The Cube at OpenStack Summit Atlanta 2014 is brought to you by Brocade. Say goodbye to the status quo and hello to Brocade. And Red Hat. Here are your hosts, John Furrier and Stu Miniman. Okay, welcome back everyone, we're live in Atlanta for the OpenStack Summit. This is Silicon Angles, the Cube, our flagship program. We're here to go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, the founder of Silicon Angle. I'm Joe Myko, Stu Miniman, analyst at wikibond.org. We're here with Cube alum, Targulai, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer for HP Cloud. So, welcome back. It's great to be here, as always. We did last year in Portland, you were on, and we started to see the groundswell of the HP Cloud. You were instrumental in really building out, laying down the tracks for Cloud. Now you have the big billion dollar announcement. I think I asked you at HP Discover, what are you guys going to do? Hear that shot heard around the world, and you said with a little smirk, something's coming, something's coming. So is that the shot? Is that the big aha for HP? Was that the news you were referring to? It's the beginning. It's the beginning. I mean, we have obviously, we're very serious about Cloud. We've been serious about OpenStack. About 300 people here from HP. You know, a Hylian announcement. You need to see the Hylian announcement. Obviously, there's been a lot of work to get the Hylian, but that's just the beginning. I think we should see acceleration of our investments, acceleration of what we're doing in Cloud, acceleration of our capabilities in the next 12 to 18 months. So I would say Hylian is like the beginning of something. HPU also talked to me about how HP is actively involved in the original eight formation of OpenStack. And we had Monty on Monty Taylor and Eileen Evans yesterday. I had a great chat. What's what's what's going on with you guys now? Obviously, the participation is there. We see the presence. You guys have huge presence here, both in terms of, you know, staff, engineers and all developers. Also, you're the cloud team, PTLs. What's what's the update internally? I mean, it's got good momentum. What's the internal like this cloud? You know, we've always been like, hey, what's the HP cloud? Give us the update on what's happening internally at HP. Are you guys mobilized around Cloud? What's the plans? Well, I mean, again, you always, to me, it all comes down to OK, how many people was working? How much you have it, right?  And so that's the first part. And, you know, you can see that by looking at our contributions, you know, whether it's the fact that we have four PTLs, whereas the fact that we have three people on the technical committee. And so, you know, we're just accelerating our investment. Our view in general is, you know, we and we've mentioned this before is that if OpenStack succeeds, HP succeeds. And so we are going to continue to do whatever is in our capability to make OpenStack successful. And I think now we're starting to see things are finally getting there to the point where, you know, we're talking about users and deployments and less about all kinds of architecture and things like that, which I think is really important because ultimately, the success or failure of OpenStack will be judged by its usage, not by the amount of press written about it, not by the amount of hype, but how many customers are deploying and there's lots of customers now that are starting to deploy, pilots and so on. So, you know, we're spending a lot on HP and cloud. And, you know, one of the things you can see was Helian and we talked a lot about, you know, Converged Cloud, we talked many years about that. And, you know, you need to think about Helian as we finally converged, right? That's the convergence. The work that was done in Converged Cloud has now converged into Helian. And so now we do actually have one product line, was one core technology, all that is in sort of one place and now we're going to leverage that to move even further. Yeah, it's to use the football analogy. We always like to use sports analogy. You guys had broken from the huddle. You've converged internally. You've settled on architecture. Now the team's essentially executing. What is the vision for the plan? I mean, you know, West Coast offense, if you will, but is it like multiple fronts? Is it public and then enterprise? Because Helian kind of teases out a little bit of both.  Yeah, I mean, I think, look, first of all, we are focused on enterprise and service providers, right? We're not focused on the super cheap, you know, I want, you know, one cent storage, you know, I think public cloud is a bit of a misnomer. I think the end of the day, you know, really it's about consumer build. And you know, we are focused on giving customer solutions for both consumer and build in a hybrid context. And we believe we're just the beginning of that whole transition. And when you, and we're focused in providing solutions for that, we believe ultimately the best solutions will be based on an open source stack, whether that is open stack, whether that is cloud foundry. And so we're making huge investments in that area. And we're making huge investments with our customers to be able to help them get on that journey to the cloud. Again, both in a build context and a consume context. And you know, we have a large business across both of them, but part of, but you know, we're focused in helping our customers make that transition from sort of the scale up world to the scale out world. Sarf, can you give us a little bit of insight about what it takes to build that HP cloud? You know, talked about scale, you know, there's, I mean, a lot of effort to, you know, just build that infrastructure, maintain it, operationalize it. Talk to us a little bit about how it is to build that. And you know, how does open stack fit into it? Is all your cloud open stack or you know, what pieces are today? Sure. Well, look, we've had cloud and we've talked about this before. We've had cloud at HP for years, starting with cloud system and CSA many years ago. We've had a lot of organic activity and over the last two years, we've sort of been pivoting more and more to leveraging open stack, both from a build perspective and a consume perspective. And you know, we've broke our teeth, you know, deploying public cloud on open stack from Diablo, that was very interesting. The good news is we learned a lot and a lot of those lessons that keep on emphasizing are being put into our Helium distro. And you know, we're at different levels, but over time, right, most of our cloud efforts will be based on open stack. Today our public cloud, you can get cloud system eight, sorry, on private cloud, you can get cloud system eight with open stack today on it. And we have a lot of deployments with that. Obviously our public cloud is running open stack. As we said in Helium, we will be deploying a lot of our Helium distros on our managed cloud ES footprint, so we're gonna be doing that as well. And over time, we will be migrating a lot of the solutions that aren't based on open stack to open stack as well. But you know, look, you gotta provide customers the solutions they want. A lot of customers still have a very large part of their application footprint on scale up solutions and we're there to support them. We have one of the best scale up solutions in the world with cloud system and with CSA, but we are also gonna be helping them migrate to the scale out world. And what most customers are doing is, you know, they're keeping their scale up and continuing to invest there, but they're building a scale out infrastructure to write their new apps on. And so we're there to help them across that bridge. And part of our hybrid message is the fact that you don't have to jump. You can do both. You can have, you know, apps that some of them live in the scale up world, some of them live in the scale out and we can provide you management, instrumentation and solutions to help you manage that.  How much of that has been, you know, brought back to the open stack community and just as a cloud provider yourself, can you share with us a little bit of that journey? I don't know if we have enough time for that. Look, there's multiple parts, right? First of all, you know, scale was not really there, right? I mean, we had to do so much things just to get things running at scale. You know, when you do things at scale and performance, everything breaks one by one. You always find the weakest link. So there was a lot of weakest link activity that we had to run through. Resiliency wasn't there at all, right? I mean, in terms of monitoring, right? One of the beauties of a cloud is that, you know, there's monitoring. So when something goes down, you know it went down and you can do something about it. So instrumentation, really not there. Installation, which is not so much for public cloud but was not there at all. One of the reasons, you know, we now have come up with a distro based on upstream is because we finally managed to get the proper installation technologies part of triple O which, you know, Robert Collins from our group is driving. And so that wasn't there as well. So a lot of things that are sort of like, things that are more mature, I mean, it's normal. It's a maturity issue but a lot of things where mature technologies already went through that. We're just not there in open stack. On the other hand, open stack is very flexible so it has capabilities. We're still working through Neutron.  We got some work to do. Yeah, I'm just curious on the operational side, what one of the stats, you know, we've quoted and many people have is, you know, Facebook can manage, you know, 10 to 20,000 nodes with a single administrator, typical enterprise somewhere between, you know, if they're good three to 500, you know, what do you see from both the public and private offerings that HP offers? What can we do? Well, the first thing I think that's important to understand is Facebook runs one app. Okay. Agreed. They have a very homogeneous solution. It's very different. I think we should be able to get 2,000s depending on the complexity of the apps you're running and the diversity of the base. But I think the area that we're focused on right now is the ability to just install it, run it, and without having to babysit. And on our public cloud, you know, we run very, very large thousands of nodes, but I also have a staff of people that is watching over it and taking care of it. And I think there's more work to be done in OpenStack. One of the reasons, for example, that we released our community edition now, Opelion, and our more scalable commercial edition is a few months out, is because even though we finally got triple O working and everything to get it done at scale and reliability that enterprise expect, we needed some more soak time because after all, Icehouse only came out three weeks ago. And so that's the kind of things that we're focused on. But I have no concerns that OpenStack will get there. But really now finally, I think as people are doing more things with OpenStack, we're finally pivoting to the level where there is a focus on those key things that are actually about what is it to operate, right? Forget about, okay, I can run a cloud, congratulations. What is it to operate at scale? What is it to operate? It was a small staff without an army of developers, right? And success will be when we have enterprises that don't have an army of developers adopting OpenStack. And, you know, convince that we will see that in the next 12 months. Sorry, people are talking about like the big vendors now in here and the big debate yesterday we had on CrowdChat was, can they grow organically as a community or do you need a leader to come in there? It's almost 50-50 down there and the most ecosystem need leaders and I'll see IBM, HP, huge players, Red Hat are in there.  So everyone's always worried about is HP going to fork OpenStack? And that's kind of not worried, but that's on their mind and people have been addressing it. So what's your take on that? How do you talk to the folks out there and say, what is HP's intentions? Is that something that always gets kicked around? So why don't you address that comment? Yeah, so I think, look, if you have to judge us by our actions and our actions are to put more and more people contributing. I mean, we have four or five PTLs. We have a lot of core folks on the technical committee. So we believe that the right way to move OpenStack forward is to push the OpenStack within the system, not from outside. And so we don't, forking would be a failure of OpenStack. I think that the key is to have the people who are driving OpenStack be focused on what customers need and not be focused on interesting ideas that are just experimentation. And so I think you heard some of that also from our friends at Rackspace and so on. I think as more and more customers start deploying, I think the natural gravity will push people to focus on the things that customers care about. Before, when there were less customers deploying, we could all have nice academic and opinionated discussions about what's important. But we actually have customers, they actually know what's important because they're using it. And so we actually feel good about OpenStack and last few releases that we do think that it's starting to coalesce around what are the important things for OpenStack to be successful. And it's, again, it's just based on customers. The more customers, the more people who are using OpenStack that I see here, the happier I am, because that will drive it to a good, healthy ecosystem. And so far, we think that is the right way to do it. And we have no intentions of any forking. Our intention is to work within the community part of what's we built to make that happen. Eileen mentioned some of the governance things yesterday. It's pretty smooth there and good harmony, so to speak, good balance. I mean, there's always conflict at some level, but there's still some good trust there. Well, I mean, look, it's a very active ecosystem. If you don't want any conflict or any discussions, that can give you a dead ecosystem with no check-ins and nobody cares. I'll take some of the issues in OpenStack, some of the healthy debates, because I'm getting innovation for it. So I'll take it. I mean, we got to be on top of it, but you know, it's healthy to have that as long as in the end, you get a better solution. And again, you're focused on the customer use case, not on some archaic technical argument. Yeah, let's talk about that. I mean, IBM was in the same position. And their view is similar to yours, Higgs. If OpenStack's successful, they win, you win. So that's clear. Let's talk about customers. One of the things that we're always looking for here, we don't see a lot of it because either they're quiet, don't want to disclose it, but there's just not a lot of customer discussion stuff. I hear all-way conversations coming down the escalator, POC and so and so. So what are you guys seeing from your customers? What are some of the activity levels? If you can name names, that's great. If you can't, then just talk about some of the use cases and some of the environments that you're executing in. Sure, I mean, I'll talk to you at a broader level. You know, last year, there was, you know, two years ago, people thought, what is this OpenStack thing? Is it the right thing, the wrong thing? Then last year, people started saying, you know, maybe I should do a POC. This year, I don't have enough capacity to support all the POCs if you want to do. And you said, well, what are they doing? Okay, so the classic use case on an enterprise is, you know, they have their traditional apps and they've cloudified them to some extent. You know, VMware, scale up stuff was dedicated hardware. They've got self-service, but they know that to really achieve, you know, the scalability and the velocity that cloud perfumes, they're going to have to do, you know, a scale out solution. And so most of the customers that I talked to, and we're talking, you know, Fortune 50 companies, big banks, very large companies, they're basically looking at building a scale out cloud in-house and then starting to develop their next apps, their mobile apps, their next generation apps on top of that cloud. And what you're seeing right now is that they're doing POCs, RFPs, pilots around that. You won't hear the big stories yet because I think we're in the middle of it, but I'm sure next year we will have some bigger stories. The other part of it is some of this is tied to the velocity of developing these new apps, right? Because again, these are clouds that are very different than the clouds that are existing apps are on. And as we all know, you can't just move apps as they is. And so you've got to develop new apps or at least develop components of new apps that will then tie back through a hybrid mechanism to their old apps. But I'm seeing a lot of that, a ton of that. And I think those will be the things that are going to be in production next year.  It's an adoption curve. Again, it's tied to the app. We were talking yesterday about, is it a product or a platform? And it really is a platform. There's so many use cases to innovate around as long as a core stable community seems to be going well. So with that in mind, what are some of the verticals that you see adopting this now? Obviously we're talking to the Red Hat guys and they're saying they're seeing financial services. It's now cool to bring open source into the enterprise. So what areas do you verticals do you see kicking the tires and rolling out some heavy duty open stack? I see it across the board, but obviously financials because they have a lot of workloads and also they're always looking to improve their speed. I see e-commerce, a lot of e-commerce, government, a lot of government, government loves open source, especially people who like to look at the source. Big transportation companies. I don't, it's pretty much across the board. And again, a lot of the applications, some of them have very specific applications, but many of them it's part of their overall view of their transformation of their IT. And this is what people need to understand. It's not about, oh, I heard about open stacks. I'm going to deploy open stack. It's no, I want to transform my current system to a more cloud oriented scale out system. I want to get that level. I want to get those efficiencies. I want to get that velocity. And now I have to make a choice of a cloud platform. And so I've chosen open stack. It's not on, it doesn't stand on its own. It's part of an overall transformation. But that's also why these things take longer. Cause these transformations don't happen overnight. It's not like deploying a new app. So whole transformation. But I can see again, financials, transportation, e-commerce, people who are saying, you know what, we need to transfer that. We need that velocity. How can you help us? And yeah, we've decided open stack is the right platform just based on looking around. And now how do we go about doing that? Sir, I want to get your take on something. If you look at hybrid environments, one of the challenges that we have is even if I have similar infrastructure or even similar virtualization in my environment, the customer owns and where I go to, the way they're configured tend to be pretty different. How important is it in your mind that we get, I don't know, it's not homogenous, but you know, the kind of same building blocks or same architectures in both sides of whether it's my environment or you know, my service provider or cloud provider. Sir, well first of all, I think there's misconceptions about hybrid, right? Hybrid means many things, right? The very basic view hybrid is, oh, I can move my workloads around, right? Turns out that's not the prevalent use case. The prevalent use case is, I want to build a composite app with a system of engagement in one place and a system of record in that place. In that case, it doesn't, they don't have to be homogenous. It's gonna be very heterogeneous. In fact, you can have a scale out model connected to a scale out. That's how a lot of people build mobile apps. In the case where you do want to burst, was it DM? Or federated applications, right? Yeah, which is common. You have to have certain layers that are the same. It doesn't have to be pure, but you have to understand your service layers and your interactions with your APIs and there you do have to have some consistency. And you know, I think we're getting there. It's not perfect. I think it's still the point where you have to actually look at it before and there's actions in the world. So I think we're getting there, but I don't think you need exactly the same architecture. I think, you know, the whole idea of cloud is to abstract and so that would be, you know, going counter to what cloud's all about. But, you know, like anything, you need some API consistency. So I asked the question that the healing announcement then get the answer on CrowdChat. I was looking for, so I'll ask you here, how are you going to spend the billion dollars in terms of, is that code? Is that for coders? Is that for evangelism? Is it for outreach? Is it for staff? Can you kind of give us a high level kind of breakdown of you guys going to deploy that funds? So I can tell you at a high level, there's a few things that will then let you think about it. I'll give a connect to the dots. You can connect the dots. First of all, HP is a very conservative, HP lawyers and finance are very, very conservative. So, you know, we're probably spending a ton more, but we could only state this because it could be, you know, deduced in this way. But we're spending way more if you look at our overall thing, including data centers and so on. So when we talk about this, you should be thinking and you look at our investment and how many people we have contributing to OpenStack, how much we're in the market, how much we're doing that with Cloud Foundry. You should assume we are dramatically increasing our investment in the R&D aspect of things. I'm not going to tell you that's where the billion is. I'm just saying, you know, people like said, oh, well, this is very small if you think data centers, they're right. But again, HP is very conservative of what we can report. So in general, right, we let you see how much we're hiring.  