Table of Contents

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=22&relatedposts_position=0

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

3A.. Extensions & Applications, parts 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/comparison-process-explananda-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=17&relatedposts_position=1

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=38&relatedposts_position=0

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-the-comparison-process-comp/

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/106/

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/complex-systems-boundary-events-and-hierarchies/

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/dealing-with-sociopaths-terrorists-and-riots/

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/

24  Imaging the Conscience.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/imaging-the-conscience/

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/comparison-process-creativity-and-linguistics-analyzing-a-movie/

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-mothers-wisdom/

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-fox-the-hedgehog/

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sequoias-parkinsons-and-space-sickness/

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/evolution-growth-development-a-deeper-understanding/

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/explandum-6-understanding-complex-systems/

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-promised-land-of-the-undiscovered-country-towards-universal-understanding-2/

32. The Power of Proliferation

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/the-power-of-proliferation/

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/a-field-trip-into-our-understanding/

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

(35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI, this was deleted after being posted, and it’s not known how it occurred.)

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

35. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/the-structure-of-color-vision/

36. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/le-chanson-sans-fin-table-of-contents-2/

37. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/the-structure-of-color-vision-2/

38. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/stabilities-repetitions-confirmability/

39. The Balanced Brain

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-balanced-brain/

40. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/the-limits-to-linear-thinking-methods/

41. Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/melding-cognitive-neuroscience-behaviorism/

42. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai/

43.  Do Neutron Stars develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/do-neutron-stars-develop-into-white-dwarfs-by-mass-loss/

44. An Infinity of Flavors ?                             https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/an-infinity-of-flavors/

45. The Origin of Infomration & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/origins-of-information-understanding/

46. The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-complex-system-of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

47. How Physicians Create New Information

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

48. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai-2/

49. The Neuroscience of Problem Solving

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/the-neuroscience-of-problem-solving/

50. A Standard Method to Understand Neurochemistry’s Complexities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/a-standard-method-to-understand-neurochemistrys-complexities/

51. Problem Solving for Self Driving Cars: a Model.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/problem-solving-for-self-driving-cars-a-model/

52. A Trio of Relationships and Connections

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/a-trio-of-relationships-connections/

53: Einstein’s Great Subtleties:  Einstein’s Edge

https://wordpress.com/post/jochesh00.wordpress.com/583

54. The Problem of Solving P not Equal to NP

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/the-problem-of-solving-p-not-equal-to-np/

55. How to Create a Blue Rose

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/how-to-create-a-blue-rose/

56. The Etymologies of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/the-etymologies-creativity/

57.  A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/a-basic-model-of-a-unifying-system-of-most-all-knowledge/

58. Understanding Psych with S/F Brain Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/understanding-psychology-with-s-f-methods/

59. The Wiggins Prime Sieve

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/the-wiggins-prime-sieve/

60. The Complex System of Love

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/the-complex-system-of-love/

61. The Limits of the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/the-limits-of-comparison-processing/

62.  The Bees, Cortical Brain Structure, Einstein’s Brain, etc.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/09/14/the-bees-cortical-brain-structures-einsteins-brain-the-flowers/

 

63. The Wiggins Prime Sieve, Version 3.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/09/15/the-wiggins-prime-sieve-version-3/

64. The Prime Quartets Method

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/prime-quartets-method-capabilities-insights-sans-limits/

65. Is Goldbach’s Conjecture True And/or False, Conditionally?

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/is-goldbachs-conjecture-true-and-or-false-conditionally/

66. The Magic of the Prime Multiples and Goldbach’s….

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/the-magic-of-the-prime-multiples-insights-into-goldbachs-conjecture/

67 The Wiggins Primes Sieve:  Cycles of 30’s in the Primes

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/the-wiggins-prime-sieve-cycles-of-30s-in-the-primes/

68. Winning at Solitaire, Basic Strategies

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/winning-at-solitaire-basic-strategies/

69, The Failures of Idealisms & Brain Hardwiring in the Sciences

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/the-failures-of-idealisms-brain-hardwiring-in-the-sciences/

70. The Break Outs: The roots of Growth & Unlimited Creativities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/the-break-outs-roots-of-growth-unlimited-creativities/

71. How to Find the MH370 Crash Site

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/the-likely-indian-ocean-so-equatorial-current-crash-sites-for-mh370/

72. Walking Shortcuts, a Cameo

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/walking-shortcuts-a-cameo-for-creating-unlimited-professional-growth/

73. Einstein’s Quotes & Neuroscientific Insights on Creativity & Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/einsteins-quotes-and-neuroscientific-insights-on-creativity-etc/

74. Towards a Model of Everything 14 Jul. 2019

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/towards-a-model-of-everything-moe/

75. Addenda: The Walkabout Article  22 Jul 2019

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/the-walkabout-article-addenda/

76. NP not = P, Second considerations

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/23/np-not-equal-to-p-2nd-considerations/

77. The Kategoria of Incompletenesses, Limits to Our Growth.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/the-kategoria-of-the-incompletenesses/

78. The Flight of Tennis Balls:   A Cameo of Creative Thinking & Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/08/15/the-flight-of-tennis-balls/

 

79. The S curves of Growth

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/the-s-curves-of-growth/

80. A New Possible Sunspot Duration Detector

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/10/07/a-new-possible-sunspot-duration-amplitude-predictor/

81. 2nd Addendum to Walking/Decision Making article.

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/2nd-addendum-partial-mathematization-of-the-walking-decision-making-article/

82. Part 2: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/an-historical-genealogy-of-tom-horn-part-2/

83.  Part 1: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/part-1-an-historical-genealogy-of-tom-horn/

Part 1: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © 2019
.
Part 1: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn
.
A Genealogical History of the Notorious Killer, Thomas (Tom) S. Horn, Jr.
.

There are two biographies of Tom Horn we may use by comparison and contrast to more fully understand the life of Horn. The first is the best and most definitive, and comes in two editions, the original by Gary D. Ball, named, “Tom Horn In Life and Legend” published. 2014, and is the Definitive, modern work on Tom Horn, by an very fine historian

