Just found this excellent new web site. Lots of goodies.

Joe-Bob says check it out.

Two thumbs up. Way up!

Beam me up, Scotty!

etc.

Building on Infomagic's thesis of The Devolutionary Spiral, this report is a mathematical inquiry into the future probabilities of Y2K implications. Assuming "full compliance" by the year 2000, how will even rare residual failures due to undetected bugs affect your job security and indeed the security of Western civilization as a whole? In short, what are the chances of TEOTWAWKI: the end of the world as we know it . . ?

Mathematical proof here

Andy

Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.

"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)

"We're doomed I tell ye, doomed!"

Private Frazer, Dad's Army, Walmington-On-Sea Home Guard, 1939 (Undertaker)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 1999

Answers

In my humble estimation, Mr. Inf O. Magic ranks right up there with them there people who calculated that the bumblebee could not fly according to the laws of physics; those who so astutely proved that the sun revolves around the earth; and those who told Chris Columbus that he'd sail right off the edge of the flat earth if he sailed westward as planned.

Every one of those folks were "cutting edge scientists" in their day.

Congratulations and hearty back-pats to Infomagic and his ilk for continuing a proud and time-honored tradition!

(Next project: research Chicken Little's mathematical background....)

-- Albert Einstein (fake math@the answer.yep), January 23, 1999.

"OK Einstein, what's your bleedin' take???" :)

I've always wanted to say that!!!

Seriously, Albert, you can't just come to this forum and slag off my hero Infomagic, gimme some logic, astound us with your visionary perspicacity, emote the innermost workings of your right brain - tell us why Infomagic is friggin' wrong.

P.S. What didja think of the "proof"???

BTW some of your theories are on the verge of being disproved - put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Andy the doombrooder :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 1999.

Andy,

Sheesh! For someone who has previously seemed ostensibly intelligent...to get so upset in a defense of Infomagic....wow

My sister and brother-in-law are both pretty up-to-date on Y2K (I make sure they are)...and both have pretty much seen it all...both are social workers , and I showed them IM 2

They both concurred that IM is in need of some pretty serious counselling

-- Albert Einstein (you really@ mean.it!!), January 23, 1999.

Sorry Albert, it's late and I WAS only joking. Really.

Imagic lost me a little in part 3 I admit. His scenario is a possibility - your guess is as good as mine. Depp down I think it is more than a possibility - it's very hard for me even to admit to myself the logic of his argument - but it is there for all to see nevertheless.

I would like your take however on the mathematical proof. I'm no mathematician. Maybe Dr. Altman could take a look at it too and give us his input.

Cheers Al,

Andy the doombrooder :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 1999.

Andy,

Take a coupla happy pills and call your mother in the morning. (I mean no disrespect....talking to mine does me wonders)

-- Albert Einstein (it'll_be@all.right), January 23, 1999.

Andy,

Really it bothers me to see people still spouting doom and gloom. Things have changed since a year ago, or six months ago, and we need to recognize that.

But there is a contingent that started out as worst-case, and they're gonna stay worst-case, and no amount of facts or common sense or even pronouncements from God Almighty will change their minds.

But that's stupid, 'scuse me for saying so. Hell yeah, 12 months ago, things looked REAL bad. And rightly so. But since then people in the U.S., anyway, have gotten up off their asses and done something. So it's not going to be as bad as previously expected. In this country.

BUT>>>>>>>

Overseas is still screwed, no two ways about it. And that will affect us here. No two ways about it.

BUT>>>>>>>

That does not mean the end of the world as we know it in the U.S., nor in any other country. It means serious problems.

If you look around, I think you'll find that those who tout the TEOTWAWKI crap are those who stand to profit from that scenario. Militia folks who want the government to fall anyway. People selling survival gear. Wackos who have latched onto the latest doomsday scenario.

Of course there are some level-headed people who are into the worst-case scenario too, but have they just quit watching/reading the news???

The reports from those who have been on top of this thing pretty much from the beginning, are that things are not going to be as bad as first predicted.

Those who refuse to acknowledge this, in favor of a stubborn insistence on the worst-case scenario, no matter what, exhibit signs of mental illness. No bones about it. Cultism. Some say, "any good news is a lie, we know better". That's a sickness. I'm not trying to say that we should believe every single thing that our government tells us (duh!), but we shouldn't call everything that comes from the government or the media **lies**, either....

I'll certainly be called a Polly due to this post

Even Pollys have common sense; I wonder if doomers do

-- Albert E. (for@real.net), January 23, 1999.