I can't get into the details, but there's a big R and D that number because in the end of the day, if you want to make open source successful, you have to participate and be part of the community. And we're investing, you know, very, very heavily there. So it's not a big bag of money for the foundation. So here's a billion dollar donation. It's really more of your investment, HP's investment into the efforts of OpenStack and the community. Correct. Like, you know, one of the things we said I believe was said during Hylian, but if not as like, we're going to focus a lot on upstream, right? One of the reasons we, the way we're, you know, the difference between CloudOS, which was done before some of the maturity in OpenStack to what we have today with Hylian is that Hylian by definition is defaulting to upstream. Okay, that requires a lot of people to do that, right? And so definitely, you know, you're going to see, you know, I think we're number three or number two, I think an ice house, expect that number to rise, expect us to have more reviewers. Reviewers are actually more important than code contributors. You know, we already have three, four, five PTLs expect us to have more. And again, it's not because we want to dominate, it's because we have an agenda. We want to make OpenStack mature. We want to be able to get OpenStack to the point where enterprise don't think twice before adopting it.  Can you speak to the development of kind of the software team that you have there? You've got a thousand people in Cloud, you're contributing more to what's OpenStack, you know, out of a thousand, I mean, is that 90% software people? Or, you know, where does kind of the software mojo fit into HP? Okay, so first of all, we have a large, large software organization developing software tools and orchestration, which is separate from cloud, but part was cloud, things like cloud service automation and all our other platforms. So, HP's got a very large software business on its own, which is unrelated specifically to cloud. In the cloud space, we have, we don't break out the numbers, but you know, I would say that I have probably twice as many engineers working on cloud today as they did a year ago, and I'm not stopping. So, you should assume that, you know, you know, we are sort of the open source destination for someone who wants to work on open source on cloud, you know, we are a destination company because you get to work on the latest stuff with support and you get to be involved in the latest technologies, whether it's OpenStack or Cloud Foundry and so on, and you're going to see increasingly our participation there just to continue increasing. So, I can't break out the numbers to you, but I would just say that we grew significantly last year and we're on the same trajectory. Sark, talk about the operations compared to where they were last year, I see a thousand people working for you, you're an ops guy, you'd like to run the trains over there, make them on time for everything else. And you got Martin Fink involved, now he's an open source guy, talk about the balance between your operational agenda and your plan versus the, I call it the, not the R&D, nothing's an R&D guy, but like it's an open source kind of ethos that Fink has. And how is that culture being bled into the operations? Because, you know, HP has a cadence, you know, good customer satisfaction, but it's HP specific, now you have this open source ethos coming into the culture. Talk about that blending, how does that, how's that going? And then give us a view inside HP. Sure, so first of all, over the last year, we have, you know, helped, we brought in some big hitters in terms of open sourcing cloud like Bill Hilf, right, who did a lot of stuff in Azure, but before that was a big open source guy, we brought in under people and so on. And then on top of all that, right, we moved under Martin Fink, who has always been, quote unquote, an open source guy. And that's been great because, you know, we were sort of, we are sort of driving open source not only in terms of this, but also in terms of how it drives into the organization, into HP in terms of the whole culture of, hey, let's open source this, let's do it as part of the community as opposed to, we'll sit in some dark room and do it. So I think, you know, Martin has pushed a lot on that. I think Martin, when he came in, you know, initially said, let's make sure everything is upstream, let's make sure push, you know, we push all that in that way. Now, you know, from an operational standpoint, we're still running a company, but we are separate from HPs, sort of, you know, HPs divide into different pieces. We have our own cadence. We have our own release cycle. Part of the move to open source is also doing CICD, like we talked about when we did Healian, we're gonna release something every four or six weeks. So I think it's blended well in terms of that. I think there was latent open source stuff going on in HP anyways, but I think now there's sort of a thing on it that says, okay, yeah, this is right. This is the way to do it. You know, I lean, did a lot of pioneering work on how to drive open source. So I think it's all just now come together before it was sort of in different pieces. She was awesome yesterday in talking about the Linux board and her role also here. I then asked the indemnification question. I'm obviously, that's a huge deal. You guys have some history there. Talk us through how that went down internally and why is this indemnification guarantee, I guess, like a better word, important for customers? Look, we, our view is we want to make it as frictionless as possible for people to adopt open stack. And, you know, we have a history, right, from indemnifying Linux back in the day when people were trying to stop Linux from adopting, and so we looked at this and said, as we thought about, as we said about going to Helion, we said, what are the things we can remove? What are every possible barrier we can remove for people to think twice before using open source? And while open source is very popular, there are still people when you talk to customers, they're like, well, what about this? What about that? Let's take it off the table. So you still as an sales inhibitor, basically. Yeah, it made people think twice, not everywhere, but we definitely had a lot of customers come to us and say, and because we have a history of indemnification, we said, hey, you indemnified Linux, why won't you indemnify this? So we said, let's just take it off the table. How does that work? Is it like legal documents? Is it the dual source? Is it the source code that, what's the specific value of indemnifying HP's products relative to the open stack? Is it certification involved? If you, again, there's a legal document that explains it, and I'm not gonna, I'm not, you know, you should have asked that. But basically, from a deep risk. The basically point is if you use a licensed version of HP open stack and you sign the, in the case of an agreement, separate agreement, you have to sign, then if a third party sues you because of violations relating to open source, proprietary, so forth, that specifically not, I mean, if you use it for something else, it's your business, then we will indemnify you. The same way that those, you know, jokers from SEO were suing people for using Linux, the same idea. It kind of, it freezes the market, basically. So you essentially take that de-risk, take the de-risk. Take it off the table. Don't worry about it. If they come after you, HP's here, we're a big company, 100 billion dollars, we'll take care of it. You can go focus on your business. Talk about the open stack progress so far. I mean, obviously it doubled since Portland, almost 4,200 people. Some thought there might be more here. A lot of activity. What's your take on the evolution of open stack? Early days still, you know, National Anthem hasn't been sung as, are we in an inning? I mean, come on, tell us your take on that. We've made progress. Again, I think it's grown up. I think we're way out of the, we're probably in the fourth inning, maybe. The difference, I think, again, the question is where's the gravity of open stack, right? I would say that the gravity was always been with, oh, this is cool. This is the developers. Look what I can do. The gravity now is moving more and more to, okay, I'm a customer. I'm making a strategic choice. Make sure that this is a good choice. And so that's where the gravity is moving to. But I think this is an important time for open stack over the next 12 to 24 months. I wanna see more and more users in these conferences, and especially speaking, not only attending, but speaking and talking about what's important. Like we had AT&T talk about it, users. That's sort of the transformation, right? When you look at the curve, you start off as this really, really cool technology. Everybody's excited. And then, oh, we need to use this. Okay, so there's all these other things we didn't think about. So I think we're there. I mean, with Ice House and now with Juno, we're getting there. Ice House, we finally have installation. We have better on upgrades. There's some instrumentation. Things have gotten better. But we're now at the point of, okay, now this is great technology. How do I make it usable for mere mortals? Talk about the CIO. I told the CIO last year in the like, oh, I love open stack. I'm like, do you know what open stack is? Oh, no, I just love it because I don't want to use Amazon. And that was a legit answer, you know? So that was last year. So this year you're starting to see a little bit more answer, more coherent around. I want to look under the hood. What are you hearing from CIOs? Why are they so into open stack? Is there a particular affinity towards anti-Amazon? Or is it more of I just want to have some legacy integration and some compliance issues? What is the rain driver for open stack success? Or I should say the demand to do more. Yeah, so like I said, I think we shouldn't be looking at it from open stack out. We should be looking at it from their initiatives in, right? So the CIO under pressure to move faster, you know, drive faster innovation, have more flexibility, deploy applications faster, all these beautiful things. So then you look around and you say, okay, how do I do that, right? So, you know, there's Amazon or those guys, but then they have their dynamics. First of all, public cloud, as we know, if you're a big company, it's very, very expensive. Second of all, it's got its own challenges. And most of these have hybrid. So he says, okay, how do I do a private cloud? He looks at private cloud, he said, okay, what's available in private cloud? And then he hears about this thing. Okay, so there's all kinds of proprietary stacks with people trying to get away from proprietary. And he says, oh, there's this open stack thing. What is that? And he says, okay, well, you know, that's the most popular non-proprietary solution. And that's how he gets to start talking about open stack. And then they start digging and saying, okay, well, who else is deploying? Who are the vendors I can talk to? How do I get educated and so on? That's typically that path. Now, before it was like, what is open stack? Now it's like, is it ready for prime time? So we've improved. Next year, I would like it to be, okay, what's the biggest installation? And you know, when can I deploy? Yeah, and some groups swing on some use cases. Exactly. Okay, final question for you. Share it to the audience in your own words. Why is this year so important in the industry and open stack? Why is all the buzz around all these forces coming together and tectonic shifts? I see cloud mobile and socials on everyone's mind. Well, what's really happening in your own words? Well, I don't think I'm saying anything new to people that the world is moving to cloud. And a lot of cloud will be private or hybrid. That's a fact. And open stack looks like it has the opportunity and the great opportunity to be the technology to do that. And so that's amazing. I mean, if you think about back a few years ago, you know, we have everything set up for our success. We just have to execute. Okay, we're here inside the cube at the open stack summit. Sargillai, senior vice president, chief operating officer at HP cloud. Thanks for joining us. We'll be right back with our next guest after the short break. Thank you. Great to be here.


The development of renewable energy sources, particularly wind generation, has led to changes in the structure of the energy mix in Poland. While onshore wind farms have been significantly curbed by new legislation, onshore wind farms are expected to play a larger role in future development. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the Polish wind sector from an electric power generation perspective, focusing on the production of electric power from wind and its correlation with demand for power in the Polish power system, PPS. The results indicate high variability in wind generation throughout the month or year, with the largest generation occurring during the night valley and greater wind generation in winter months. The lack of correlation between offshore wind power generation and real power demand in the PPS can be mitigated by the use of electricity storage systems. This article was authored by Silvester Robach, Robert Raczkowski, and Michael Pieckars. We are article.tv. Links in the description below.


Coach, how's Quadri Allison doing and Coderill Patterson looking at the running back group there with four-year in the mini-camp? Yeah. Q's done a nice job. He's really, so at this point, again, all based off of what we've thrown at him, but he's doing a really nice job with the middle part and the protections and very happy with his progress. And then CP, obviously he'll play multiple spots for us. He did a nice job at the end of the year last year in Chicago running the football and he's obviously well documented his history returning kicks and he's got some receiver background. So he's another cool, versatile piece we have in our program. And with Kyle Pitts, coach, what would be the keys here? The mini-camp, they still got some OTAs left.   We're just trying to push to see what these guys can handle mentally and bring them along so they understand the schemes and obviously we've been in a lot of the individual development so we get into training camp, they're in good shape, they've got a baseline understanding what we're asking them schematically, get over the memorization part, it's our focus on our technique and fundamentals to win the reps. Michael Rusty. Hey, Arthur, how you doing? Russell Gage, where do you really envision him, especially with Julio now gone, where do you really envision him fitting into this offense? Well, with all our players, Michael, I think we've got to get out of that fixed mindset of here. This is just static, 11 and 12, obviously Russ has worked a lot in the slot but with all of our skilled players, it's our job as coaches, trying to push down below with these guys, see what they can handle. It's easy to sit there and say, hey, he can't do this, he can't do this. You're going on history and Russ has done a nice job in the slot but we'll move Russell all over the place and then we've got to make a decision as we get closer to season. All right, we've given him a shot here, he's done well, he's grown his game. We've done this with a lot of players and everybody's on a different timeline. So we envision Russ playing multiple spots. This might be an odd question because you just kind of set it to get out of the static fixed way of 11-12 and basketball, there's kind of the talk of it being more positionless. Do you almost view your skilled players as somewhat positionless or is that maybe pushing it too far? Again, Michael, yeah, and obviously a big basketball fan and that's worked for some teams. Certainly, positionless players and then you go other teams that got to play their strengths. There's one thing, watching the Memphis Scruzzly team in 2010s, they had who they did and could solve and ran off in there and know the game was going but there's different ways to play and you've got to play the strengths of your players. Certainly some of the players that we've drafted or brought in a program we think can play multiple positions but if a guy, take a Lee Smith for example, we're not going to ask Lee to do the same thing we're doing with Kyle, we're asking Kyle to do. We've got to use Lee in the best role he can if he wants to play big boy football inside and that's why Lee's here. They're both called tight ends but yeah, I'm fascinated by it but you've got to have the right players to do it.  So if I don't have those three guys out there on the perimeter, I've got to adapt. Jeff Jones. Arthur, I know that Matt's had that playbook for a long time and it's obviously been played in the league for a while but watching the workout yesterday on the field, I know there's a lot of dialogue between you and two going back and forth.  Yeah, Jeff, it's a good question.  There's a lot of people who are successful doing a lot of ways but just personally it's he and I having dialogue. It's my job as a coach to push him to also listen and Matt, he wants to be coached. That's what I love about the guy. He's going in the year 14, he wants to be coached and usually the great players, they want to be coached. I certainly don't think I have all the answers. Matt certainly doesn't think he has all the answers. So it's great dialogue. Sometimes I make a little smart-ass comment to him or sometimes you want to push him or we have an open dialogue depending on what he's talking about. So it's fun. It's fun to work with him. And this is kind of a broad question too, but are there things that tend to come quickly and then things that tend to take a while before you two coach and a play caller and quarterback are really in sync and on the same play or on the same page? Yeah, absolutely. Whether it was with Marcus or Ryan, there's a relationship building and then until you really get into the games and get a true feel, a lot of times people say that they, hey, I'm this way and then you get around. I've been a lot of coaches and lose your mind on game day or a player. He can't take coaching on game day. So sure, hope as we get into the season, we get a good feel and that trust is developed and I prove that what I say is I'll actually come through with it. So it's been fun so far. But yes, they'll take some time. Scott Baird. Hey coach, I was curious if you could maybe go into some greater detail about how you mentally tax these players. You've used that phrase before. Is it about, you know, information overload or going off script to see how they react? How do you mentally tax these guys? Yeah, I have a question, Scott. And then again, I don't think that we're like the NSA over here, but there's some things I wouldn't like to openly to say here. Here's my coaching philosophy is a very competitive league and I do appreciate the question, Scott. I just not going to get into it and say here's what we're doing. I don't think we're doing anything special. I just really don't want to make it easy to be a third one team in case we have a good idea.  So not that I think I am. I'm just saying, Scott, I will be vague on questions like that. OK, well, then let me ask, do you feel like the guys are making the type of progress that you would like to see with what you're asking them to do? Yes, these guys doing a nice job. One of these guys coming in there, they're working on our strength and conditioning program, not the field and they're handling what we're throwing at them. And that's what it's a constant evaluation in all three phases. When Dean and Marquis and Dave and I, we get together, we got to see what we put in, what's working, what they can handle. You're always going to have a day or two that feels a little bit like a drag because you reach a point. And that's going to naturally happen in training camp too. But that's a constant evaluation. Allison. I wanted to follow up with something that we were talking about yesterday, especially when it came to leadership styles. And I wanted to know what you thought kind of makes a great leadership. Is it one that kind of leads by example? Is it one that's really vocal? Because sometimes you talk to, they have a lot of players that say, lead by example. Then they lack with guys that being vocal. So what do you think is the best leader? Well, they're authentic. And that's the one thing is the players, I mean, they see and hear everything. They know what's real and what's not. Well, their guy sits there and posts his workouts on social media and hashtags that he's grinding or whatever he's doing. And then they come in here and then the players look at him and they're like, no, this guy is not what he presents on social media. So it's got to be authentic. They know what's real and what's not. Same with the coaches. Try to act like somebody you're not. There's not going to buy it. So it's really about being yourself and proving it. So if a guy sits there and has an impact, he says he's a leader by example, and he is an example, and he's trying to outwork everybody, they'll get in line. The guy says that and then he's the back of the line, not in shape, six middle areas of practice, they tune him out regardless of what he may or may not post online. And when you break this mandatory mini-camp, what is your message to the guys? And do you have rules or things that they have to follow before they show up again for training camp? Well, again, going back, and this has come up fixed that the way we've handled this mini-camp, we made a mandatory, but it was really more importantly to get the physical, sit right where every player was at. So we're still in our OTA mode. So the message has been the same as we're trying to grow and develop every day. And like I said, schematically, we want to be pretty comfortable at the end of next week. Guys, there are different things that are coming up. Some guys, they have some family things. We got some players that are graduating, which is awesome. And they should be there, guys that are gonna walk. So they may not be here for a day, but the message is to get us ready and be in the best shape and then we'll assess when we get to training camp. But that's on them, because they need a break. It's good for them mentally, but physically they gotta be ready to roll come late July. Tenetra. All good, thank you. Got time for a couple of follow-ups, Delet. Yeah, Coach, how's Dante Fowler look? Was able to look at him a little bit yesterday and wanted to see how you guys are checking out his work here. Yeah, it was good to see Dante. He's in good shape physically. He looks, he's done a nice job. He's been training. And that's the trust you gotta say. I mean, these are grown men.  Mike? Yeah, you were talking about a break. Do you have anything planned for like the six weeks away?  Like what's the plan for Arthur Smith between next week and next week? I've got a huge family. Michael said I told Mr. Mike when he hired me, he sold a lot of tickets, because my family is huge. I tried to get to see him, you know, as probably everybody on here in the last 15 months or so, we haven't gotten to see everybody. And so it'd be nice to see a lot of my family at different spots throughout the summer. We're going to move. I wish I had something a little more exciting, to move like everybody when you move, it's a pain. And I try to chip in. I don't want to get accused of jumping out of there with my wife's doing all the work. So I'll help with the move. That's kind of my plans and see some family. I understand the moving thing all too well. Oh yeah. Yeah. Jeff? Just want to follow up to that. Any family up in Memphis by season tickets? They did. Yeah. Hopefully we can build a fan base in Memphis, but yeah, there's certainly a lot of tickets sold from Mayan in Memphis. Scott? I'm good. Thank you, coach. Thanks, Scott. Allison, last one, if you have one. I'll go for it. I know you don't like to compare players and people and things like that, but throughout your career, who has been like the best leader or mentor in your eyes? Yeah, that's always true. It's like who's your favorite sibling?  You know, probably maybe it's a little nostalgia. I threw this. One of the better leaders I mentioned yesterday was London Fletcher.  You know, when you're getting up there and present in Washington, and I'd get a screen and gadget report, and you know, I'd ask a few questions. You try to learn from everywhere around. Players and coaches, London was one early in my career that I thought he was a real leader.