.
The other in contrast is by Chip Carlson “Tom Horn: Killing Men is my Specialty”, publ. 1981. Recommended by endorsing/writing of some persons, that he “knew the most about Tom Horn.” He is not an historian, and provides most of his narrative from Tom Horn’s autobio written while in jail awaiting execution, very remote in time from the events Horn writes about. Sadly, comparing Carlson’s work with Ball’s, which military, legal, civil  records information has been there for at least 100 years is a huge contrast in scholarship, historically referenced military, and local histories with vastly more facts, and  every where best compared to that of Carlson. Nor even is his “Blood on the Moon” revision, substantially better.
.
And we can tell that by the facts. The basic point through these two Parts articles about Horn, are that for ANY biography, those cannot be complete without checking the totality of the Genealogical data and sources. Without those, a biography alone is too incomplete to be historically state of art and credible. No bio of any kind is acceptable without a very complete genealogical section which tells us where the families came from, who they were, where they lived and the other, highly formative, origins information necessary for the fullest possible understanding of the subject of the biography. IOW, without as Complete as possible genealogical information, with that left out, it’s not a very good, historical and by scholarship acceptable work.
.
First of all, Thomas S. Horn, Jr. was born traditionally on 21 Nov. 1860 near Granger, Scotland Co., MO. the 4th or 5th child of about 10-12 by Thomas S. Horn, Sr., & his lawful wife, Mary Ann Maricha Miller. There are NO known church, baptismal, or birth records even referenced to the date of his birth. He’s not found on the 1900 census, either, which often listed the month and year of birth. but his brother Charles’ date, was there, however.
.
If we are to believe Carlson, which is dubious, as he bases a huge amount not on historical records but the highly inaccurate, and highly self serving autobiography of Tom Horn, Himself. & he’s a notorious liar, as well, manifested in his killing history, drinking, and thus Sociopathic behaviors, repeatedly, very likely. Clearly, the jury never believed him, and his employers didn’t either. The immensities of false stories he wrote started when he said he left the farm forever at age 14 after being abused by both parents, physically. His mother was a kindly person, but he states she was not. His father, likely an alcoholic like Tom Jr., was the one who may have abused him. Well, he related he was driving a stage, on cattle drives, and many other tasks which are not seen with 14 year olds, nor can be. And as we read thru the details of his life in Ball, comparisons show this repeatedly.
.
So we first check the historical records. The censuses 1860, 1870 and 1880. He’s not on the 1860 census, just before the CW, because he was born months later than that. And we First find him with his parents Thomas, Sr. and Mary Ann Horn, & oldest brother Charles, who was very important to him. in 1870 & 1880, Scotland Co., MO.
.
1860 census MO, Scotland, Harrison; 25 July, near Memphis, MO
Thomas Horn, 35 OH farmer $6K
Mary Horn, 29 OH
Charles Horn, 6, MO (sic); Wm. 4, MO,
***  Nancy B. 2 MIssouri ; (she’s there!)
PG with Thos. Jr. at the time?
Because Charles was likely born in OHIO, 1852-3, then they moved to MO in 1854-5 or so. Check Charles’ place born dates 1900 census, et. seq., showed b. OHIO. Father didn’t list that Ohio birth place to hide why/from where the family left.
.
Findagrave on Charles Horn
B. 1 Jan. 1852 in Coshocton Co., OH, d. 7 Nov. 1930, Boulder, CO
Bu. Columbia Cem. Boulder, CO. (Carlson states Pioneer Cem.) & ONLY gives Charles as his brother, None of his other sibs, and NEVER his mother, and only that his father was Thomas, not Sr., Jr., or anything. Something is remiss there at once. NO other family members are EVER given. Ball does give the family data, however. and some ancestry, too.
.
1870, MO, Scotland, Harrison Tp.  dates of census, supposed to be there, not given, but usually spring to fall, rarely after October.
Thos. 45 OH, farmer,  2 K, (letters not dark enough but some readable  names, dates, with enlarging image)
Mary 39, OH
Chas. 16 (sic, b. 1852, OH), MO(sic), Nancy 12 MO  (b. 24 May 1858, MO)   (Wm. gone!)
Thos. 10 MO, so born in 1860, but not born in November, if correct, or if born in 1861, instead.
.
Martin 8 MO, (rather b.19 Nov. 1862, Cochocton, OH); Hannah 6 MO, (20 May 1865);
Benny Markley age 12, Ark. (a nephew of Mary Ann’s)
Next page, not clear: Austin 3 MO, (ca. 1866-7, definitive BD not clear) male, & Mary 1(??) (Maude Ambrosia, b. 4 Jul 1869, solid)  Missouri.
Big gaps, some kids missing? From the birth of Mary, known, July 1869, we can guess that date of the census, approx. to within 1 month. IOW, June to Aug. 1870.
.
1880, MO, Scotland, Harrison; Day/Mo. each census page, date of census page not given.
Thomas Horn 54, OH, PA/”
Mary A. 49, OH, OH/”
Mart(in) 17, MO
****Tom Horn 19 , MO; so was living there in 1880, too. and left AFTER 1880 census.
Carlson was wrong again.
Hannah 15 ; Oss (Austin) 12; Maude  (Mary Ambrosia)11 (sic); and Alice 5. all b. MO
.
There is this interesting listing in the 1880 census
1880, CO, Gunnison, Gunnison City, 12 Jun. 1880
Horn, Thom’s 19 MO (parents b. OH/OH) single, Miner, which could be him. or not.
but that’s Very far south/west, 120 miles, of Leadville, too.
.
And this:
1880, KS, Reno, Valley 3 jun.
Charles Horn 27
Elizabeth (Blattner)
Much more in Part 2.
.
1891 Canada Census, British Columbia, New Westminster
Thomas Horn b. 1825, 66, ma., US, USA/Scotland   farmer, to Canada in 1889!!
Mary A. 60 US  Baptists.
A. H. (Austin) 23; Alice 16; both b. US.
No, Austin is born ca 1868, so as the estimated surround 1867, that’s a likely birth year.
Where were Maude? others?
.
Able to locate a 1900 US, but no 1901 Canadian census on Maude, & the above disparity shows an important point, She was born in 1869. She lived most of life in Washington state, NOT with her father/mother after 1890, likely.
.
Clearly, Maude Mary A. (for Ambrosia) was born in USA, and NOT after the census, too. but we see these things all the time, Info decays in time. And she was about 100 when she died, so who knows her date and year of birth? This requires then the historically tested, Preponderance of evidence.
.
1900, WA, Pierce, Tacoma, 6 June;
Matthew O’Simpson, (sic!! Actually Matthew Oliver (O.), so the census take messed up!) b. July 1877 (1878 by  birth records, Can., thus wrong!!!!)  Ontario CAN;  parents Can. Engl,, MO/Ireland!!
Maude O’Simpson (sic) b. July 1869, MO; ma. 2 yrs. 1/1;  in US 6/12, since 1900!!!
Mary L. O’Simpson, 2 b. British Columbia b. Oct. 1898;   in US 6/12 mos, since 1900!!!
So Maude and family in BC, then moved back to Washington state, in Seattle/Tacoma
.
Now, 1910 census, US, Washington state, Kings, Seattle,. 3  20 Apr.
Matthew O. Simpson, 31, b. ca. 1879, Canada Eng., Imm. to US 1883; ma. 13 yrs.; grip man, streetcar
Maude A. 40, wife Missouri (well, 1869, poss. as was born July) ma. 13 yrs. 2/1; OH/”
Alice M. 11 Minnesota; What?
.
1920 Jan. 1920, Matt imm. 1887; Maude is 50., 1930, Apr. 24, also for Maude and Matt, but he d. in 1932.
.
Children:
Alice M Simpson was born 15 Oct.1898, Port Coquitlan (Vancouver metro), BC, and moved to Seattle in 1909.
Mary Alice Simpson  naturalized 1926 in Wash, b. 15 Oct. 1898 in Port Coquitlan, BC.
imm. from New Westminster, BC. Where her G’pa. Thos. Horn Sr. had been living, too.
.
Check 1901 Brit. Columbia census for them and the dates might be there!!! A sister, Thomasita  b. Pierce Co., Wash in 1901; likely Tacoma.
.
So after all of this, was the 1869 age wrong for Maude? & the answer is, we don’t know. but it’s easy to get bogged down in the complexities, too.
.
Where were Matt and Maude married ca. 1894-1898? This missing info is more decay of info problem. But is resolved in Part 2.
.
These disparities, cognitive dissonances, and comparison process points created are seen all the time. My ancestor was born in Westphalia 1820, and his tombstone in Lancaster showed his DOB at 1822. But the 1900 census showed he was born in the exact month and year, 1820. AND on the IGI records from Dielingen, Westphalia 1820 birth year, and that correct date of his brother, Augustus, 1824, as well. So in this case, as well as in the case of Tom Horn, whose stone showed b.1861, that info decays in time. Who’s more likely to be right? Yet again, a TD, LE principle. Those sources of info closest to the events, are likeliest. So Maude was born ca. July 1869, too. and that’s that, as well. IOW, the 1870 census, right to the month showed she was born in 1869-70, very likely. and Tom Horn was likely b. in 1860, NOT 1861, as his Columbia Cem., Boulder CO, stone showed, next to his brother, Charles, who got the body in Cheyenne after Tom was hung for murder; and had the funeral and burial there in Boulder. Otherwise he’d NOT be listed in 1860!! So he was born mid 1860, likely.
.
Next there are land records of Thomas Horn Sr., living in Ohio along the Muskingum River, which became Coshocton Co., where Thomas and Mary Ann Were married in late 1850, clearly. What then happened, and Carlson ignored that huge move to Missouri. And the move to Kansas, near Grinnel in the 1870’s, where he lost that land too. And the indebtedness from a failed investment in Coshocton, OH, mid 1850’s, which Ball very clearly details. They left Ohio in the middle of the night, to escape debtors, ending up in Scotland Co., MO, which the censuses show, as well. Still looking for KS state census records of 1875, but not listed in Kansas, however. Absence of evidence is not likely evidence for absence. Where he lived for about 2 years, with family, before moving BACK to Scotland Co., MO, by 1880. Charles stayed in KS much later, however.
.
The mid 1870’s was the time Tom Horn claimed he’d been out and about on cattle drives, stage coach work, and so forth. Which was clearly NOT the case. He was there in Scotland Co., MO with parents as shown above until at least later 1880. He was also in KS with his father &/or brother, Charles, when they moved there after 1875, only to fail and move back to Scotland Co., MO by 1880.
.
Ball wrote that Charles Horn moved to California, but no records of that, and then back to Missouri. and from there to Kansas near his father. Then from there likely to Denver/Boulder, CO where he lived and died. Indeed 2 kids born in KS, as well. so that makes sense. Land records show those movements.
.
And Carlson does NOT state why Thomas Sr. and much of his family, ever moved to, NOR ended up in the Pacific NW, either, some in Washington state, and Thos Sr. himself & Many of his many kids buried in Vancouver area, in Cloverdale, at the cemetery there, on findagrave for most of them.
.
.
This is an excellent genealogical source, which shows what’s going on. William Horn, bu. 1856, was likely born in Scotland Co., MO. and died there, consistent with the 1860, 1870 censuses from there. And immortalized the mid 1850’s move from Coshocton to avoid debtors, as likely drove his move out of the nation, to BC, Canada, from Scotland Co., MO. Carlson does NOT even touch on this VIPoint, NOR the 1880 census, NOR the move to Kansas, as Ball so well documents.
.
The state census records do not record any of those Horns in 1875 in Kansas. Altho the 1885 census likely will show something. Clearly, Thos. Horn Sr., was there  after 1875, and left Kansas to move back to MO before the 1880 census, when in MO. Charles was there for some time, however. & we know that from his daughters’ places of birth.
.
Thus the whole story about stage coach work, cattle drives, etc. occurred very likely in Kansas with Brother and family there, &/or AFTER 1880, because the military records on Tom Horn start about 1882-3 in Arizona. so his whole story about being beaten by his parents, and then leaving are likely bogus. His actual independent life history began near his age of majority about 20-21 y/o. Then he may have done the cattle drives, the stage coaching & ended up in Arizona ca. early 1880’s, as above.
.
These genealogical correctives are NOT used by Carlson, but Ball documents the extensive Military records there in Arizona, over that time from Tom Horn’s work there, which was again, highly embellished and falsified, because he failed to relate his serious problems there, as well. When working in Globe, Gila Co., now Arizona, and near the San Carlos Ind. Reservation nearby, which work records are also extent, but NOT mentioned at all by Carlson except in cursory passing. Carlson was NOT the/an expert on Tom Horn’s life. He would not do the work to find the data, which Ball showed was very clearly available at the time, too.
.
Thus Ball’s superior scholarship and military and civil records from AZ, show what likely happened, there in AZ. Horn writes he found Geronimo, was an acquaintance of the Apache chief, and then was a interpreter for him. But that’s not the case. He was in a group of men who did, but he knew no Apache and others did that work. Again, embellishments & lies.
.
He left Arizona and was in Colorado, by the early 1890’s, at which time his father had moved to escape debtors, ca. 1890, very likely from Scotland Co., MO. Debt Collectors/enforcers can’t cross international boundaries, very easily. So Thos. Sr., ran away the last time, starting in Coshocton, where his wife’s family had land, which he worked, and then lost to indebtedness. That was why Carlson never mentioned the family, because it’d have exposed the problems of the father. A sad, but true omission and why Carlson’s endorsements by many are simply not credible, either.
.
So when Tom claimed leaving Scotland Co., aged 14 in 1874 (by his lies in autobio) they were still in Granger, MO, farm area; & in actuality no evidence that he never left at all. He moved with parents to KS, near Burrton & they were there  until Thos. Sr. lost the farm again in about 2-3 years, (EtOh again?) and back to near Etna, MO, by 1880. where he’s also listed. Tom left there about 1881-2 for Leadville, CO, as his brother was in Colorado by then. & thence by 1882-3 to Globe, Gila Co., AZ territory; and also worked on San Carlos Indian reservation going by name, James M. Hicks; apparently wi. a common law Apache wife, & perhaps 2 kids. No census or other documentation of that, either. NO mention of that by Tom, either. Carlson leaves it out because it’d show Tom Horn was not a good man, and that being the case, casts serious doubts about his unsubstantiated claims that Horn was innocent of the murder for which he was hanged.
.
Tom Horn left San Carlos area, joined up with Pinkerton detective service in Denver in 1890. He likely left the same way his father, did. Got into local troubles. & Then to WY and range wars by Pinkerton sending him to Johnson Co., about 1892, and thence to of Cheyenne, and Laramie, WY, until death.
.
In the meantime he talked about his “detective work” which was in fact tracking down rustlers & eliminating them by long distance shooting. This established his bad reputation and notorieties. Eventually he killed a child, Willie Nickell, near Laramie, WY. & likely not the first, as Meldrum called him a “child killer”, too. So his lethal work for the cattle associations was a euphemism called being a “Detective”, which he was not, except when working for Pinkerton’s which stopped in 1892-3, when he apparently, voluntarily found work in Wyoming, along the same lines, with the cattlemen’s associations. He left Pinkerton’s under a cloud.
.
He’d tracked a robber to California, lost him, then robbed a casino/bank on Reno, NV. Pinkerton’s had to bail him out.
.
This is how we know what’s likely going on. Rarely with complete certainty, in historical records, or family history records, either. But we do weigh the repeating records, and find clearly the gaps and inconsistencies in those.
.
As far as Horn’s sojourns in Colorado, Ball again documents those well, and Carlson misses most of it, except to mention the Pinkerton appointment to Denver, Colorado, in 1890. He seriously messed up his detective work & altho Carlson shows a Photo of Tom at the time, states it’s Tom Horn and totally ignores the 2 other Pinkerton men, dressed  up as usual in suits, which marks them as Pinkerton Agents, BTW!!!  By ignoring and avoiding clear cut info and sources, Carlson ruins his credibility and conclusions. So, there we have it.
.
Horn said he moved to Wyoming in 1894. But the records are clear, he was there by Pinkerton records from  Denver, to Johnson Co., Range wars, in 1892, problems in which Pinkerton had a vested, fiduciary interest. Shortly thereafter, because he’d robbed a casino or some such place, in the early 1890’s in Reno, NV, while on a failed hunt for robbers, (which Carlson also ignored, for the same reasons as usual) and Pinkerton saved him from prosecutions. This all well documented by Ball.
.
Have also looked into the so called by Carlson, Tom’s “girl friend’, Glendolene Myrtle Kimmell, Fortunately for us, her name was not Mary Smith, but a very clear cut, distinctive & rare name, making her VERY easy to trace!!!  She was an interloper and her claims to have known Tom Horn were likely bogus, from which we see from the census records, as well. She investigated him AFTER the facts, and as a stenographer, was a self proclaimed writer, but not very good, either. So much of what she writes can be easily dismissed, which Carlson for some reason never mentions at all, either. Checking the census and civil records for Glendolene Kimmell reveals in the city directories of Denver, exactly when she was there, doing what & so forth. Over 100 Miles south of Cheyenne, and ever further from Laramie!!! She was NEVER a teacher at all!!! She was nothing, and much of what she stated in a “addendum” to his bio, is not from personal, accurate experience, but simply bad journalism, in which she had no training or expertize either.
.
We often call such persons Interlopers, poseurs, and opportunists. The data on the known sojourns and many, many addresses on Miss Glendolene M. Kimmell ARE very well documented in Part 2 at the end of the write up, just before the raw data section. This clearly allows us to dismiss Miss Kimmell as anything substantial, credible, or reliable regarding Tom Horn. The jury did not believe her, because she’d disappeared apparently libeling a Mr. Miller, fingering him as the man who murdered Willie Nickell. & she was not able to be found to testify, by deliberate hiding of herself, out of Wyoming for some years.
.
Just why Carlson would miss those vast, genealogical evidences & documents about Miss Glendolene, and the fact she lived with her mother, was never married, and eventually moved with Mom to California, in the LA area, near where she died some years later. All of those facts are available in Denver, at the National Archives, too, near where Carlson lived.
.
Checking the Denver City directories for the time of 1900 to ca. 1920 and the census records, reveals an astonishingly different story about Miss Kimmell. First at NO time is she ever listed as a “teacher” or anything to do with schooling. We only have HER say so she was in Wyoming. There is NO independent census evidence of that, either. While living in Denver she was a steno, a writer, or living on her own means, from 1903 to 1920. She was also listed in KC, MO, and in Hannibal (with mother), and a steno, both times. Where is the teaching?
.
Clearly, the Carlson story about he being a school marm, is simply not substantiated at all, either. Nor does she have anything but “self education” listed anywhere. Those are not the qualifications of a teacher, at all. So what’s going on with Carlson, once again? He admits Tom Horn and Miss Kimmell only met once, and then builds up this fabular story about her knowing him and he simply did not, either. And her writing in Horn’s defense, was clearly dismissed by Ball, who stated she was not believed at all. But those things get in the way of Carlson’s “Tom Horn was Innocent” agenda, which he most certainly was NOT.
.
 Those relevant omissions showed Carlson never checked much on her at all!!! The best informed of any on Tom Horn, indeed, NOT!!! Nor did Ball check on the known data, either, and sort of implies there was some kind of interaction. Possibly 1, but we have no solid evidence of even that 1, either.
.
Tom Horn  was assigned by Pinkertons in 1892 by records, up to Johnson Co.,Wyoming, where the range wars were going on at that time, in order to move out a troubling employee, giving him one last chance, which he missed, yet again. He was drinking heavily from time, to time, very clearly and that lasted until his arrest for murder of Willie Nickell in Iron Mountain, near Laramie, and held in jail without bail until his conviction and hanging in Cheyenne, WY,. and from there taken by Brother Charles to a Boulder funeral & Cemetery in Colorado.
.
Glendolene M. Kimmell had NOTHING to do with Tom Horn before the murder of Willie Nickell, and not much after, either, altho she did a very fabular “psych” assessment on him, for which she had not the slightest training, nor credibility. That is simply fiction by Carlson.
.
Once again, check the section in part 2, which is extensive on city directories, censuses, and related records on her. This shows an extremely different, documentable, large sets of information about her, totally at odds from Carlson, and not much at all mentioned by Ball, sadly.
.
Which once again proves the point. If the biographer has NOT collected and found the genealogical historical records on a person, he has NOT done a very good Biography. This alone establishes the standard of scholarship needed for most ALL bios, understanding the limits as imposed by “information is lost in time”, the universal principle of physics, called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It cannot be ignored by serious students of historical work of ANY kind, logically, empirically, historically and scientifically.

