Iraqi deaths in the war...Not precisley the same thing but misuse of numbers is not unknown, deliberate or inadvertant. Trust but verify is good -- if you have time...The problem, BTW, with that study was impeccable math was skewed terribly by very poor and dishonest data collection and thus GIGO occurred.

    Setting aside the politics surrounding it, both Lancet studies were severely criticized on the merits. For one, the cluster size was very small compared to say the UN household survey ostensibly studying the same issue; the two reports were off by an order of magnitude. Therefore, there is no conclusive epidemiology about excess mortality due to combat, let alone due to Coalition arms. This is not a criticism of modeling, but in fact a virtue of it. Being able to demonstrate sensitivity to inputs by which we can consider or disregard specific models is something to be desired. I feel this is similar to the "plans v. planning" distinction.

    And there's always time. You don't suffer from not pushing a model into service before it matures, you just don't gain any benefit from it. No need crying over what you simply don't have.

    Finally, models aren't alone or even particularly special in their vulnerability to garbage input. A case has been made, in this forum no doubt, that collection, dissemination, and acceptance by the stakeholders based on no modeling whatsoever contributed to what many view as a misadventure in Iraq.

    Understand and agree but it can create problems with the carelessly accepting and less numerate or aware.Up to the operational level for a great many, for virtually all at Tactical levels up to and including Division. All during the period 1949 until I retired in 1995 for the second time.Heh. We are two modelers presented roughly the same data and arriving at different conclusions.
    Ah, but that data is sampled, and that's the key word. If you have a dataset that includes say the explosive tonnage of munitions expended and I have one that simply goes by the weight, our data sets are inevitably different. If that's the only difference, we'll find our results parallel but differ in magnitude. We can't even guarantee that if our collection is littered with completely unrelated classes of observables. Case in point, the Lancet studies v. the UN survey.

    1949 to 1995? Jesus. Do they throw in frequent flier miles for the second time around?
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  2. #62
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    I wouldn't go that far. Combat computation is certainly not the norm at the infantry company scale...
    Having spent most of my time from 1966 on above Company level and all after 1970 above Brigade, I'm well aware of that. I'm also aware that most are of marginal utility. I would say useless but there are Commanders who like numbers so they're handy to placate those guys.
    And there's always time. You don't suffer from not pushing a model into service before it matures, you just don't gain any benefit from it. No need crying over what you simply don't have.
    no one is crying but the time for the people that will use your model in combat to give it scrutiny before application to insure they understand what it shows is often not available. No amount of peacetime or rear area modeling can be reliably used in combat without thorough understanding of what is to be done -- time to get that knowledge embedded often will not exist.
    Finally, models aren't alone or even particularly special in their vulnerability to garbage input. A case has been made, in this forum no doubt, that collection, dissemination, and acceptance by the stakeholders based on no modeling whatsoever contributed to what many view as a misadventure in Iraq.
    Knowing the penchant of many in high places, I'm dubious but honestly don't know. I would characterize Iraq not as a misadventure but a as a necessary but regrettably flawed operation, a flawed effort that was predicated on several iterations of a computer modeled war game...[quote]Ah, but that data is sampled{/quote]Of course it is -- as is most all data.
    1949 to 1995? Jesus. Do they throw in frequent flier miles for the second time around?
    Sure but Federal employees have to turn 'em in...

  3. #63
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Non-military West Coast
    Posts
    25

    Default The power law

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    The power law explicitly diminishes in velocity as frequency increases, so intensity is not guaranteed to increase with it.
    Thanks for the heads-up. I was only able to take two terms of physic, the first and last of a three term set. So I studied an AC wave before I studied a Single Harmonic Motion. I went back and read this stuff, but it looks like I missed the basics. I think the math is the same, but way easier to visualize. Thanks again. Maybe later I can come up with some terminology that will "Hook" this all together.

    Just a guess, I think the highest intensity will be where the velocity is zero, acceleration is max, and the displacement I am not sure of. I guess the highest intensity is when it is only a potential displacement of very high amplitude, which I suppose means it can be positive or negative.

  4. #64

  5. #65
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Your massive hyperlink

    failed to show me; but I did get "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria."

    But, necessity, etc., I did find the Times article discussion on your blog here.