>>Things have changed since a year ago, or six months ago, and we need to recognize that.

Albert,

Yes they have--for the worse.

At this link...

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Computech/Issues/hbela9902.htm

...you'll find out that five (5) Fortune 500 companies are announcing completion, while three (3) will miss 12/31/99. You'll find a few companies that actually moved up their dates, but a much larger number of companies have slipped their dates.

Also, here's a quote from an article that is not good news as far as federal government Y2K work is concerned...

http://www.newsbytes.com/pubNews/124805.html

"In November 1998 (the GAO estimated) about $7.2 billion, triple the aggregated original estimate in February 1997," Walker said. "And we simply simply don't have enough data to say whether more will be needed.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 23, 1999.

Let me just state that if you are a trol mc2, then I have been trolled :)

Andy, Take a coupla happy pills and call your mother in the morning. (I mean no disrespect....talking to mine does me wonders)

[Sorry - my British sense of humour sometimes does not come across on e-mail! Plus I'm in LA, She's in London and she's a deaf old bat so there would be a problem there.]

Andy, Really it bothers me to see people still spouting doom and gloom. Things have changed since a year ago, or six months ago, and we need to recognize that.

[Do you mean for the better or worse? Without doubt for the worse... I posted an open letter from Ed Yourdon yesterday, that he wrote over a year ago, take a read, and things are no better, worse if anything...]

But there is a contingent that started out as worst-case, and they're gonna stay worst-case, and no amount of facts or common sense or even pronouncements from God Almighty will change their minds.

[I always thought, from first grasping the systemic nature of the problem (without having had to be told), that there was a serious problem looming... I had never even heard of Charlotte's Web, the concept of interdependencies just seemed to be so damn obvious]

But that's stupid, 'scuse me for saying so. Hell yeah, 12 months ago, things looked REAL bad. And rightly so. But since then people in the U.S., anyway, have gotten up off their asses and done something. So it's not going to be as bad as previously expected. In this country.

[I'm really not so sure, what happened to all those companies that had remediation deadlines of 31st Dec. 98??? How many compliant companies on de Jagers success list (5 - pretty pathetic don't you think??)... What of the GAO figures, Senator Bennet's backpeddling, the documented skewing of figures by Koskinen, the DOD caught lying, the numerous reports of bullshit on company y2k web pages...]

BUT>>>>>>>

Overseas is still screwed, no two ways about it. And that will affect us here. No two ways about it.

[To a catastrophic degree - you have no idea - oil, banking, shipping, aviation,imports, exports...]

BUT>>>>>>>

That does not mean the end of the world as we know it in the U.S., nor in any other country. It means serious problems.

[Au contraire, it most certainly means the end of the world as we know it in the USA, our trading partners will not make it in time - many haven't even started - the evidence is out there plain as day...]

If you look around, I think you'll find that those who tout the TEOTWAWKI crap are those who stand to profit from that scenario. Militia folks who want the government to fall anyway. People selling survival gear. Wackos who have latched onto the latest doomsday scenario.

[NO. I disagree completely. These are a minute percentage of the population which are not taken seriously - except by the FBI etc. - you are missing the importance of the message by letting the stance of those groups you mentioned cloud the issue - most people on this forum are techies and also concerned individuals from all walks of life - not in any of the groups you mentioned]

Of course there are some level-headed people who are into the worst- case scenario too, but have they just quit watching/reading the news???

[Certainly NOT]

The reports from those who have been on top of this thing pretty much from the beginning, are that things are not going to be as bad as first predicted.

[I disagree, again, completely.]

Those who refuse to acknowledge this, in favor of a stubborn insistence on the worst-case scenario, no matter what, exhibit signs of mental illness. No bones about it. Cultism. Some say, "any good news is a lie, we know better". That's a sickness. I'm not trying to say that we should believe every single thing that our government tells us (duh!), but we shouldn't call everything that comes from the government or the media **lies**, either....

[We are not stupid, mc2]

I'll certainly be called a Polly due to this post

Even Pollys have common sense; I wonder if doomers do.

[Yes, we do]

Thanks mc2, things are not as black and white as they seem. Doomers are regular folks, for the most part, that have the ability to see the big picture, to see the interdependencies, to recognise how fragile our system of systems are...

Pollys don't.

Consider the following:-

"Our economy is much more efficient than it was in the pen and paper era. With the advent of computers, computer networks, fiber optics, satellites and other bells and whistles, people are able to accomplish much, much more in a business sense than their fathers, mothers or grandparents could. Specialties have blossomed in the modern era to the point where the division of labor is vast and incomprehensible. The impact of the economic interdependencies have no rival in all of antiquity. One goal of people following Y2K is accurately forecasting the impact on our society and indeed the world at large, if x percent of computers and related equipment and services fail. Also important is how long the downtime persists but that wont be dealt with here.