An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn, Part 2

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © 2019
.
 An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn,  Part 2
.
  This is the family of Tom Horn, as given by multiply checked and tested sources, in detail. Using this can easily show the wide variations in data, and loss of solid, reliable information about his families.
.
1st of all, Carlson is wrong & omitted way too many facts. Tom S. or H.(Hardman?). Horn Jr. was his full name, after his father, Thomas S/H. Horn, Sr. and wife, Mary Ann Maricha nee’ Miller.
He was Fourth of (11-12)  kids not 8.,
,
First, the relevant genealogies of Thomas S. Horn, Sr.
 Thomas S. Horn, b. 15 Jan. 1825, Mt. Vernon, Knox, OH (place not documented at the time, but  parents in area); d. 20 Nov. 1891, Ladner, Vancouver city, BC,  1891 Vancouver census;, bu. Surrey Center Cem., Cloverdale  (AKA Christ Church yard), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Ma. 23 Dec.1850, Coshoction Co., OH (state records)  to  Mary Ann Maricha Miller, b. 22 Jan. 1831, Mt. Vernon, Knox Co., OH;  d. 26 Nov. 1908, Surrey, Greater Vancouver, BC; bu Surrey Ctr. Cem. wi. Husband.
,
Mary Ann Miller d/o Frances Miller, 1800 to 1836, ma. to Nancy Wiggins 1801, 1853, ma. 31 May 1821, Coshocton, Co., OH.. Nancy d/o Thomas Wiggins, b. 1780, Wheeling, OH Co., WVA (now), s/o Edward Wiggins, an Irish immigrant to the US.
,
The mother of my sons was of the same Coshocton Co., OH, Wiggins family; & their Wiggins/Shoup family has an heirloom blanket from Coshocton Co., OH, as well, with Charity Coulter’s name embroidered in it. She ma. a Thos. Wiggins in Coshocton Co., OH
  Thus, by marriage I’m related to Thomas S. Horn, Sr., and my children and their 6-7 children, my grandchildren, are all blood related to Tom Horn!!!
,
Clearly, Thos. Sr.  moved to Washington about 1889, many kids stayed there, but some up to Vancouver about same year as listed on 1891, Can., BC, census, which year Thos. Sr. died there.
 & Except for Charles’ 2 daughters, putative land records, no trace of the KS sojourn after 1875, of Thos. Horn, 1825.
,
  The one last point to be made is that on the 1891 BC Canada census, Thos. Horn Sr., listed his mother born in Scotland.. Her name WAS Hannah Craig clearly Scottish, but she was born in Somerset Co., PA.. & it was her father, her Grandfather, who was b. in Ireland (Scot-Irish), NOT his mother. This did, however, get him get into Canada a lot easier, so it was not only his son who liked to twist the facts around, either.
,
Charles was b. 1 Jan. 1852, Coshocton Co., OH, d. 7 Nov. 1930, Boulder, CO; bu. Columbia Cemetery (NOT the Pioneer Cem. Carlson misnamed), in Boulder, CO.
b. supposedly in Scotland Co., MO, according to some records. But he was b. Coshocton Co., OH, where his parents moved to, as mother’s family had property there. Then moved to Scotland Co. in  extreme NE MO on Iowa border, ca. 1855, on the Wayconda River, between Etna and Granger. Memphis was the county seat, however.
,
,
Findagrave on Charles Horn
B. 1 Jan. 1852 in Coshocton Co., OH, d. 7 Nov. 1930, Boulder, CO
ma. 29 Nov. 1874, Clark Co., MO, to Eliz. Blattner , b. 1854, d. 1940
,
Thomas Horn Sr. Moved to BC from likely Seattle area, ca. 1889. To Washington state 1st, likely still running from creditors.
,
Children: 10 known, 11-12 likelyh born.
1. Charles Horn, b. 1 Jan. 1852, Coshocton, OH; d. 7 Nov. 1930, Boulder, CO ; bu. Columbia Cem., Boulder, CO
ma. as above to Eliz. Blattner, b. 21 July 1854, d. 22 Apr. 1940, bu. with Charles.
When did Charles move to CO from Scotland, MO? Nothing much in kids’ marriage dates before about 1900, so it was about that time, likely from Scotland Co., MO, when his father also left.
.
Children of Charles and Lizzie
1. Laura Horn. Meeder; B. 4 Jan. 1876, Scotland Co., MO, d. 30 Sept. 1903, Boulder, bu. Columbia Cem. Supposedly she d. in Sept. from hearing, altho she was ill, that Tom Horn was condemned to death. However, the facts are that he was condemned to death some time before his hanging. So apocryphal describes that family story.
2. Mary Ann Horn, b. 10 Sept. 1879, Reno Co., KS, d. 15 Feb. 1969, San Diego, CA, bu. Unk. Cremated. Ashes to Boulder?  Ma. 12 May 1900, Boulder Co., CO.
3. Elizabeth Horn. b. 7 Oct. 1882, Wichita, Sedgwick Co., KS, d. 1 Mar. 1973, Denver, CO, bu. in Boulder with parents.;
 Ma. 5 Feb. 1900, Girard, Crawford Co., KS, to Charles Russell,  b. 1877, a Coloradan; d. 1921, He died in Casper, WY.
Thus also documenting the move to KS by the Horn family.
.
4. Inez Nancy, b. 15 Sept. 1885, Etna, Scotland co., MO, d. 27 Aug. 1955, Boulder, bu. wi. father.
Documents the move back to Scotland Co., by Charles likely with father about same time. Ball’s info consistent with this.
 5. Lastly, Carrie (Caroline?) Alberta Horn, b. 2 Feb. 1888, Etna, Scotland, MO; d. 4 Oct. 1976, Boulder, bu. with father.
Ma. 17 June 1908, Denver part in Arapaho Co.. to Eldon Willard O’Neal, 1887 — 1960
.
1880, KS, Reno, Valley Tp. 3 Jun.; ED 300
Charles Horn 27 (1852-3), MO, OH/” stock raiser!! (raised cattle, &  hated rustlers! & did some cattle drives, too. So Tom worked with him there on cattle drives, etc.)
Eliz. 27 KY
Laura 4 b. MO; & Mary Ann 2, born KS!!!!  There by 1877-8.
& laborers Shepherd, Samuel 27 ILL, KY/”; Purdy, Wm. M. 22 Mo KY/”
Thus 6/5 children to Boulder, and there; after kids were born, so likely in KS?
.
Twin bro of Charles supposedly died young, bu.? NO known burials in Coshocton Co., or Knox Co., OH, or Scotland Co,, MO, of right age, either. Not confirmed. Age gap makes that possible.
.
2. William (Willie) Horn, 26 Mar.1856, Granger, Scotland, MO; d. 14 Jan.1864, Granger, bu. Etna Cem., MO; Documents the latest year of the move from Coshocton Co., OH, to escape debts. Est. about 1855. In the middle of the night, perhaps.
.
3. Nancy Belle Horn Adams. b. 26 May 1858, Granger, MO; d. 6 Jul 1947 Memphis, Scotland, MO; bu. Black Oak Cem. with Husband, in Granger, MO.  She did not move to Pacific NW.
Ma. 21 Dec.1875, Scotland, Co., MO. She did not move to Pacific NW.
Her obit mentions 3 sisters, Maude Simpson of Seattle, WA, Hannah Williams of Twisp, WA; and Alice (Bertha) Loney, of British Columbia.
 All kids b. in Scotland Co., MO, but Cath. V, b. Clark Co., MO, in 1884.
.
4. Thomas S. Horn Jr., b. 21 Nov. 1860 (traditional, Only. No birth records, baptisms, nor anything else to document BD), d. 20 Nov. 1903(said to be a day before his 43rd BD) Cheyenne, WY, and bu. Columbia Cem., Boulder, CO, near bro. Charles, above.
The ONLY date for his BD, was the apocryphal “story” he was executed the day before his 43rd BD. HOWEVER, Ima & Ina were ALSO born on Nov. 20, and that coincidence, is FAR too much to ignore. Esp. because of conflicting census ages from 1870 to 1880 Census Records. NONE found of him in 1900, either. 1870’s and 1880’s records in Kansas show nothing on the Horns, either, altho the 1885 is not  Ancestry found, altho it exists for LDS members.
.
5. Martin Isaac, b. 19 Nov 1862, CoShocton Co., (when mother was visiting there, by family history); d. 29 Jun. 1946, Glasgow, Valley Co., Eastern MT. Highland Cem., Glasgow, MT
Ma. 10 Jun. 1884, Granger, Scotland Co., MO.
2 kids b. Scotland, MO. 2nd wife’s son, Thomas C. Horn, b. 22 Mar. 1904, in Oklahoma! and to Boise. Thence to MT with father Martin.
.
6. Hannah May, b. 20 May 1865, Etna, Scotland, MO, d. 7 Jun. 1953, Twisp, Okanogan, WA; Bu. Beaver Creek Cem., Twisp, WA;
Ma. 17 Apr. 1884, Scotland Co., MO,  to  Wm. Allen Williams. 10 Jan. 1855 to 1933;  To Wash. Terr. in 1887  STates 1st moved to Bellingham, later 1880’s, then
Children
1. female b. 3 Feb. 1885, Harrison Tupt, MO, to Wm. A. Wms. and Hannah M Horn Wms. age 19   (May Wms. Steele ; d. 11 Sept. 1942 Tacoma, WA.
2. Bryant Wms. son, b. Nov. 1889, Washington, p. b. MO/”; d. 7 Dec.1966;  Brewster, Okanogan, WA
3. Ruth Wms. b. Jan. 1893, WA. 3/3 of mother.; d. 1979.
Bryant 1910, Silver Okanagan, age 20. (1890)
1900, b. Nov. 1889, Wash state, living Whatcom, WA.
.
1 child b. MO,  2d bom in Whatcom WA. in 1889, when they moved there; Last in Bellingham, Whatcom Co., WA, 1893.  Documents Thos. Sr. may have lived a while in Washington state, before moving to BC.
.
7. Austin H. (Oss) b. ca. 1866 to 1906,  Lost at sea, no bu.? no memorial known.
Moved to B.C. with parents in 1889, No listing in 1901 census Canada; check again.!!! or he was living in Washington State.
Ball’s records state a letter from a sister wrote that he’d died in the Bering Sea by falling in, or something. No grave or memorial known. Unclear if sailed out of Wash. State or Brit. Columbia, tho was supposedly listed there in 1898, 7 years after father died, but not documented.
There is NO body. But an A. H. Horn sailed in Jan.v1906 out of Victoria, BC, to San Francisco, was single, age 42, and occupation not legible. On the ship, Princess Beatrice.
That could easily have been him, and then disappeared in California. Escaping trouble, as his father had done so many time before, by running? And that they, if he was thought dead, would not go looking for him, as they did a number of times with his father? That’s a real possibility.
.
  ——————— After here all kids ma. in Pacific NW, as moved there ca. 1889.
.
8. Mary (Maude)  Ambrosian  Horn,  b. 4 July 1869 (by large preponderance of evidence), Granger, Scotland, MO, d.12 Nov. 1968., Seattle;  King Co., WA; bu. Surrey Ctr. Cem., Vancouver, BC
Ma. 7 Oct. 1897, New Westminster (Vancouver, BC) to Matthew Oliver Simpson, b. 13 July 1878, Armour, Parry Sound, Ontario, Canada; d. 8 Feb. 1932, Seattle, WA; bu. Surrey Ctr. Cem.  Stone stated b. 13 July 1878.
s/o Mathew Simpson and Alice Vance. of Canada with 3 kids,
Matt Oliver. Nat. in 1917, Washington state, listed wife as Maude A.!!! b. 10 July 1878!!!  Burks Falls, Can,  (Yes, that’s Perry Snd. Dist, Ontario!);
.
9. Ina Horn b. 20 Nov.1871 (near Tom’s BD!!) , Granger, Scotland, MO, d. 25 Aug. 1872, Scotland., bu. Etna Cem. Scotland, MO
10. & Ima, twin, b. same day; died, d. 3 Sept. 1872\; both bu. Etna Cem., Scotland, MO.
.
11. Bertha Alice Horn b. 24 Apr. 1875, Granger, MO, d. 10 Dec. 1971, BC, age 96. Bu . Surrey Ctr. Cem. wih parents.
Ma. 6 June 1895, age 19, both of Elgin, BC, she b. Memphis, MO; ma. N. Whatcom, Whatcom, WA, to Jas. Bennett Loney age 28, b. 17 Dec. 1865, Carleton, New Brunswick, CA; d. 31 July 1935, New Westminster, BC, Canada.
all kids b. in Vancouver Area..
Maude Ma. second to Andrew Brown.
.
Thomas S. Horn s/o Hartman Horn  b. 9 May 1794, Washington Co., near Buffalo Tp., PA, d. 6 Jun. 1874, Scotland Co., MO, bu. Etna Cem with wife, Hannah Craig Horn. Parents b. Scotland
.
.
.
whole loverly fam. tree of tom horn Sr.
note a child, infant (Horn?), d. 20 Oct. 1854, bu. Dennis Cem.
NOt listed in Dennis Cem., but likely on rolls. of DAR records.
.
So when Tom “left at 14 y/o”,  presumably 1874 (by his lies in autobio) they were still in Granger, MO farm area; & in actuality he never left at all. He moved with parents to KS, near Burrton, and were there 2 years until Thos Sr. lost the farm again and went back to near Etna, MO, by 1880. where Thos Sr. & Jr. also listed. Tom left Scotland County, about 1880 for Leadville, CO, and thence by 1882-3 to Arizona, Globe, Gila Co. and also worked on San Carlos Indian reservation going by name, James M. Hicks; perhaps wi. comm.-law Apache wife, with 2 kids.