We so next up Frank why don't we show the Roy why don't we you introduce Father Roy okay thanks Rachel um Roy Roy wish you all uh Father Roy we like to call him he he um served in the Navy as an officer in Vietnam and after that he was moved by what he saw there so we've joined the Marino missionaries same with Blazos and Teresa Balpain were and ordained to the priest in 1972 and he served in the port of the south and central America his experiences with death squads uh there impelled him to oppose U.S. training of armies in counter-insurgency at Fort Benning Georgia hundreds of thousands have demonstrated to close infamous school of americas uh Roy the founder of the school of America's watched in 1990 and in 2008 he decided he must also address an injustice closer to home that of of the exclusion of women from the Catholic Roman Catholic priesthood his refusal to recant and deny the dictates of his contest eventually led to his being excommunicated as a priest by the Catholic church he was a marinal priest for 45 years and he didn't kick him out because he was fighting against U.S. foreign policy they didn't kick him out because we wanted to close the school of America's they kicked him out because he wanted women to become priests anyway we love Roy and there's a clip we're going to show now it's from the the clip this is a short clip and it's from the film paying the price for peace the story of S. Brown Wilson and it's about the school of America's and it features Roy and Brian is also in it and Martin Sheen are also in this clip we're going to see we're ready I got the clip ready girls ladies here it is well this is coming on and I know it will just a super shout out to Emily and Mary Emily right now doing tech is a monster of a program thank you ladies I could say I would tell everybody listening that Roy is not watching this because Roy doesn't have a computer he does not have email so that's why he wasn't able to join his live but we're hoping to get that clip to play with the sound on it but for any of any of you who've ever been to for bending for the protest here we go let's see if we get this time the train attack drew attention to the US military's involvement in illegal wars highlighting its role in training secret armies for other countries most of the covert training took place in Fort Benning Georgia at the notorious school of the Americas as we gather today at the main gate of Fort Benning this is a very sacred moment we cannot go about the business of killing without being changed we cannot come back from Vietnam Afghanistan Iraq and other wars and go on with our lives as before no you know all these suicides the PTSD that we're reading so much about now the message is clear we are not made for war this is where SOA watch started right here and I realized something that was uh staggering to me but it was uh something that all of you probably uh completely understand without having to go to war and that was that we're all one we're all connected and how can I be possibly participating and killing other people I did not know just because I was ordered to do it so I learned how to be disobedient when 525 Salvadoran soldiers arrived at Fort Benning Georgia to start training there in combat a small group of us went there to say not in our name and what we found through the freedom of information act was a school of assassins as we learned it was well known of in Latin America a school for dictators a school of torture Washington Post front page along with the New York Times had a very big article about the the the torture manners that were used at the school of the americas techniques of torture and this is serious this is serious stuff we're about to do crimes against humanity here and it was time to put out the word let's gather here every november that weekend before thanksgiving and in the name of solidarity let us come and call for the closing of this school of assassins and something happened we started with 10 and then the next year you know a hundred came and then the next year 500 then a thousand and 3000 5000 10 000 all of a sudden we had 20 000 people gathering here and when they sent us to prison it just energized the movement it just brought more people the next year and when they sent us to prison what we learned was that they could not silence us the truth cannot be silence and we organized from prison we went to latin america simply to request that they stopped sending their troops here and i'm happy to report that five countries made decisions to pull out those countries being in argentina uruguay venezuela uh bolivia we went to ecudar where we went with president rafael correa and at that meeting he announced that ecudar was pulling out of the school of the americas he said something very important president korea he said this school should not exist we cannot live without cooperation it's the most important characteristic of human survival when we become so arrogant we justify doing anything we want is if there's no consequences it's insane we've come to a level of divorcing ourselves from the reality of war the west has taught the east how to solve problems and it's basically through violence you can't make war okay thank you very much


What are boiling water and pressurized water reactors? The fuel rods in a nuclear reactor are suspended in a water bath contained in a large metal container somewhat like a gigantic pressure cooker. A typical reactor vessel might be 15 feet in diameter and 20 feet high and some are even larger. In boiling water reactors, or BWRs, the water is allowed to boil and the heat generated in the fuel rods is carried away in steam. In pressurized water reactors, or PWRs, the water is held at very high pressure on the order of 2,000 pounds per square inch. More than 60 times the pressure in the tires of a typical car. In that situation, the water cannot boil. The water in a PWR carries the heat away while remaining liquid and passes through a steam generator to generate the steam to turn the turbine. In short, special enriched uranium packed in fuel rods and started on a chain reaction turns water into steam to turn a turbine so you can have electricity to run your computers and keep the lights on.