  6. #66
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not only did the oversized hyperlink fail to show me,

    I too read the Blog piece and I'm unsure what you're trying to say...

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Non-military West Coast
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I too read the Blog piece and I'm unsure what you're trying to say...
    I am not trying to say too much here, only that the power curve is moving up as Sean says; the insurgency is adapting, the structure is changing and it, perhaps, has found a way to get at the ISF, that would not work on the US military.

    The Times is open-source information after all, and I was just trying to prove that its information is related to Sean's, not that I was correct. If Sean's data is bogus, there doesn't have to be anymore discussion ablout it.

    But thanks for trying.

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Non-military West Coast
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    failed to show me; but I did get "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." .
    Well, I am probably not a welcomed or wanted post on here. It is hard to judge something you don't understand. It probably is better to vet the link first, thanks.

  9. #69
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I don't think you're unwanted, as for unwelcomed, we

    may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.

    I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old...

  10. #70
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Non-military West Coast
    Posts
    25

    Default It is just in the protocol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    may not get overly effusive but we're generally wlecoming; all osrts of very diverse folks stop by here and all are welcome.

    I'm just not sure what you're trying to do and I say that not to give you a hard time but to find out what you're effort or point is. Probably my fault, i'm old...
    It's just that I have been put under protocol before. You should try and call 135 setting republican members of congress f**king cowards for voting "present" when the time came to vote for funding the military. What you find is this. If that link doesn't work for you, all it shows is advertizing. I have to admit the posting was very inflammatory and when my rage went away I was going to put it on "private" settings, but I wasn't allowed to.

    I don't know if I really have a point, you either get it or you don't. I am also old and I am not sure "wry" , but a bit of an A-hole. So don't feel bad, I don't even see an emoticon for that.

  11. #71
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not enough of a net follower to know what

    being put under protocol means but I'm guessing you mean that someone on a board tried to or did shut you down. People have been shut down here but as long as one follows the posting rules, stays civil, watches language and doesn't try to plunk an own Blog (Other than here: LINK or very occasionally in a thread) one isn't likely to get proscribed or jumped on.

    My wife will tell you that I can out a$$ ho!e anyone anf if you're less than 75, you aren't old.

    As for grumpy, that's me -- but I don't let the stupidity, venality and idiocy that is Congress mess up my day. I've been watching those idiots for over 60 years and every time I think they've done the dumbest thing in the world, they come up with something new -- and worse. I pretty much try to ignore them, I do totally ignore the punditocracy and I don't visit the political blogs because all I'll do is get hacked off. Life's too short...

  12. #72
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Mr Dunbar:

    My post simply stated that your massive (1 para) hyperlink led to an error message - "Sorry, no posts matched your criteria." - which confused me.

    I found the correct url by backspacing to your blog root and going to your particular post. That was my message. Period.

    PS: I now notice that the 1-para hyperlink has been fixed, since the time I first punched it 5 hours ago.
    Last edited by jmm99; 05-15-2009 at 01:41 AM. Reason: add PS

  13. #73
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Took me a while to dig this up before I figured that Gourley was probably more of the evangelist than an actual investigator and author. Anyway's, here's the preprint for the actual research. Comments later.

    A summary.

    The CERAC datasets studied.
    Last edited by Presley Cannady; 07-06-2009 at 04:34 PM.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  14. #74
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    Took me a while to dig this up before I figured that Gourley was probably more of the evangelist than an actual investigator and author. Anyway's, here's the preprint for the actual research.
    different conflict arenas currently feature a common type of enemy, i.e. the various insurgent forces are beginning to operate in a similar way regardless of their underlying ideologies, motivations and the terrain in which they operate.
    Is this guy serious? Of course convergence occurs. It's a well explained and well noted aspect of all warfare. Based on the above, a bit of military history would have saved him a lot of work!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #75
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Is this guy serious? Of course convergence occurs. It's a well explained and well noted aspect of all warfare. Based on the above, a bit of military history would have saved him a lot of work!
    Not to jump to the defense, but the authors aren't trying to prove convergence. They're offering the fact of convergence as a leg to some theoretical explanation for power law they discovered. For that matter, for the power-law to hold, convergence in capability and method are probably essential, as is the other point made about the relative difference in capability between insurgent and counter-insurgent. Also likely essential, but unstated by the authors, is a lack of innovation with real battlefield effect by insurgents (or at least effect in terms of casualties). The pre-1946 datasets reviewed found no such mathematical relationship between casualties and frequencies of attacks for the limited set of major wars they covered prior to 1946. I wonder why that is.