Left San Carlos area , joined up with Pinkerton detective service in Denver in 1890. Then to WY and range wars by Pinkerton sending him in 1892 to Johnson co., WY, where the range wars were ongoing. & thence to Cheyenne, and Laramie, WY until death.
.
Likely, but not documented death of Charles’ twin bro, tho: 12 kids;   Ball AND Carlson were wrong!!!
.
Thomas S. Horn s/o Hartman Horn  b. 9 May 1794, Washington Co., near Buffalo Tp., PA, d. 6 Jun. 1874, Scotland Co., MO, bu. Etna Cem with wife
.
s/o Martin (Luther?) Horn 11 Mar. 1772 Wash co., PA  d.1856, in Knox Co., OH, bu.?;
s/o Hardtman Horn. 1747 b. VA, to 1811
ma. margaret —-, sons john hartman, martin, jacob wi. wife Hanna; raised mary meloy;
son jos., dau rosanna Gantz(ger.),
.
really detailed, but have not tested for reliability. Nothing on hannah craig’s ancestry, tho. See below for possibilities.
.
.
Hartman Horn ma. ca. 1818, to Hannah Craig (Scot name, origins)  b. 26 Sept. 1795 PA,  to 1 Oct. 1869, Knox Co., OH, bu. Dennis Cem. Knox Co.,. OH. 1869 A Horn Cemetery, there, too. no data on her parents at all.
Thos Horn Sr., misleads & stated consistently in Can censuses that he was Scot!!!
Hannah was of Scot Irish Ancestry and a number of her Craig family from Washington Co, Buffalo Tp. moved ALSO to Coshocton Co., OH, as well.
.
——————————————————————–
Data on the Interloper and NOT a “School marm”, nor teacher, at all, Glendolene Myrtle Kimmell.
.
Glendolene Myrtle Kimmel b. born on June 21, 1879 in St. Louis.;, d/o. Elijah LLoyd Kimmel
to denver in 1902 or so.;  d. 12 sept. 1949, long beach, CA, bu. Westminster mem. prk.
.
Parents elijah kimmel and FRancis asenath Pierce; bu. in Hannibal.
1940, CA. San. Louis Obispo, Atascadero tp.;  ed 40-7, 18 apr.
Glendolene M. Kimmer, 60 head, single. occupation not listed
on 300 Curbaril Ave.
lived there in 1935, too,
1930, CA san luis bispo  atascadero, 212 curbaril Ave. note actual sp.
Frances a. (asenath) Kimmel, 87, MO head  MO KY/KY
Glendolene M. kimmell 50 Missouri  dau. MO OH/KY no occupation!!!
.
1910, Co, Denver,  19th ave.
Glendolene M. kimmell, b. 1879, MO, single  Oh/mo own income
1920, CO, Denver, 18 th st.
Glndeoline m, kimmell 40 MO orchardist on fruit farm
.
1880, MO, st. louis gamble St.
Eli l. kimmell 38
Fannie (frances) 36
John kimmell 16;  Glendolene kimmell 1
Parents ma. 8 Jul. 1964, in Hannibal, MO .
.
.
1902, Glendolene Kimmell, KC, MO, Steno. Wm.. Chandler (whatever that was!)
Avoiding the Horn Trial
1904, Denver, CO, Miss G.M. Kimmell,  Stenographer, John S. Worthington Co.
1907, Ms. Glend. Kimmell, 321 n 5th, Hannibal, MO, wi. Fannie, her mother
1907 Denver,  CO, Miss Gwendolin M. Kimmell (sic) writer 330 19th ave,
1909, Hannibal MO, Miss Glendolene Kimmell, 321 N. 5th,
 with mother, Frances A. (Wid. of E. L. Kimmell)
1909 Denver, CO. Miss G. M. Kimmell, apt 4, 330 19th Ave.
1910,  Miss G. M. kimmell 330 19th ave.
next to J. O. kimmell, Motorman, tram.
1911, Denver CO., Miss G. M. Kimmell, apt. 4 330 W. 19th Ave.
1911 MO, Hannibal;  Glendolene. M. Kimmell, 321 N 5th, Stenog, wi. mother Frances, etc.
.
1912, Denver, CO apt 4, 330 W. 19th Ave, Miss G. M. Kimmell No job listed where not stated here
1913, Denver, CO Miss G. M. Kimmell,  4 300 19th Ave.
1914, Denver, CO  ditto name, ditto address
1915, Denver CO,  ” name, address
1916, Denver, CO ” name, address
1920, Denver, CO us census. She lised as “orchardist”, and not a sign of a classroom, either.
.
1903, Columbus, OH , Kimmell, Myrtle G. Stenogr. b. 1329 Dennson Ave.,
near Earl P. Kimmell, Emma p. and Mable phone operater all at 820 Kerr listed as h(ome) and Based (b)
1907, Columbus, OH, Myrtle G.Kimmell  stenogr. b. 1291, N. High (st.)
no other kimmells listed
1910, Columbus, OH, Myrtle G. Kimmell, 2097 N. High, Bkpr (Bookkeeper) listed below Chas. R. Kimmell, bkpr Chase Fdy & Mfg co. b. 2097 N. High.
Then a Chas. R. Kimmey(sic) Home 81 N. 22nd.,
1911, Columbus, OH, Myrtle G. Kimmell 6 W. 10th, Stenographer
wi. Kimmell, Ray, Bkpr, 6 W. 10th. Ave; !!!
1910, OH, Franklin, Col’s 2079 High St. 28 apr.
Kimmell, Charles R. 23, OH, oh/” single; secretary, Case Foundry Co.
Myrtle G. sister 30  (same age as Glendolene!) single, Stenographer, State Collector?
1931, Phoenix, AZ Myrtle Kimmel steno h. 1224 Bellview;
.
Censuses Listed in 1910 in Hannibal, MO, and Denver
Listed in 1920 in Denver
Listed in 1930 and 1940 in Atascadero. Likely via Phx went to Cali with mother, Frances, in the later 1920’s.
.
California voter reg
1932 & 1934, California, San Luis OBispo, Atascadero, Miss. Glend. M. kimmell, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, CA, Dem, a housekeeper. with mother.
1944, Miss Glendolene Kimmell, SLO, Atascadero Rte. 1, Dem, houskeepr
.
Glendolene is also listed ca. 1930  in Phx 2-3 times, too.
.
No documentation of teacher training, and self educated, only. Story about “School Marm” was simply fiction as not substantiated at all by available records. & is simply hearsay, the last nail in the coffin, of supposed bio by Carlson.
————————————————————————————–
This is the raw data, which did not want lost. It’s not in organized style nor form, but is here for perusal and where most of Part 1 and Part 2 came from.
OHio data.
thomas horn Ma. 23 Dec.1850, Coshocton co., OH, to mary Ann M. Miller.
BC data canada, thomas horn b. 1825, US, d. 20 Nov. 1891, Vancouver BC
1834 perry co. ohio tax records
Noah, Moses, Stephen, and Thos. horn listed!!!!
and just above and out of sequence, Howell Stephen!!! so thos Stephen horn was his name?
.
1850, Census,  OH, Knox, Jackson; 16 sept.
hardman horn 60 PA
Hannah 63 VA
**Thos. 24 OH; Eliz. 20; Hetta 18; Arzina  L. 16;
 malina 11; Fretina (Ernestina) 7, female ;  where these 3 from?  Nieces or grand kids?
Alexander 5, all b. OH., to whom? Hannah was too old!!!
Prev. pages is son,, Martin Horn. 14 sept. 1850
Martin Horn 39, Pa, farmer  $600
Drusilla 33 OH
Margaret 15; nancy 11; Aaron 9; Isaac Martin 7; amos 4, James K.
Martin horn b. 1811 PA, lived in Harrison tp. Scotland, MO, in 1870
tree on martin horn  b. 1811 Wash co., PA d. 1896, etna, Clark MO
Ma. 6 Apr. 1837, to Drusilla Melick 1817-1872
.
1860, OH, knox, jackson, Newcastle
Hartman horn 66, PA
Hanna horn 68 PA
Hetty horn 11
adolph connaway, 17
.
1860 census MO, Scotland, Harrison to.; 25 July, near Memphis, MO
Thomas Horn, 35 OH farmer $6K
Mary horn, 29 OH
Charles horn, 6, MO (sic); Wm. 4, MO,
*** Nancy B. 2 MIssouri ; (she’s there!)
PG with Thos. Jr. at the time if b. in 1860, or early 1861.
because Charles was born in OHIO, 1852-3, then they moved to MO in 1854-5 or so. Check Charles place born dates 1900 census, et. seq..
.
1870, MO, Scotland, Harrison tp.  dates of census taken not given but usually summer to fall, rarely after October.
Thos. 45 OH, farmer, farmer 2 K, not dark enough but readable of names, dates
Mary 39, OH
Chas. 16, MO(sic), Nancy 12 MO   (wm. gone!)
Thos. 10 MO, so born in 1860-
Martin 8; hannah 6; austin 3 male And mary 1 MO.
big gap, some kids missing?
.
1880, MO, Scotland, Harrison
Thomas Horn 54, OH, PA/”
Mary A. 49, OH, OH/”
Mart (in) 17
****Tom Horn 19 , MO; so was living there in 1880, too. and ran away AFTER 1880 census.
Carlson was wrong again.
Hannah 15;  Oss (Austin) 12; Maude 11; and Alice 5. all b. MO
.
1891, Can census  New Westminster, BC; 23 may 1891, 2 dist.
Thomas horn b. 1825, 66, ma., US, USA/Scotland ;   farmer, to Canada in 1889!!
mary a. 60 US  Baptists.
A. H. (Austin) 23; Alice 16
.
1901, Can census New westminster, BC; Delta area.
James b. Laney (sic Loney) 35 b. 17 dec. 1865, Ontario. Irish, Can, Ch. of England;
Bertha A. 25 US
Violet M. 5; john s. 3
Mary A. Horn 70 US  wid., b. 22 Jan. 1831; US, Imm. to Can. 1889!!!!
Xtian, g’mother
all kids b. in BC.
James B. Loney ma. 8 mar. 1895, N. What com, Washington state, US, to Bertha Alice Horn.
aft. bn. Carlton, NB, Can.
Bertha Alice b. 24 Apr. 1875, Granger (Memphis Co. seat), Scotland. MO
d. 10 Dec. 1971, BC; bu. surrey ctr. cem. Cloverdale.
ma. 1st  6 Mar. 1895, N. Whatcom, Whatcom Co, WA, both living in Elgin BC, near Vancouverr, to Jame Bennett Loney d. 31 jul12 1935, and next  ma. to Robert Andrew Brown.
————————————–
1900, CO, Boulder , boulder;  enum. distr 161, 16 June.
Horn, Charles b. Jan. 1850, very clear, 50  (not true); MO PA/OH, also fa. b. OH
driver for grocery ma. ca. 1875 in MO, clearly
Elizabeth July 1855, 45 6/5, KY Ger/”
Inez sept 1884 MO; Carrie A. (caroline) Feb. 1888.
.
1880, KS, Reno, Valley tp. 3 jun.; ED 300
Charles Horn 27 (1852-3), MO stock raiser!! raised cattle, and hated rustlers!
Eliz. 27 Ky
Laura 4 MO; & Mary Ann 2.born KS!!!!
and laborers Shepherd, Samuel 27 ill, KY/”;;; Purdy, Wm. M. 22 Mo KY/”
so 6/5 in Boulder, and there; after kids were born, so likely in KS?
where other living 3 kids?
KS 1885 census or in 1895? back to Mo. by 1885, or earlier.
no evidence on Ks state cens but 1885 not available tho extent.
wife, Eliz. blattner horn, b. 1854, d. 1940
.
1910, Colorado census wrote Chas. was b. in Ohio, which is a first. came after Tom’s death, someone told him?, 1930, consistently after that. also mom from VA, too.
teamster for brewery co., likely Coors?
on charles Horn. b 1 jan. 1852, coshocton, OH (presumed), 1 year after parents ma, BTW in later dec. 1850, so fits.
d. 7 nov. 1930, Boulder, bu. columbia cem.
ma. 29 Nov. 1874, Clark Co., MO, to Elizabeth (Lizzie). Blattner, b. 21 jul 1854, Alexandr, campbell co., KY
d. 22 apr. 1940, Boulder, b. columbia cem. wtih bro.
d/o Henry blaettner, 1822 to 1895, and Eleonora MIller 1824 to 1901.
So another MIller connection!!!
.
1. Laura horn meeder, b. 4 jan. 1876 in Scotland, MD. d. 20 sept 1903 in boulder, bu columbia; she was ill,
2.Mary Ann Horn crandall , b. 1879, Reno co., KS, , d. 15 feb. 1969, San Diego CA, ashes unk.
3. Eliz. horn russell b. 7 oct. 1882, Wichita, KS, d. 15 mar. 1973, Denver, Co, bu. columbia cem.
4. Inze nancy horn johnson b. 15 sept. 1885, Etna, scotland, MO; d. 17 aug. 1955, bu. boulder with sibs.
5. Carrie A. horn O’Neal b. 2 feb. 1888, etna Scotland MO; d. boudler,  bu. columbia
so some time after 1888 moved to colorado!!!
Listed in CW records for 1862 from MO.
no btm of page trees for thos, horn.
This is a huge, very detailed genealogy as above and needs to be added to the above records.
1850, PA, Wash co., buffalo tp. where the horns once were
18 sept.
hugh craig. 55 PA
Hannah L. 55 PA
Margaret a. 24; Hugh m. 20; Jos. f. 17; Wm. b. 16; Hannah jr. 14
Thomas b. 10,
Alexander R. Craig. 22
Sarah g. 20
Martha Craig 78 mother ireland NOT scot, either!!!
Anna Craig 33, likely sister. PA,
1840, PA wahsington, buff tp.
next to hugh craig age 40-50, and that’s him, too.
Martha Craig age 60-70 which was 1770-1779 and that’s her and wid.
fdinagrave. hugh craig b. 5 mar. 1789, d. 13 nov. 1832, claysville cem., wash. co., PA
Martha craig, w/o hugh craig live from 1762 to 1814, sh d. 15 junl 1852, and was about 80,
bu. s. buff cem., in claysville, Wash. co., PA
Husband was Pvt. Alexander Craig bu. same place. rev. war?
.b.  1762;  d,. 12 apr. 1814; son elezer craig. 1811 to 1863.
All those Alexanders the case, this was Hannah’s bro and parents, likely.
Comment by Dana Kelly on December 31, 2013 at 2:22pm

I am looking for any information on Martha Kerr. She married Alexander Craig and they settled in Washington Co., PA. I found some information that suggested that the Kerr and Craig families came to America on the same ship. They both came from County Down, Ireland. Martha was born 1772 and died 15 Jan 1852 in Buffalo, Washington County, PA. Alexander was born in 1759 and died 17 Aug 1811 Buffalo, Washington County, PA. I have a letter written by their grandson, John Henderson Craig, to his sister, Martha (Craig) Darby, wife of John Wesley Darby. He is the son of Hugh Craig and Hannah Henderson. It mentions relatives…Aunt Henderson, Wesley, Alexander, Squire McLain, Hugh, Uncle James, Seth, Uncle Thomas, Aunt Drusilla

btm. of page is this.
John Craig b. 1762 Londonderry, Ireland
Migrated to USA about 1778
Married Mary Patterson about 1782 Washington County, PA
Died 1824 Clark Township, Coshocton County, OH !!!!!!
Son William Craig born 1785 Washington County, PA
Married Margaret Davidson 1805 Jefferson County, OH
Died 1853 Clark Township, Coshocton County, OH    !!!!!!

2nd Addendum:  Partial Mathematization of the Walking Decision Making Article

2nd Addendum:  Partial Mathematization of the Walking Decision Making Article
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © 2019
.
.
The method of Hypotenuses for walking can be partly mathematized. It’s still Cx Sys, so it cannot be completely expressed due to the complexity of options & interacting choices. It’s based upon the short cut method of taking the hypotenuse instead of a 90 deg. angle. The shortest distance between 2 points, IOW. And that is least energy, least distance and often least time, relatively to walking the two legs of the 90 deg. angle method.  As we cannot buy time, the shortest distance/time often gives savings when walking. It depends on the routes, however. It’s complex system because it’s distance saved, energy thus saved, and often time saved. Walking on firm surfaces is faster, & takes less energy than walking on sand, or a grassy area, most cases. So while the distance is shorter, the time is longer. But it depends upon outcomes, largely, which cut through the Cx Sys and gives solutions to those highly complex problems.
.
Now, the method of longest hypotenuses gives us a basic way round all of this. For instance if walking from place to place, often we see (& easily show, mathematically) that a near 45 deg. hypotenuse is shorter/Shortest possible choice, than walking to the corner, then left or right. We short cut, that is, Least Energy (LE) routes the distance. IFF other factors are equal, then taking shorter distances also saves time, AND energy. But being the complex of the n=/>3, it’s complex system. However, it can be partly mathematized using the method of hypotenuses, as referred to, but not developed in the walking article or the First Addendum.
.
.
Clearly, the longest hypotenuse of 45 deg. is the best approach, or in many cases, the least time, energy, distance altogether. Let’s think about what happens when we walk a 45 deg. isosceles right triangle. This hypotenuse is clearly the shortest possible distance, and the greatest savings to walk a hypotenuse for obvious reasons. If we make one leg shorter, then the other is longer and vice versa. and it’s clear walking the longer hypotenuse loses distance because if we take it out to nearly the length of the other side, the short leg gets shorter and shorter and thus the hypotenuse length approximates that of the most distance, time, LE.  So the 45 degree right triangle with the two legs being equal then the maximum distance between two point along the hypotenuse is saved, about 30% of the total of doing the two 90 deg. legs. If we test a 3, 4, 5 right triangle, we find a savings of only 28% so it’s clear the more the angles differ from 45 deg. the less distance is saved.
.
Thus when we go to cross a distance we do so at a 45 deg. angle from the exit of the 1 leg on the hypotenuse to the entry of the 2nd leg’s end.
.
A simple mathematical analysis of this geometry shows why this is the case, AND why the longest hypotenuse, 45 degree short cut is the best, AKA shortest, least time, least energy. Short cuts are simply another of the big Kategoria of least distance, being the best, because it also give least energy and least time, too, other factors being equal.
.
Now, we note that if we take sides of 1 next to the right angle, we have the right triangle rule, that the hypotenuse is the square root of the sums of the other two sides, which is 2 & a hypotenuse of 1.414. Thus if we walk the two legs we have walked 2 units. If we walk the hypotenuse we have saved 2 minus 1.414, or 0.586 units. If this is a mile it’s a lot of time, distance saved, is not thus the minimum % distance which can be saved being 0.586/2 or very close to 30%. or about 30% of a mile!!
.
However, what is the maximum % distance that can be saved when using the hypotenuse? And this is the key here. When the hypotenuse is nearly the length of the longest side, what’s saved is very close to, only the width of that short side. & that is just a NOT shorter to the lengths of the distance of the longest side, if a 45 deg. triangle. So if we want to save the most distance, time, LE, we take the Longest hypotenuse, all other walking conditions/factors being equal. That can be figured out exactly, idealistically, but not empirically, creating close approximations, but not exactly, using trigonometry. and won’t go into that, here.
.
Further to extend and summarize:
.
 It turns out this method is complex system. The most savings is in the 45 deg. isosceles right triangle. However, that choice/option is not always there. IN those cases we take as close to that as we can, but also the Long rectangles we must use as the only options. Thus we do those knowing we save only the length of the shorter side. So we prefer the wide isosceles triangle hypotenuse, and walk at a 45 deg angle to the entry and exits when we can. Thus there is NO ideal solution because we cannot walk straight lines ideally and the math does NOT apply at all, but as approximations.
.
“Beyond the absolute”, AKA, understanding the limits of the idealisms in our words &  descriptions, And our maths & measurements of all sorts!!!
.

A New Possible, Sunspot Duration/Amplitude Predictor 

 

By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © October 2019
.
A New Possible, Sunspot Duration Predictor

https://old.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/ddpfgu/something_very_important_now_visible_in_the/f2m62fs/?st=k1dxl6ji&sh=5ffe0550

First of all, go to SILSO, and look at the Central chart labelled on the Home page: “Sunspot number series: latest update”.

Now enlarge the image by clicking on it, then compare and contrast the current sunspot cycle minimum, which is VERY clearly now reaching a minimum, to the one in the 2008-2010 interval at the end of cycle 23.

If we subtract out the 10-30 SN number from the current data, to make it close to the historical, visible sunspot data, we see that the current sunspot minimum has been going on since about 2-3 months around 1 Jan. 2018.

Now, and this is the critical comparison which creates the interesting new information. If we measure out in time around the Jan. 2008 time, as the time when the minimum of cycle 23 began, and compare that to when it began to rise out of the minimum, when the current cycle 24 began, Make a visual inspection.

TWO years later, almost exactly, Cycle 24 had begun, Clearly.

NOW, here’s the juicy part. Add those SAME two years to the current end, minimum of cycle 24, and we get about 3 months more, until cycle #25 should begin. IFF, likely, it’s the same intensity as cycle 24.

And that’s interesting because of a simple, single point made. They are predicting and continuing to predict it will come out every time, earlier on the upper red dashed curve, and then moving that further out in time, when it’s clearly wrong and delayed. Thus playing both ends.

So, we have this conundrum. We should see by the End of 2019, and by early 2020, if the two cycles (24 & 25) are the same, as is being predicted by many models, then cycle 25 needs to start there, at. least within a few month of that time.

NOW, comes the cool finding. IF the sunspot cycles, substantially, we see a much longer gap between them from 24 to 25, compared to cycle 23 & 24. And if we see a further lengthening time, before cycle 25, then it means that cycle 25 maxima are likely to be shorter, And of lower amplitude.

This means, clearly, that if by spring 2020, that Cycle 25 has NOT begun, that it will likely be of less intensity than cycle 24, AND the earth will cool.

Strictly, however, but without this key insights of comparing cycle intensities, minima lengths & sizes with the size of the minima gaps, we can predict more likelihood what the cycles will rise to. It takes ca. 3 years into a new cycle to get a 95% likelihood what the peak length& intensity of a cycle is, using current, traditional methods & predictors.

However, this method, if valid, will give a value much, much faster than that. And if Cycle 25 is delayed to Fall, as some models predict, then cycle 25 will likely be much smaller than 24.

And THAT dear friends, means cooler weather in the coming years, and Zharkova was right. Years before it can be found by averaging methods NOT yet applied scientifically nor confirmed for a declining sunspot cycle. The two methods are NOT strictly applicable:  Rising sunspot cycles & failing, Falling cycles.

This is what’s going on. We might well know there’s cooling coming, therefore, within a 6-12 mos. time, well before the usual stats.

.

I apology for the detail in all of this. But it’s important to make the case, logically, evidentiarily, and clearly.

We will know by mid summer to fall of 2020 if the Cycle 25 will be Significantly weaker than 24, likely.

Just in time for the election, too!!!

.

Time will tell if this hypothesis is correct.

The S-Curves of Growth

 

The S-Curves of Growth; A “Vade Mecum” of Complex Systems
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © September 2019
.
“Almost anything which jogs us out of our current abstractions, is a good thing.” –Alfred Whitehead
.
“Any society, (or group in a society) which cannot Break Out of its current abstractions, after a limited period of growth, is doomed to stagnation.” (verbal description of the S-curve)  –Whitehead
.
“I hold that a little rebellion now and then to be a good thing.”  –Pres. Thos. Jefferson
.
“QM is not wrong, but it IS Incomplete.”  –Albert Einstein.
.
“Calling the universe non-linear is like calling biology the study of all Non-elephants.”  —Stan Ulam, the founder of complex system studies.
.
“Mathematics must greatly advance before it can describe complex systems. ”  –Ulam
.
“Most Every method/tool has its definable Capabilities & Limits ” & “It’s a good craftsman who knows his tools.”
.
“The World is NOT my Idea!!”  The fallacy of idealisms refuted.
.
 “The Word is Not the Thing.” –Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics
.
The differences, largely between professionals and amateurs is neatly summed up by CP of the efficiencies of their work. Those efficiencies drive the growth. And figuring out which methods create the best growth in all of its aspects, gives a good outcome. & often we cannot calculate the outcomes, but we DO test them. &  that can give us the info we need to decide which methods are the best in most cases.
.
The brain is uniquely designed and developed and can be trained up to do exactly that. Thus solving a Cx Sys question, where math and logics and other related methods, cannot go or grow.
.
From the simple comment above by Whitehead, Growth, and then stagnation, we can see the verbal origins of the practical empirical application of the “S-curves” to understanding Complex systems (Cx Sys, acronyms & contractions are linguistic, LE devices!) much more detailedly. In fact, very likely nearly universally describe & apply to the growth, which can take place in such new, efficient, growth creating emergent inventions, ideas, devices, tools, methods, skill sets, techniques & technologies. The whole rich panoply of  CxSys  seen with the understanding, analogy and methods, techniques & technologies Kategoria of Aristoteles. The Synonymics and the larger related phrases groups, too. And those form the bases of our richer hierarchies of our organized understandings, in most all fields.
.
This details the Complex System (Cx Sys) S-curves of growth and where those occur, virtually without limits in our universe of events. And this is, in part, how to mathematize them, as well.
.
 Addendum: The  S-curve application to Moore’s Law
.
One of The most important and totally unrecognized S-curve is Moore’s Law for silicon computer chip growth. This empirical finding/event is the linchpin in showing the huge value of the S-curves seen in Cx sys.
.
For many years the doubling time of each new generation of Si chips in speed and decreasing size was 2 years. But that is constrained by the S-curve for TWO huge reasons. First of all, any innovation has its capabilities AND its limits, and that’s what creates the S-curve. The new efficiencies, least energy driven, create the exponential growth seen in Si chip technology. But the limits then begin to hit, and the growth at the mathematical flexion point of diminishing returns begins. That was first manifested by the increasing cost of each new chip, which was moving rapidly towards an asymptote at the top of the S-curve. The next major limits to growth were that as the transistors got smaller & smaller, the quantum leakage at about 4-8 nm size would become so serious, the new chips would not function. There are others such as increased heating and so forth, but both those have hit. S-curve limits struck Moore’s Law very clearly right at the Fab 40 time, and the effects came out very much later than expected, thus signaling, clearly that the S-curve of Si chip growth was active. & the increased costs & time to manufacture upwards of $billions in costs and years of work, had come. Moore’s Law Failed, & that HAS been clearly shown in the last few years. AND it was the S-curve of growth in action.
.
Thus proving once again, Whitehead’s deep insights. “That society (or group) which cannot break OUT of its current abstractions (methods/techniques, technologies) after a limited period of growth (the expon growth of Si chips), is doomed to stagnation.” And that has now occurred. The S-curve with a vengeance, and very, very clearly seen and very much ignored, too. Whitehead’s insight from 100 years ago, still applies today because it’s a nearly universal characteristic, as well.
.
Thus the power of the S-curves to predict the limits to growth (Herman Kahn) once more arose and was entirely predictable by plotting the growth of the chips’ sales and use, versus time. And we are NOW at the top of the Si chip S-curve & it’s flattening out against the NEXT exponential barrier as clearly seen many years ago in my models.
.
Thus, where from here? And the answers are many. Josephson circuits (JC) are the next possible solution much, much easier than quantum computers. And if want to sort out the complexities of the QC, we MUST have a JC computer to do that for us. Then we can make the QC many millions of times faster with less work, as well as explore the nearly unlimited capabilities and speeds of the JC computer, too. When that JC reaches its S-curve limits, presaged at the Flexion point of diminishing returns, then it marks the time to double down and create the QC a lot faster. The same HTSC’s we can use for the JC WILL work on the QC, as well!!!
.
Trying to get ahead too fast, is the problem. Can’t run before we can safely walk. is the epigram here. The temps of the Superconductors are the problem. HTSC’s work and can be used to make the JC computer, But, and this is the case, what is the limit to SC temps, if any? That key detail and model hasn’t been clearly discovered nor found out. But it’s easily amenable to combinatorial chemistry methods and work, too. Again, we use empirical outcomes work (& Structure/Function relationships) to create our models of how events work. As has also been addressed in my work, too, regarding how to eliminate most all antibiotic resistances by the microbes for the foreseeable future. Which key insight and connections have ALSO been missed by the old boys.
.
And so the expon bars hit once again with their asymptotic limits because the nature of events in our universe re’ the S-curves, creating creativity and so forth have NOT been widely figured out, AND understood, tho the answers ARE there!!!
.
Read more about those pesky exponential barriers: sections 7 down thru 11. And what they mean in terms of how those very likely arise.
.
.

 

This is a continuation of the theme in the MOE article which is needed to show in much fuller detail and instances how growth occurs mostly via S-curves and why those can be of such great value.

.
MOE here:

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/towards-a-model-of-everything-moe/