There was a popular game this past decade called Jenga. Fifty-four wooden blocks, approximately <" X 3/4" X 4" are arranged three side- by-side, with three more side-by-side on top of the previous three, but perpendicular to the layer below it. The third row is perpendicular to the second row and this pattern continues all the way to the topeighteen stories. Once the tower is assembled its about 14" high. The object is for players to take turns removing one block at a time from any place in the tower and placing the removed block back on top of the tower without toppling it in the process. The last person to remove a block without knocking the thing over wins. According to the makers of the game, expert players can transform the 18-layer tower into 36 layers (obviously there are lots of holes). From my Jenga experience usually about 20 to 30%of the blocks are removed and replaced before the tower crashes onto the living room table.

Jenga is a good analogy to how Y2K relates to the division of labor. Let each block represent 2% of the work force, or economic player if you will. If one block is successfully removed and placed on top of the tower without toppling it, assume, for the sake of argument, that represents 2% of the economy undergoing computer problems. As the tower generally stands strong in Jenga when only one block has been removed and replaced, so does the economy stay strong when only 2% of the participants are awash in computer downtime. Two blocks removed? Strong tower, strong economy. Only 4% of businesses struggling with computer problems. And so it goes. But eventually the tower crumbles. Just prior to the crumbling the tower appeared, for all practical purposes, as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar. And such is the concern with Y2K. We see a tower standing but dont care to consider the significance of the removed and replaced wooden blocks. In Jenga, if 51% of the wooden blocks are removed and replaced, 95+% of the tower falls, not just the 51% of wooden blocks removed and replaced.

And again, in Jenga generally if 30% of the blocks are repositioned that usually destroys the fate of the innocent 70% of untouched blocks (i.e. businesses, services, economic players). What doesnt happen in Jenga, and wont happen with Y2K, is untouched blocks, or businesses with functional computers, going unscathed when the minority of the moved blocks reach the crumbling point, or in the case of businesses, noncompliant computers begin to crash. Thats the impact of the division of labor. You could say the exposure of the surface area to a Jenga block is representative of the vulnerability or decline in a business. The greater the blocks exposure, the greater the damage to your business. You may be standing but youre weakened. If 25% of businesses have computer problems come 1-1-00 and youre not one of 25% you can rest assured your exposure and vulnerability parallels that of a Jenga tower thats up to twenty- seven layers or so.

Remember Deep Blue? The computer IBM designed to take on Gary Kasparov, the world chess champion at his own game? If my memory is correct Deep Blue won the majority of games. How would Deep Blue have done if its programs were flawed? It wouldnt move or if it did, it would move unwisely and lose. Running smoothly, Deep Blue, programmed by men with much less acumen in chess than Kasparov, was able to beat the champion at his own game. Lets pretend Deep Blue is crashed and has to run manually. The IBM men and women in white coats come running out from behind the curtain, they pool their knowledge and pour over hard copies of the programs they designed for Deep Blue. How efficient would this be? How long would it take the IBM eggheads to move their pawn if their level of competition remained equal to that of a fully operable Deep Blue? You might say this game would last for years.

An optimal functioning economy is dependent on Deep Blue, or the division of labor, working at normal operating speed. What evidence is there that a work force with 15% of its players hampered with computer problems simultaneously can produce as well as Deep Blue operating without a hitch? There isn't any. What evidence is there that Deep Blue could beat Kasparov if 15% of its programs were removed or shut down? Kasparov would smear Deep Blue, meaning the 85% of good programs still functioning in 'ol Blue were sent to computer hell with its tail between its programmable legs. Similarly, in our hypothetical example, the 85% of businesses not hampered by computer problems will take some severe shots, directly and indirectly, from the faulty members of the economic division of labor.

Understanding the division of labor is key to interpreting Y2K news, most of which is vague, bad and/or useless to begin with. Remember Jenga. Remember Deep Blue."

Andy the doombrooder :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 23, 1999.

Another example of division of labor and the interconnectedness of the system...

http://www.fee.org/about/ipencil.html

"I, Pencil"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 23, 1999.

Little is proved by applying linear math to highly nonlinear systems. The linear approach easily 'proves' that our economy is prima facie impossible!

Econometricians have produced very sophisticated econometric computer models requiring days of supercomputer calculations per simulation. What these models have shown is that the output is a pretty good match for the assumptions underlying the coefficients going in.