    What I find disappointing is that Gourley essentially represented this research to people as a stepping stone to predicting when and where attacks may occur. That's not the case. This research simply finds that more brutal, and presumably more difficult to pull off, attacks occur less frequently than less brutal ones, and that the relationship between brutality and frequency is a power law with an exponent of 2.5. That "discovery" might play a role when coupled with the future research the authors promise to do (as soon as they get funding, I'm sure), and may synthesize with work already done. But as it stands now, all we have is a neat, probably accurate, but utterly useless mathematical fact to throw around.
    PH Cannady
    Correlate Systems

  16. #76
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Non-military West Coast
    Posts
    25

    Default It's regional and between Arabs

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    Not to jump to the defense, but the authors aren't trying to prove convergence.
    I agree with you completely on this point. The author is not trying to prove convergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    What I find disappointing is that Gourley essentially represented this research to people as a stepping stone to predicting when and where attacks may occur. That's not the case.
    I didn't get the impression Gourley was representing this research in this way, but I agree that this is not the case. The insurgency will converge and fragment according to the force applied by the incumbent and the resilience of the insurgency (its ability to adapt). However, the direction of the slope (negative) doesn't change unless the structure of the insurgency changes, and I think that is what Gourley was getting at. The slope turned positive, which indicates a change in structure.

    I think an insurgency naturally adapts as it moves up or down he slope, but it should not change in structure. Structure is the result of the horizontal and vertical forces inside the insurgency. Because the forces that create a structure involve people, they don't change easily. However, people adapt easily to an environment, and that is what changes as they converge or fragment, up or down, at the 2.5 slope in the negative direction.

    Gourley asks what is changing in the structure of the insurgency, because the slope is becoming positive. My guess is the insurgency is changing as the incumbents change. As the US moves out of the cities the insurgency is changing in structure, to gain advantage over the new structure of the incumbents. The insurgents are not adapting to the force being applied, they are adapting to the new structure of the incumbents. I think the insurgency knows how to fight this new incumbency, and win. They are simply putting a new structure in place of the old, as the slope turns positive instead of negative.

    War is usually between brothers as the weaker tries to negotiate from a position of strength.

    “Between 1945 and 1999, about 3.33 million battle deaths occurred in the 25 interstate wars that killed at least 1000 and had at least 100 dead on each side. These wars involved just 25 states that suffered casualties of at least 1000, and had a median duration of not quite 3 months. By contrast, in the same period there were roughly 122 civil wars that killed at least 1000. A conservative estimate of the total dead as a direct result of these conflicts is 16.2 million, five times the interstate toll.”

    Via: http://www.yale.edu/irspeakers/Fearon.pdf

  17. #77
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Applied math, one step at a time...

    The website Mathematics of War (H/T to Zenpundit)

    Quantitative analysis of conflict is a relatively new discipline that combines data collection, statistical analysis and modeling to understand war and inform political strategy. Our research group brings together an interdisciplinary group of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists and political economists to use numbers and theoretical models to understand war. If you’re interested in joining the project or collaborating on future research get in touch with us here
    Common Ecology Quantifies Human Insurgency by Juan Camilo Bohorquez1, Sean Gourley2, Alexander R. Dixon3, Michael Spagat4 & Neil F. Johnson2

    Also posted in the 462, 911-914 (17 December 2009) issue of the science periodical Nature

    Here we show that the sizes and timing of violent events within different insurgent conflicts exhibit remarkable similarities. We propose a unified model of human insurgency which reproduces these commonalities, and explains conflict-specific variations quantitatively in terms of underlying rules-of engagement. Our model treats each insurgent population as an ecology of dynamically evolving, self-organized groups following common decision-making processes. Our model is consistent with several recent hypotheses concerning modern insurgency18–20, is robust to many generalizations21, and establishes a quantitative connection between human insurgency, global terrorism10 and ecology13–17, 22, 23.
    Sapere Aude

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •