Abstract Mathematics - Calculating uncertainty before you get to certainty?

Brand Killer Robots reveal:

Ok, we had a small encounter the other day when we were hit by a storm of traffic to this Blog - much of which was accompanied by the most vicious of comments to the editor regarding our statement that 1 + 1 can in fact equal 74 (1+1=74).

Thank you, thank you, thank you - for we believe that we have hit a nerve. When supposed rational minds are challenged with thinking beyond the walls of their cosy certainty, rejection is the first natural response, followed by further investigation, followed by even greater vitriol - until finally satisfied that there are no answers beyond the obvious and that they have taken their revenge - they retire back into their cosy hidy holes again. Where 1 + 1 always equals 2.

So why does this make a difference in the world of mathematics? Why does abstract maths really differ from any other form of maths.?

Ok, so here is the answer.

Conventional maths thinking is based on " the certain world". Abstract maths is based on "the uncertain world".

In a certain world you can measure the height of something at any point in time. In an uncertain world you can't measure the height of something at any point in time - if sometimes it is there and sometimes it is not there.

So the application we considered in our orginal article suggested that the organisation in question did not add up until 72 major risks had been mitigated. Therefore the state of the organisation and relative mathematics formulae was 1 + 1 = 74. By reducing the state of uncertainty by 72 risks, you reach a state of certainty - zero major risks.

In other words - You reach a world where 1 + 1 = 2.

In fact the formula should be

if x not equal 2, then

While x not equal 2

decrement x by 1

now go back to beginning while statement (until x not equal 2)

Once x = 2 - end program

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 = 74:: Abstract maths teaches intelligence students to think beyond the obvious?

Brand Killer Robots reveal::

I watched as he wrote patterns on the window. Formulas, Variables, Graphs and Models.

I watched as the problem was scoped, deconstructed, translated, interpreted, transposed, remodeled and whatever.

I watched as solutions and alternative solutions were demonstrated.

I watched as the audience gasped in amazement in witnessing the process, the outcome and the eventual euforia that ensued afterwards.

I watched it all - and yet although i did not understand the gesticulations of the symbolic number festival - i knew - i just knew that this mathematician was not nearly as smart as he thought he was.

After all, what he had just solved was a problem that thousands of other mathematicians could solve, that robots could solve much faster and that had no real application anyway.

So one day when i was teaching a class of academics how to think about the world in abstract ways I asked them to solve one simple problem. The problem was to consider how 1 + 1 might equal 74 (1 + 1= 74). Many of these students were bound for careers in computer programming, in competitive and business intelligence and others in information security.

I asked them to consider how 1 + 1 might equal 74 and not 2.

Suffice to say - not one student solved the problem.

Here is the answer and workings out.

First you take the number 74 to be an arbitrary number.

If you substract 72 from 74 you get 2, meaning 1 + 1 = 2 and not 1 + 1 =74.

So (1 + 1) is the same as (74 - 72) which = 2.

Here is an application

Say you were auditing a company and you found that there were 72 major risks inside the organisation - you could say that - 1 + 1 = 74 and unless all 72 risks were mitigated 1 + 1 would always equal 74. If all 72 risks were mitigated you could then say that the organisation really added up and therefore the calculation 1 + 1 would then evaulate as expected (1+1= 2).

Mathematics is an interesting language, but you don't always need to take language so literately. Sometimes you need to bend language in ways in which it was never intended.

In any case, in the world of intelligence - students need to learn how to think beyond the obvious. That was the whole point of the exercise.

Small UK Insurance Companies - too stretched to cover their own risks - let alone policy holders?

Brand Killer Robots reveals::

Picture a small boat being tossed around by 40 foot waves and you get a good idea of what it is like to be a small insurance company in the UK motor insurance marketplace. The logistics of running an insurance company are huge, even for the great and the good. So think about what it must be like for small insurance companies. You're still confronted by all the same relationship responsibilities. The insurers, the reinsurers, the brokers, the software houses, the thousands of policy holders, the underwriting staff, the FSA and of the course the bank manager.

You still have to maintain inhouse underwriting systems, not too mention external feeds to back office systems such as CUE and MID for protecting policy holders and the market, integrated EDI to and from Brokers and a claims and underwriting department, along with agency support systems. You still need to consider new product development, rate reviews, testing of rates on the numerous software house systems, competitive analysis, stats analysis and business intelligence reporting. You still need to consider whether moving your investments offshore to Gibraltar is the best plan and how to shape the group structure to achieve the most effective posture. If you head for Gibraltar you've then got to consider reporting to the equivalent of the FSA - the FSC. Then you need to work out how you get your managers on a plane to report to the FSC every few months. Then when they're away, who is going to do the work and what about company security, recruitment, corporate social responsibility, FSA staff training, P&L accounts and the list goes on and on and on.

When your premium hits £3-£4 million per month with a net loss ratio across the portfolio looking like 90% for year to date - we ask - how the hell do you guys sleep at night?

When your risk register is about to catch fire - we ask:

Could it be that Small UK Insurance Underwriters are taking on to much?