In real life, the players in the economy keep reacting in unanticipated ways, keep inventing new things, keep reorganizing which changes the rules, the government overhauls the tax laws, styles and values take twists and turns. They continue to tweak the computer models, but they're simply trying to model the way things *used to be*, while the ground continues to shift and reform under their feet.

That's where the old saying came from that if you lined up all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 23, 1999.

Flint,

Have you ever seen this analogy?

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2947

"ANALOGY: The Indianapolis 500 (Efficiency Isn't the Same as Capacity)"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 23, 1999.

I still have yet to hear someone who says "Things are way better than they were a year ago," demonstrate this with anything that remotely resembles a fact set. I am more than willing to accept this premise if I am shown objective facts.

At this time, HCFA has said they will not make the 01/01/2000 deadline for mission critical systems, NERC report data NOT exec summary, indicates much less than 44% completion/compliance level with 12 months to go.

The Government agencies are clearly cooking their completion figures by decreasing the number of "mission critical" systems being addressed. On begins to wonder, if, when we started with over 50,000 government systems, why only 7000+/- are considered critical to the function of the various agencies. This suggests that either we have a LOT of systems we do not need (are not mission critical) OR what is misssion critical depends on the beholder, and what one wants to do with the information.

I would really like to see th eresults of the FDIC inspections ref Y2K to see where the Banks really stand. It would do my heart good to find out that the industry is nearly done, and that there are banks actually compliant. As it is, the FDIC has expressly embargoed this information on the "interesting" grounds that it would be "anti- competitive, giving banks with a passing grade a competitive advantage." OF COURSE IT WOULD!! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FREE MARKET!! By def'n this is one where decisions are made based on advantages, like, being certified to be able to do business into the next year!

If someone is able to show us (the members of teh putative DOOMBROOD (tm) ) the same level of substantiatable positive news, as we see of negative news, then we would, most of us anyway, modify our stance. Critical comparative thinking is NOT a form of mental instability or illness. It IS the ability to see emperor clothing or not.

chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 23, 1999.

"On begins to wonder, if, when we started with over 50,000 government systems, why only 7000+/- are considered critical to the function of the various agencies. This suggests that either we have a LOT of systems we do not need (are not mission critical) OR what is misssion critical depends on the beholder, and what one wants to do with the information. "

personally I go with the theory that, as with the budget each year, each agency thinks they are "the most important thing in the country, so these systems are crucial to the country!" When someone else in the goverment would go by, they would say "oh come on...is the condom machine in the bathroom really Mission Critical to you? oh wait...sorry in your case it is Mr. President" but I digress...I think the 50,000 number was each member of the goverment on their usual ego trip.

-- anti-doom (whatever@somewhere.com), January 23, 1999.

Albert E.

I'm one sick , insane puppy !

But>>>>>

I dont need therapy; I need AMMO .

Give me a 10 !!

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), January 23, 1999.

What are the odds of going through y2k without a single problem coming up? Now, use this statement for every single microchip, computer, server, network, and company on the entire planet. The odds are exponential for impossibility on the global level.

I am only a senior in college, majoring in Computer Science. I've done a lot of math, but not much in probability. However, even if a mathematical proof says that the systems will crash, it doesn't mean that everything will be gone.

Most likely there will be changes made on the global scale.

But individuals are creative, and capable of making solutions for themselves. If an individual with an enormously good idea comes forth and tells the people, the people would probably follow him. If that happens, better look in Revelation again, and while your at it read Jude.

-- Enoch (knightofyhwh@hotmail.com), January 23, 1999.

"But there is a contingent that started out as worst-case, and they're gonna stay worst-case, and no amount of facts or common sense or even pronouncements from God Almighty will change their minds.

But that's stupid, 'scuse me for saying so. Hell yeah, 12 months ago, things looked REAL bad. And rightly so. But since then people in the U.S., anyway, have gotten up off their asses and done something. So it's not going to be as bad as previously expected. In this country."

Albert, it's not Andy who needs a happy pill, it's you who need a realist pill and wake up. You've been doing those happy pills too much.

A year ago, it was too late, with a war effort spirit and everything going right, it was too late. It's still too late. And we didn't get a war effort spirit and everything's going wrong. Look beyond your nose too, the United States is not the entire world, it's just a patch of land with 270 million people on it. The rest of the world is doing terribly worse. If we had started 20 years ago, perhaps we could be done in time and help the rest of the world. We started in 1998. (Except for a handful of companies.)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 23, 1999.