.
And we connect the S-curve as well to the capabilities and limits of growth. Nothing works forever. No tool can do it all. We use a full toolbox of such methods, both in terms of professional skill sets plus the devices, instruments and other methods we use to get our work done efficiently.
.
The VIPoint is that the growth is derived from Least Energy effects, which can be estimated if not measured by comparison processes (CP). Our brains do this automatically when they describe events using words. They choose the best, most detailed and accurate words to as precisely as possible define an “event” when trying to communicate that to others, or in writing or problem solving. If we cannot with the first try, we try it again. “Play it Again, Sam.” of Trial & Error sorting methods, writ large. We have an entire Kategoria of Aristoteles to do that, in fact.
.
The point is, that each method to be tried can be given a comparative efficiency rating. Does it do the job in the shortest time, the least cost, the least materials, all of the major aspects of the  Cx Sys of the 2nd Law? But some of those do combine, and in many cases, such as time savings using a least distance, least energy methods, it sums it all up. but is not intrinsically complete. Thus we must at time check the whole Cx Sys. of the 2nd Law to be sure. There is no math at present which can sum up those complexities. It must greatly advance to do that.
.
AND because there are multiplicit factors, the S-curves are, if used in tandem with outcomes studies, more completely describe such growth.
.
.
Now the warning by Ulam comes into effect. We can ONLY piecemeal, but not all at once use math to tell us HOW much that figures it. Math has to do all the pieces of it, individually, and that’s the problem with using a math to figure CxSys, which we do not have. Maths do NOT sum up all of the distances, times, LE, cost, least materials, etc., at all. Only word descriptions can do that. Thus we estimate the outcomes, whenever we do anything practically all day long. We pace off the distance. We get an approximate time by comparing to a watch. We derive an answer as to what we think is likely to be correct. It’s NOT scientific, and it often does NOT measure precisely, but we have no time to DO ALL of That!!  Thus both the maths and the sciences fail us, daily, practically. We can’t make our day to day decisions based upon scientific, peer reviewed studies!!! Nor can we ever do so. This is how, empirically, introspectively we get about, day to day, very likely.
.
Walking cameo article here:
.
.
This is a major problem in current science. Therefore we use this simple, LE guide. How far does it appear to be? How heavy, how long does it take & so forth? Thus are the practical rules created by LE rules, which guide us in all day long in this. This is Personal Knowledge, and it works. Carpenters use their highly efficient “eyeballing methods” all the time to save time in measuring. And they are pretty good at that. That also, specially exemplifies the difference, yet again between a professional & amateur.
.
When once read a lovely book on Arkle, the great UK racehorse, did the horse trainers scientifically verify all of those details about raising the horses? Of course not, but they knew HOW to optimize the outcomes of the training. No science. And this is the point. Despite that they reached the ability to ID and train very good horses to do the job. Now, HOW? Personal knowledge methods work!!! And we solve that Herein, by showing what each specific details of the skills they used to do the job. But the point is, it’s CxSys. There are so many factors to be considered, the math fails us when N=/>3. Thus we use the methods of Ulam, find the repeating stabilities in the CxSys, and then understand those. And the Monte Carlo method is very practical, empirically based and guided, because it takes such findings, and using those empirical standards, & explains it better. We look at OUTCOMES to solve the N=/>3 complexities, very likely, day to day, hour to hour.
.
But look, for each part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics CxSys, we must do math for the length, distance, time, weight, cost, etc. savings. The math cannot treat it as a complex whole, just do it piecemeal. Thus as Ulam stated, it must advance greatly if it is to describe the aspects of the Kategoria. That’s one of many unsolved problems, but a major one.
.
Then in the same way we can create a driverless car which will work.
.
.
The S-curves are figured out in the brain by estimation. They see the OUTCOMES of multiple trials, as do the bees in finding the traveling salesman solution of nectar/pollen collections. They do NOT use math, but None the less create a sort of 75% solution of theoretical optimum, how to do that.
.
This is further explicated in
.
.
A short cut by walking is a LE path, clearly. We have LOTS of names for those, which can fit each of them into a Kategoria of Aristoteles. And by doing so can find a practical way to solving the problems.
.
The S-curve method, however, CAN solve this more directly, as well. and for this reason. It can give an estimation of the two factors, the markets, emotional, Dopamine drive, AND the estimated LE, CxSys energy savings. The two together will create a number which can effectively as possible estimate the slope upwards of the S-curve if the product is used. Initially, there will not be a lot of data on those. but over time, a large build up of information from which patterns can be found to make the system ever more reliable and approach high levels of utility and reliabilities.
.
This is what the S-curve approach can give. Is the product marketable and efficient? Or the one or the other? Clearly if money can be made because it’s mostly driven by emotions, the meme (R. Dawson) spreads over time, thus fads and Fashions, then it can be estimated with that alone. But fads and fashions do NOT endure because they are most of the times, NOT LE efficient. Durable goods ARE, however. And that creates their persistences, & stabilities, where fads and fashions fail. Thus we see that LE also describes very well the difference between quality and value and durability versus, and “this too shall pass” of fads/fashions. Amazingly fruitful and explanatory!!!
.
“The Spark of Life & Soul of Wit” article here:
.
.
 But for durable goods, it must ALSO give a solid, LE advantage over the competition. Because people can tell which methods and technologies work better by their estimates, as well, over time. The brain is very good at doing what math cannot. Solving Cx Sys, multifactorial questions by comparing outcomes. They can be very good shoppers (CP most all!!), comparing goods for the most durable, the least cost and best values for the money, etc. By the above outcome estimators built into the brain. That sums up the many factors and makes a decision . That then is how it’s done. We must do the work. It’s not magic, but it can very likely provide may good answers as to whether a device, tool, fad/fashion will work or not.
.
Steve Jobs was very good at this. So are the Japanese with cars. They make the cars Fun to drive, by the steering, so it sells better. That emotionality is a big factor which has made them a lot of money, PLUS the clearly found quality of manufacture, which US autos could not at first make, either.
.
& for years, Mercedes Benz relied upon the brute force approach of needing high maintenance, for their quality upkeep. When in fact, Precision engineering by the Japanese(Nihon) made the Deutsch cars obsolete, too. So they had to build precision engineering to SAVE the maintenance costs which gave them lots of income, in order not to lose sales and money, market share. This is yet another huge example of efficiencies driving the markets, by competition. Who wanted to pay those huge maintenance bills with Mercedes and the others? When the Lexis had very high quality, low maintenance, and would last 100K’s of miles, too.
.
There are many, many factors involved. And for N=/>3, there is NO mathematical way to be sure of those outcomes. This is why computers are used to build cars, because those can efficiently and more quickly than humans integrate by massive sorting, CxSys designs. It must be empirically tested. And that means, IOW, Steve Jobs was good at doing that, both combining utility AND fun in using, which created the hugest successes of any company and any line, the Apple Inc. and the I-phone. How did he do it?
.
Very simply he combined the marketing astutely with the quality of product. No machine, nor math, nor computer can do that. He built then, too, product loyalty. Those are the facts which need to be stated. If we had, as Ulam stated, an advanced mathematics which could, then it’s likely it’d work as well as Jobs, or Iacoca of Chrysler, too. And that’s the magic of Feynman’s diagrams as well. Those quickly did a lot with a little, a few minutes compared to 2 weeks of computations, by hand.
.
The S-curves of growth then give us the means to analyze each product, and by testing in the markets, find out what will work/sell and what will not, because that real S-curve shows us the combo of emotional/marketing factors and quality of product in most cases. The Hula hoops versus the Nissan models, for instance. The first is simply fads/fashions, which have a real place in sales. And the high quality of performance of the Zee cars, which gave them the growth curve and income to become a large company, as well. Toyota has less of the quality but they are still the world’s largest car maker, for those reasons.
.
&  that is the value of the S-curves, too. The more successful a product is, (or a movie) see
.
.
the faster the growth. And the higher the slope of the S-curve, too.
.
Just compare the successes of Spielberg financially by sales, with his competitors. Who made the most money and why? He, as a professional, but not scientifically, figured it out, just like all the other professionals. Math and science were not needed, as in most cases of professional skills and successes, either.
.
That is Polanyi’s “Personal Knowledge” writ large, as well.
.
The S-curve can be created by taking the quarterly profits of Apple, and factoring in the I-phone sales, and then seeing the growth curve, as it speeds up and then reaches very high values, and then finally as at present slows down well past the flexion point of diminishing returns of the S-curve. Apple’s sales and so forth have now reached the S-curve limits to growth. & only Jobs could jump start that Next technology which would create such growth in Apple’s sales, again.
.
A similar pattern can be done with the quarterly growth of the Chinese economy, or that of India, as well. This will give an efficiency model, which the rate of growth increase corresponds to an efficient level combining market value and actual improvements in efficiencies.
.
That’s how it’s done. and the S-curves can be easily adjusted for the estimated slopes/efficiencies rates. Thus if we see a standardized series of curves, from the sales, we can estimate the future growth AND when it will begin to decline. Not exactly, but far, far more than if not. Esp. by simply guessing. this is empirical, scientific testing of the markets, in short.
.
The same curve can be done with the Mustang, the Chrysler SUV, and that of the others, too. Those will grow and then decline in growth rate, and from the outcomes of those, the future sales/profits and long terms sales can be predicted, too.
.
In fact, this is a method of the “Study of History” and Asimov’s Psychohistory in short. The S-curves of growth will tell us what will emerge and become of long term value and what will not. It can predict, detect and foresee emergent systems by their efficiencies which will drive unexpected growths, & which can be developed. The efficiencies of those growth curves are directly proportional to the slope of the growth. the higher the growth, the greater the slope towards vertical. Recall, that it’s almost always (fast immer) the emergence of growth in Cx Sys which makes them unpredictable as to outcome. S-curves evaluations CAN substantially take care of those emergent growth events, by showing they are likely due to LE, S-curves yielding very likely growth.
.
This also applies to the weather, which is full of growth events, like storms, cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards, monsoons and much else. S-curves can be constructed much, much more efficiently to predict those events, which start out not predictably and then grow to highly important outcomes. Indeed, most all Cx Sys can be predicted to some extent, this way. The problems of CxSys & predictability are that of Growth, S-curves embedded in the processes. Once we can see what will likely grow as an S-curve, then it becomes lots more predictable, as well. That is the promise of S-curve mathematics, in short.
.
And the stabilities of the genomes are the same. Why do some species last a very long time in the earth records, such as Limulus, Lingula and the Sequoias & the extraordinary, blue green algae Stromatolites, which have endured for 3-3.5 gigayears? Those are very LE and thus very stable. Having survived that long it’s NOT just chance, and so forth. But real, basic efficiencies, highly built in and identifiable if we but know and can and will look for them. Durability and stablities of genetics is LE efficiencies, clearly, and writ VERY largely.
.
This weighs in heavily and decisively in our own species individual and species longevities. Those whose S/F are highly efficient will live a lot longer. Those species which are very efficient, have also very stable genomes, BECAUSE they are efficiently put together in so many CxSys ways. From the metabolic, to genetic, to cellular, structural, etc. ways. This is how LE reforms &  highly likely extends our understanding of evolution’s processes WAY past competition and survival methods, alone. It’s a substantially extending method without limits, too.
.
This is what’s going on with the S-curves which can be used in this way to predict growth, thus return on sales. Which product to develop and which not to, also. & Fitting those curves to the sales data will give more info about how, every year with new take offs unexpected in products, to very likely being able to predict which products, services will grow, &/or why those will or not sell, either. This is Uber in a nutshell, BTW.
.
This is the high promise of CxSys understanding using the Pentad as above. And it’s doable, just as can antibiotic resistance be successful countered in most all cases, and meds be used to last longer, such as Viagra 50 mg. for nearly 3 days instead of only a few hours.
.
These nearly universal processors, the CP, the LE, the S/F, the CxSys methods, & the many tools, devices, instruments and methods and techniques can do.
.
That’s what’s on the line here. Survival of companies and their products, & the survival of ourselves.
.
The big problem with Moral relativism was that it didn’t factor in Survival, that is durability, that is efficiencies, which create Stabilities!!! It also ignored the Biological imperative of Survival! As It left those out, and survival is very important to both the survival of a species &  to EACH species longevities in this universe. Survival is very likely in fact the most important biological imperative. And if this is missed, by ignoring evolutionary methods to sort through events, then it missed that VIP and has failed.
.
Let us further look at the other points. Those of Emergent phenomena in societies, such as relationships and those cultures which grow. Those of the storms which develop out of events in the weather. Those of the emergences of new species, and new major phyla of plants and animals. It’s those emergent phenomena which make prediction difficult to see. But, and this is the point, the acute, clear nature of Efficiencies in such natural phenomena are what creates those growths, is not?
.
Thus if the S-curves of the growth of storms both tropical, hurricanes, and wild thunderstorms & tornadoes are studied, we will find those growth S-curves developing, driven by LE processes. By finding measuring tools of some relationships it will be found then HOW to predict which storms will come about and which will not. Will the TS become a hurricane? Well, what is the growth curve estimate? If the slope is high enough, the water is warm enough, it will, if not, it will not. Using outcomes studies, of the Monte Carlo kind developed by Ulam, this can be used to create a growth curve, which will correspond to a decision. but time will tell, will it not?
.
We know how, already that TS and hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones will develop in & due to very warm water, during the summers. We also know when they stop. These are empirically founded facts, which are found repeatedly by observations. Thus the repeating events in existence, reinforce themselves in our LTM, and then we find the trends, relationships, & data, which AI cannot find. Once we know how those work, then we can create AI to do a good bit more of that, too.  If we can find & use a highly efficient method to ship out surface warm water to lower levels, and sow 100’s of those in the path of a Hurricane, we can kill it, can we not?
.
For instance, if a way can be found to create an efficient quantum heat engine, the path in front of a hurricane can be sown with 100’s of QHE’s and by cooling the water it moves into, kill the hurricane!!! This is a way to block more devastating hurricanes and if not kill them render them so much less powerful, that most damage, injuries and deaths can be prevented. This is now within our grasp, as well.
.
The LE methods do that. We do NOT have DA drivers in natural phenomena, which make the growth of sales and marketing necessarily more complicated. Natural systems are simpler, clearly and this is empirically shown and highly likely the case. It’s a LOT simpler to predict TS’s than human behaviors. If the products were only sold by their efficiencies, then those would always be winners. But they do NOT. And Jobs understood that.
.
IF we realize, however, that natural CxSys growth virtual ONLY is due to such LE drivers, then those are much more predictable than humans, as well. Thus in the natural systems, growth can be predicted due to measuring LE outputs and drivers. & the weather can be more predictable than say, human history. But BOTH are amenable to those methods. History is least energy, too and very hard to change for that reason. Toynbee has shown that.
.
For instance, we can study the outcomes of laws. If they are enacted with a purpose in mind, then we study by outcomes to see which do that the most efficiently in a society. If they work, they have a high growth and stabilities S-curve. If they do not, then they pass away, and are not valued.
.
Such studies will create an empirical, predictable basis for making Psychohistory a reality, will those not? Why do the laws work or not in  a Cx Sys human society or any animal’s societies? Human emotional systems are good social organizers, but they are NOT very good information processors. They are Cx Sys.  & have rules of their own, which the astute politicians & the great persuaders know how to make them work. That is the nature of Cx Sys solutions to social problems, and economic problems, as well.
.
Why did money for instance drive out barter? It’s very, very clear why. First of all the complexity of the barter. Everything had to be compared to everything else, for values, other goods/services, or food & manufacture, which was related to n! (Factorial) Complexity rules. IF there were 20 items to be sold, then the number of possibilities was N= 20!. Without money in today’s economy, it’d be impossible and ruin sales, take huge amounts of time, and much else. Money is efficient, which is why barter is no longer used very much. It’s that simple. LE. Thus the applications of money in more and more efficient methods, kept on working & kept up economic growth. Its efficiencies were so high it spread rapidly grew and displaced most all barter, is not?
.
How do we create a stable currency in small habitats? That will have to be solved. And it will be done by least energy methods, as well. Guaranteed, too. Currently Bitcoin is the latest financial fad. It’s totally unsupported and fluctuating in value. It cannot compete, efficiently, with modern financial instruments and methods we currently have. Thus it’s a fad, and MUST pass.
.
Barter creates  a huge complexity. but if each item/service can be sold in terms  of a single, common barter element, that is silver coins or gold coins for instance, then the entire trading is highly sped up and simpler is not? & that’s why money drove out  barter!!! and it’s why bad money also dries out good, is not? The other advantages were easier accounting and related figures, at least.
Further, The S-curves of growth determine which religions will succeed and which will not. Which behaviors are better & more easily used or not.
.
Take for instance alphabets VS. hieroglyphic/character writing. With the alphabets there are 20-30 letters for the sounds in varying amounts of overlapping usages. For instance S can be “SSSS”, or “SH, or Z, or even ignored, which creates a complexity of usages and inefficiencies. The amount of visual and word storage is hugely greater, with 1000’s of glyphs/characters to recall. Thus the child cannot read in such languages, until about age 8 or so, where as in alphabets, by 3. 5 years advantage due to that difference alone is decisive. Which is why Deng created the pinyin system as it alphabetized those, and thus make typing and printing, far, far easier, too, as was memory requirements.
.
But English in contrast and comparison to Espagnol, where the letters, consonants &  vowels are most ALWAYS pronounced the same, then it’s way easier than in English where it’s NOT the case. So to increase the efficiency of English, use ONLY those letters which have a single sound. If there are too many letters with toom many sounds for each, it’s complicated, by the N! rule. If there are too few, then there are not enough to make the language efficient.because there must be overlaps are as there in English.
.
The CP and LE guides, including how words are formed using the tongue, teeth and related vocal cord outputs, which is Cx Sys, BTW, can be made More efficient by testing using the S-curves. This then is the CP, LE guide to creating a very, very efficient language, far, far better than any of those at present.
.
We also understand by Esperanto failed. It was not EFFICIENT.
.
Now take the hugest advantage of English. There are NO genders for nouns unless those are biological. In the romance languages and many others there are very arbitrary genders, such as feminine for windows, of all things!!! Those give a greater complexity & memory requirements for  the nouns, but English shows it’s not needed. The more words the more genders & so that quickly becomes a real problem, too. So English has per total number of nouns or like words in a language, about that many fewer La, las, el, Los and such than does Espagnol. English is LOTS simpler to remember! By 100K’s of times over. The storage size for word memory is lots lower by 100K’s of words in modern languages, is not?
.
That’s why English does so well..
.
But, in English the letters can be a LOT more complicated, as C for K, or C, for SH, etc.  The problem is that there is no standard pronunciations for EACH letter in English. the number of ways -ough, -augh, and related can be pronounced is absurdly high. Get rid of those!!!!
.
SpaTial, There, WiTh, StaTionary, and so forth. It’s entirely specific contextual pronunciation, which is very hard for many to follow, too. There are NOT grammatical rules for same. It’s entirely arbitrary & Ad hoc!!! “Special” is yet another of the many complexities of English. There are 100’s of other examples, throughout, no doubt due to English being highly syncretic, being the combination of Anglo Saxon, Welsh, Scot, Irish, German, French, Latin & many others, too. But the efficiencies of English without all those genders is crucial. and English can be easily reformed, as Webster tried to do, by simplifying out those words to a speedier use which like Espagnol Is more standardized.
.
But people do NOT want to learn new things. So the usual brain hardworking, and fossilization of behaviors by LTM lay downs (& habituation and facilitation), is active here. Eventually due to limitations (mostly the huge proliferation of words), it will have to be done, and as in the below Chinese model, it will become far, far more efficient to both write, read, and speak by making those changes. Computers will then be much more easily able to understand it, as well. Which come to think of it is THE way to translate English into an AI usable language.  Simple, elegant, and problem solving. If we want to make voice activated computers more efficient, we must make English more computer user friendly, too. That will drive the reform, as in Pinyin.
.
Simplify and and English will become to much easier to speak & within a few years will soon overwhelm the others, as well. Efficiencies count in usage, Least energy works. and this can be shown with the Com words, which will be explored later, too. Least action energy applied in languages.
.
The problems with Esperanto were essentially inefficiencies which other language did not have. It made each word simple and easy to pronounce. But in almost every case, the words for simple, commonly used events were much longer, more syllables than other languages used. Indeed almost TWICE the lengths. The least energy rules were broken all over by Esperanto!! The most often used words in established highly used languages are far shorter than Esperanto, than those less commonly used. Thus, Esperanto once again failed the complexity, least energy rule. And it failed badly, too. It had gender for most all nouns, and they all ended in “o”  which was stupid. We had to read to the end of the word before knowing it was a noun, whereas “the” articles in “a” language showed that at once!!! & it added unneeded complexity to speaking, unlike English which does not. It was in short, bass ackwards with the way words are processed left to right!! Again, a LE mistake!!!
.
 Moreover, it did not have the richness of associations seen in language. Such as God, Good, Gold;  Devil, Evil, vile, Violence being the opposites to Live. Those deep cognitive relationships are very, very rife in the languages, and Esperanto had none of them. It was not efficient, NOR fun to speak, either.
.
We find the same going on with the Hieroglyphs and characters versus the alphabet. With the alphabet a 3 year old can learn to read. With the H/C methods it take about 8 years to get the information known enough to read & write. And they cannot use a typewriter without less that 5K buttons, ether!!! Which we do with “quertyuiop”. So all office memos have to be handwritten in Japanese, Chinese and elated languages.
.
But when Pinyin was created, which specifically translated in a very standardized, simple way, most all characters into alphabetic 2-3 letter words, the problem was solved. The 2-3 letter could be written or typed and the computer would pull up the character and then they could Type!  But the thing had to process the letters for the character, and that was an inefficiency.
.
So why not go for the gold? ONLY use the Pinyin & ignore the characters. Well, that makes transition hard, because then as 30% of the readers begin to lose their characters, the past history and the many writings already in Chinese are not accessible, either.
.
But it’s coming. Eventually, the alphabets will drive out the characters, and hieroglyphics, too. and by looking at the growth curve of the transitional period, by which Pinyin is replacing the character (about 30% cannot now read characters in the cities), we can predict about when that transition will occur, and then massively grow to 100% pinyin. The S-curve of growth is not?
.
If English is changed to the Espagnol system of only 1 pronunciation for each letter. No C, S, K, SH etc for C. No Th, SH, THUH The), etc. for T. ONLY S for S, then. That will increase the speed of reading, writing & understanding a standard pronunciation as well. Such a system will have a growth rate of itself & can be estimated by using it more widely &  then by comparing that to a growth curve, to see how it works.
.
There was a similar growth curve when in English in American via Webster lost the Harbour, Parlour, “U” from the French which is still used in English in London, today.
.
That can give an idea of how fast it changed, altho it was promoted by the DopAmine system as well, which modified the S-curve effects, too.
.
This gives an example  into into how S-curves can work and be used to understanding prediction better, the nature of growth in CxSys, of all kinds. and is meant as a primer for the creation of S-curve maths, which can begin to predict emergence, how valued new goods and services can become, and what will be the flexion points of their diminishing returns at the tops of the S-curve.
.
&  can be applied to Political &,to new cultural movements in all areas, including the spread of musical forms, such as Pop songs, Hip hop, and the various forms of CW and Latina musicas, as well. It’s a  virtual unlimited source of information about growth and development of all types, as as such can accompany the growth of our understanding of Cx Sys languages, and how those developed, and changed over time. Which very likely, is what understanding more of our universe it’s all about.
.
Another major point is that of “correspondence theory, which is very ancient. And the CP, LE, S/F and complex system plus all the methods, ways of doing things, approaches, (etc) and Techniques and technologies, tools, methods, instruments, etc. is superior to that.
.
It avoids the problems of morality by taking that clearly into the realm of sciences, being studiable by Outcomes research, as well. We know a morality and ethics by their outcomes and those can be very easily observed, studies and brought within the purview of the sciences. So it in fact using CP unites this model and overcomes many of the objections to Correspondence theory, by replacing with a virtual Model of Everything, of which correspondence is a part, but not the whole thing. & this is what’s going on. Giving a neurophysiological, neuroanatomic, and neurochemical basis to the theory is what’s going on. It firmly founds and absorbs a modified Correspondence model into the CP. LE fold, just as it does behaviorism into cognitive neuroscience.
.
And lastly, that’s the beauty of this CP, LE model. It’s, if used well, likely very unifying. Taking us “beyond the absolutes” of correspondences to the more empirical, more likely true relationships among events  (Einstein, “Physics and Reality), which are anything but absolute, and instead, yet unlimitedly studiable and knowable.  We remove the pagan, Platonic idealisms & silly, unreal absolutes & ultimates (the fallacy of idealisms, that all events must correspond exactly to our ideas. & replacethbose by the facts that events are the standards, instead of ideas.) and re-create it simply in a newer, more scientific, testable, and empirical form. This is an escape from puerile, self centered, homocentric, geocentric, regressive behaviors of children to a more adult form. & which can allows us, potentially and nearly universally, to understand aliens, as well as the other animals and plants around us, locally. It comprehends what is within us and what is outside of us, equally well. A fine, nearly universal Model of Everything.
.
.
& Thus do we go Beyond the absolute, Limits to knowledge, & thus incorporate correspondence as one of the many forms of CP and LE words/ideas.  This is protean in it implication, because it also, not only extends Einstein’s epistemologies, into the verbal descriptors and makes it empirical, but it also shows how a few changes, can modernize indeed make far, far more relevant, correspondence theory. Thus, we do much with a little & our knowledge becomes substantially MORE united, as CP and LE are easily able to do, provably and unlmitedly. But not quite!
.