I once heard about an (apocryphal) Ph.D. viva on a thesis packed with advanced maths where the external examiner started by stating "I have no problem with any of the mathematics in this thests. However, I do not accept the validity of equations 1, 2 and 3." Ouch!

This is pretty much my take on this "proof".

In particular, in considering the power grids, the assumption is made that all failures block in series, like the lights on an Xmas tree. This is of course not true; if it were, the last hurricane, tornado or even thunderstorm would black out the USA. In fact, you are dealing with a network containing redundancies at all sorts of levels, including many where manual operation is possible.

Analysing such a network is difficult; chaos theory perhaps has most to offer, but basically states that predicting the outcome is close to impossible!

The economy as a whole is of course another such network, with the added problem that the underlying rules are themselves ill-understood and not fixed. People can and will change their behaviours in light of their perceived circumstances. It's been much-debated whether such changes will be for the better or the worse; time alone will tell.

In short: nobody knows. Anyone claiming otherwise is either deluding himself, or has a motive for deluding you.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), January 25, 1999.

The assumptions underlying this math are awful. All failures are critical, no critical failure can be fixed in a reasonable time, no contingency plan exists - it is just no good at all. And he assumes a closed system.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.

The assumptions are wrong, but the reality is that they are worse for the most part. If the system isn't closed, then a failed system will cause an outside system to fail. There will be changes made after this year, there is no doubt of that. What will happen exactly, is not known.

-- Enoch (knightofyhwh@hotmail.com), January 25, 1999.

Let me throw out these for consideration:

1) Infomagic has come up with a plausible scenario, not necessarily a probable one. But the chance of Infomagic's "de-evolutionary spiral" occuring due to Y2K is high enough to warrant preparation. Especially since you lose relatively little if you prepare and things turn out not to be so bad.

2) "Redundant systems" mean nothing if they are also subject to the Y2K problem. Y2K forces us to look at such things in an entirely new way -- multiple simultaneous failures across a broad spectrum (e.g., electricity, telecommunications, banking). And this certainly includes the reliability of the power grids!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 25, 1999.

"Infomagic" is a story, a "myth" (think Plato's cave). Infomagic's story will never be the Y2K fact: life is too strange for that.

But the Infomagic "devolution" myth is very evocative and cannot be wished away, even if the math is awful. I'd prefer to use the word "crude". "Infomagic" is archtypal. BTW, like any myth, no series of factual arguments can establish it or trash it either.

The "myth" says that Y2K is the first time when man's golem-like systems run a measurable risk of collapsing into one another, rather than redundantly supporting the superstructure built on them. I won't rehash the details yet again.

The story-teller considers the measurable-ness of devolution to approach certainty. Hey, it's his story, guys.

Now, can facts be marshaled to support a thesis that there is a measurable chance (75%? 7.5%? .75%? .075%) that a small but domain-wide software and embedded systems fault can demolish the world's infrastructure. I think so. However large or small the chance, that is a shocking realization which ought to inform our future systems-thinking. In other words, like any serious myth, this one is founded on a core of rock-solid reality.

The only thing to read literally into Infomagic is the imperative to prepare for any Y2K eventuality. Otherwise, be very scared children, by the symbolic power of this unique late-twentieth century myth. Your fear is well-grounded, whatever the odds.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 25, 1999.

As the author of the "Y2K: A Mathematical Certainty" article in question, I just wanted to make a quick response to Paul Davis because I believe his post sums up how easily things can be misunderstood.

"All failures are critical, no critical failure can be fixed in a reasonable time, no contingency plan exists" . . . Yes, for the purposes set forth in the article, I wanted to look *only* at such critical failures which would eventually result in Chapter 2000 for a given company.

"And he assumes a closed system." . . . You're absolutely right: I *do* make this asumption. But, we must realize that, as vast as the world economic system is, ultimately it is a closed system (ie. I assume we're not trading with space aliens.)

-- Zach Anderson (zma@rocketmail.com), January 26, 1999.

Zach - surely you wouldn't argue that we have major connections to say - the former Soviet Republics? If they fall flat (and they did), we can, and have sent them various forms of aid. If we have trouble we might expect aid from Spain or Mexico or somewhere else. (Actually would probably be more of a mutual effort - but you get my point.) The system is not closed in any signifigant way - unless you can prove the existence of some sort of overall world wide system. And at this time - there is really no such system save for communications and travel and trade. Which are not enough to establish the sort of network you are assuming.

As for your other assumptions - if you assume gloom to start with all you are going to get out is gloom.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 30, 1999.