Table of Contents

Updated 16  Aug. 2019

1. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-introduction/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=22&relatedposts_position=0

2. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-2/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=3&relatedposts_position=1

3. The Comparison Process, Introduction, Pt. 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/le-chanson-sans-fin-the-comparison-process-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7&relatedposts_position=0

3A.. Extensions & Applications, parts 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

4. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 1
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-1/

5. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 2
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-comparison-process-explananda-pt-2/

6. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 3
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/comparison-process-explananda-pt-3/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=17&relatedposts_position=1

7. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 4
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-4/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=38&relatedposts_position=0

8. The Comparison Process, The Explananda 5: Cosmology
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/cosmology-and-the-comparison-process-comp-explananda-5/

9. AI and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/artificial-intelligence-ai-and-the-comparison-process-comp/

10. Optical and Sensory Illusions, Creativity and the Comparison Process (COMP)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/opticalsensory-illusions-creativity-the-comp/

11. The Emotional Continuum: Exploring Emotions with the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/the-emotional-continuum-exploring-emotions/

12. Depths within Depths: the Nested Great Mysteries
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/depths-within-depths-the-nested-great-mysteries/

13. Language/Math, Description/Measurement, Least Energy Principle and AI
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/languagemath-descriptionmeasurement-least-energy-principle-and-ai/

14. The Continua, Yin/Yang, Dualities; Creativity and Prediction
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/the-continua-yinyang-dualities-creativity-and-prediction/

15. Empirical Introspection and the Comparison Process
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/81/

16. The Spark of Life and the Soul of Wit
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/the-spark-of-life-and-the-soul-of-wit/

17. The Praxis: Use of Cortical Evoked Responses (CER), functional MRI (fMRI), Magnetic Electroencephalography (MEG), and Magnetic Stimulation of brain (MagStim) to investigate recognition, creativity and the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-praxis/

18. A Field Trip into the Mind

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/106/

19. Complex Systems, Boundary Events and Hierarchies

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/complex-systems-boundary-events-and-hierarchies/

20. The Relativity of the Cortex: The Mind/Brain Interface

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-relativity-of-the-cortex-the-mindbrain-interface/

21. How to Cure Diabetes (AODM type 2)
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/how-to-cure-diabetes-aodm-2/

22. Dealing with Sociopaths, Terrorists and Riots

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/dealing-with-sociopaths-terrorists-and-riots/

23. Beyond the Absolute: The Limits to Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/09/03/beyond-the-absolute-limits-to-knowledge/

24  Imaging the Conscience.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/imaging-the-conscience/

25. The Comparison Process: Creativity, and Linguistics. Analyzing a Movie

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/comparison-process-creativity-and-linguistics-analyzing-a-movie/

26. A Mother’s Wisdom

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/a-mothers-wisdom/

27. The Fox and the Hedgehog

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-fox-the-hedgehog/

28. Sequoias, Parkinson’s and Space Sickness.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sequoias-parkinsons-and-space-sickness/

29. Evolution, growth, & Development: A Deeper Understanding.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/evolution-growth-development-a-deeper-understanding/

30. Explanandum 6: Understanding Complex Systems

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/explandum-6-understanding-complex-systems/

31. The Promised Land of the Undiscovered Country: Towards Universal Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-promised-land-of-the-undiscovered-country-towards-universal-understanding-2/

32. The Power of Proliferation

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/the-power-of-proliferation/

33. A Field Trip into our Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/a-field-trip-into-our-understanding/

34.  Extensions & applications: Pts. 1 & 2.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

(35. A Hierarchical Turing Test for General AI, this was deleted after being posted, and it’s not known how it occurred.)

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/extensions-applications-pts-1-2/

35. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/the-structure-of-color-vision/

36. La Chanson Sans Fin:   Table of Contents

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/le-chanson-sans-fin-table-of-contents-2/

37. The Structure of Color Vision

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/16/the-structure-of-color-vision-2/

38. Stabilities, Repetitions, and Confirmability

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/stabilities-repetitions-confirmability/

39. The Balanced Brain

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-balanced-brain/

40. The Limits to Linear Thinking & Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/the-limits-to-linear-thinking-methods/

41. Melding Cognitive Neuroscience & Behaviorism

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/11/19/melding-cognitive-neuroscience-behaviorism/

42. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai/

43.  Do Neutron Stars develop into White Dwarfs by Mass Loss?https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/08/do-neutron-stars-develop-into-white-dwarfs-by-mass-loss/

44. An Infinity of Flavors ?                             https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/an-infinity-of-flavors/

45. The Origin of Infomration & Understanding; and the Wellsprings of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/origins-of-information-understanding/

46. The Complex System of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/the-complex-system-of-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

47. How Physicians Create New Information

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/how-physicians-create-new-information/

48. An Hierarchical Turing Test for AI

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/an-hierarchical-turing-test-for-ai-2/

49. The Neuroscience of Problem Solving

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/27/the-neuroscience-of-problem-solving/

50. A Standard Method to Understand Neurochemistry’s Complexities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/05/30/a-standard-method-to-understand-neurochemistrys-complexities/

51. Problem Solving for Self Driving Cars: a Model.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/problem-solving-for-self-driving-cars-a-model/

52. A Trio of Relationships and Connections

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/a-trio-of-relationships-connections/

53: Einstein’s Great Subtleties:  Einstein’s Edge

https://wordpress.com/post/jochesh00.wordpress.com/583

54. The Problem of Solving P not Equal to NP

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/04/28/the-problem-of-solving-p-not-equal-to-np/

55. How to Create a Blue Rose

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/how-to-create-a-blue-rose/

56. The Etymologies of Creativity

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/the-etymologies-creativity/

57.  A Basic Model of a Unifying System of Most All Knowledge

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/a-basic-model-of-a-unifying-system-of-most-all-knowledge/

58. Understanding Psych with S/F Brain Methods

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/understanding-psychology-with-s-f-methods/

59. The Wiggins Prime Sieve

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/the-wiggins-prime-sieve/

60. The Complex System of Love

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/22/the-complex-system-of-love/

61. The Limits of the Comparison Process

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/the-limits-of-comparison-processing/

62.  The Bees, Cortical Brain Structure, Einstein’s Brain, etc.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/09/14/the-bees-cortical-brain-structures-einsteins-brain-the-flowers/

 

63. The Wiggins Prime Sieve, Version 3.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/09/15/the-wiggins-prime-sieve-version-3/

64. The Prime Quartets Method

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/prime-quartets-method-capabilities-insights-sans-limits/

65. Is Goldbach’s Conjecture True And/or False, Conditionally?

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/11/17/is-goldbachs-conjecture-true-and-or-false-conditionally/

66. The Magic of the Prime Multiples and Goldbach’s….

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/the-magic-of-the-prime-multiples-insights-into-goldbachs-conjecture/

67 The Wiggins Primes Sieve:  Cycles of 30’s in the Primes

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/the-wiggins-prime-sieve-cycles-of-30s-in-the-primes/

68. Winning at Solitaire, Basic Strategies

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/02/04/winning-at-solitaire-basic-strategies/

69, The Failures of Idealisms & Brain Hardwiring in the Sciences

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/04/04/the-failures-of-idealisms-brain-hardwiring-in-the-sciences/

70. The Break Outs: The roots of Growth & Unlimited Creativities

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/06/the-break-outs-roots-of-growth-unlimited-creativities/

71. How to Find the MH370 Crash Site

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/19/the-likely-indian-ocean-so-equatorial-current-crash-sites-for-mh370/

72. Walking Shortcuts, a Cameo

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/06/21/walking-shortcuts-a-cameo-for-creating-unlimited-professional-growth/

73. Einstein’s Quotes & Neuroscientific Insights on Creativity & Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/einsteins-quotes-and-neuroscientific-insights-on-creativity-etc/

74. Towards a Model of Everything 14 Jul. 2019

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/13/towards-a-model-of-everything-moe/

75. Addenda: The Walkabout Article  22 Jul 2019

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/22/the-walkabout-article-addenda/

76. NP not = P, Second considerations

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/07/23/np-not-equal-to-p-2nd-considerations/

77. The Kategoria of Incompletenesses, Limits to Our Growth.

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/the-kategoria-of-the-incompletenesses/

78. The Flight of Tennis Balls:   A Cameo of Creative Thinking & Understanding

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/08/15/the-flight-of-tennis-balls/

 

79. The S curves of Growth

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/09/10/the-s-curves-of-growth/

80. A New Possible Sunspot Duration Detector

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/10/07/a-new-possible-sunspot-duration-amplitude-predictor/

81. 2nd Addendum to Walking/Decision Making article.

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/2nd-addendum-partial-mathematization-of-the-walking-decision-making-article/

82. Part 2: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn

https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/an-historical-genealogy-of-tom-horn-part-2/

83.  Part 1: An Historical Genealogy of Tom Horn

jochesh00.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/part-1-an-historical-genealogy-of-tom-horn/