My name is Daini Vikacal and I am fortunate to be part of THI's Communications, Publications and Education team. I wanted to thank you for joining us today. We'll be starting with the presentation of the inaugural James T. Willerson MD Editors Choice Award presented by Dr. Joseph Rogers and Dr. Smonamir Kraser. It's an honor and a special pleasure for me to have this opportunity to present to the winners of Texas Art Institute Journal Willerson Editors Choice Awards. This award is sponsored by Texas Art Institute Board and also a generous gift from Morton Kahn, a longtime friend of THI and Dr. Willerson and a former board member. The purpose of this award is to acknowledge excellence in scientific discovery and medical writing. Now, the recognized papers are published in Texas Art Institute Journal and the winners were selected from those publications. The winners were selected by myself as editor-in-chief and also a panel of our associate editors which include Dr. Emerson Perrin sitting here, Dr. Stephanie Coulter, Dr. Jose Diaz, I don't know if he's here, and Dr. Alexander Postalian. Now, needless to say, Dr. Willerson, for those of us that have known him very well for the last several decades while he was at Texas Art Institute, he was truly one of the greatest beacon as far as Texas Art Institute is concerned and achievement that Texas Art Institute has gathered in addition to Dr. Cooley and many other of his associates. Some of his achievements are listed here, as all of you know, he was chief editor of circulation for 10 years and circulation was housed here in this institution. And he also published many books, many manuscripts. He was a researcher, he was a scientist, but above all he was an excellent, excellent physician and took good care of his patients. Very few of us will achieve the accolades and recognition that Dr. Willerson has achieved in his lifetime. So just briefly about Texas Art Institute Journal, all of you know it very well. It's a peer-reviewed journal by Texas Art Institute. We are nearing 50 years of existence of Texas Art Institute Journal from our institution. Here is the editorial board with associate editors. We also added more recently sectioned editors in nine topical areas and they are geographically diversely distributed and the content is published by Alan Press and there are a variety of type of manuscripts that are being published in the field of cardiovascular medicine. Almost 5,000 articles have been published in the journal since its inception. The journal is online only. It's free to read for everybody without any limitations or restrictions. And it's indexed by PubMed and Medline. We published six issues a year so far. So it is my distinct pleasure together with Dr. Robert Rogers to present the awards to the awardees. And I think if you don't mind to come here, we can take some of the pictures. So the first award was on continuous flow left ventricular assist device support in patients with ischemic versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. The authors are listed here. Dr. Chow is not present here. We have Dr. Civitello here. I don't know if Dr. Delgado is here but the award will be received by Dr. Chatterjee if you don't mind to come to the podium. While he is getting here and for all the individuals that received this award, this is not just a paper. They received $5,000. And I think it's a very generous award from Texas Heart Institute Board. And congratulations. But we do have also recogation awards for all the faculty or all the authors here, Dr. Civitello. And I don't know if Dr. Delgado is there. Anyhow, for those that are not here, the information and awards will be sent to them. The second award, and again by a popular demand, was given to Dr. Alexander Pustalian on simple transcending valed replacement with conscious sedation, safety and effectiveness in real world practice. This is from our experience at our institution. And Dr. Pustalian, please come here to receive your award. You already had a check and you bought a... Ferrari? I just want to make a quick comment. First of all, it's an honor and a privilege not only to receive this award but to be able to stay and work here among such amazing colleagues and team and mentors. And I hope that there's many good things to come in the future. And the other comment is that you saw in the first slide that I was helping choose this. This was when I was a fellow, okay? I didn't choose myself. Excuse me. This is a very appropriate comment because one of the main objectives for this award is to encourage our fellows, to encourage our residents in different specialties, whether it's cardiothoracic surgery, whether it's cardiology, interventional cardiology or cardiopulmonary circulation, congestive heart failure, and so on, heart transplant to a publish in our journal. And also for the faculty, all of you that are here, to encourage you to publish. And this award will continue. So there is a potential that you might be another recipient in the years to come. Now, Dr. Strickman also will get the award. And thank you, Dr. Strickman, for a contribution to this particular topic and patient care and catheterity that has worked diligently and very hard in gathering the data and also with some statistical analysis. And the last one, but not least, is ultrasound computational left ventricular ejection fraction by using temporal intensity variation in the cardiac, synacardiac magnetic resonance. And I'm not sure if anybody from the publication is here. I don't think that Ben Chung is here. How about Dr. Patendekar? No? What is it? He's watching on Zoom. All okay. Well, then congratulations to all of you. And unfortunately, you cannot stand here for the photo, but that's probably the best that you could do. So thank you very much for this very good manuscript.


In our last lecture, we defined vector norm and induced matrix norm. So, here in today's lecture, whenever I talk of vector norm, unless it is specified otherwise, it is going to be either one norm, two norm or infinity norm and matrix norm is going to be always the corresponding induced matrix norm. We are considering solution of system of linear equations. We have seen methods to solve these. So, these methods, they are exact methods. The error is going to be because we do the computations using computer. So, you have got finite precision and that is what introduces the error. So, today we want to look at the error in the computation. So, we will start with a system A x is equal to b because of finite precision. The matrix A, the coefficient matrix A in fact is going to be A plus delta A. Each entry of the matrix can have some error. Similarly, on the right hand side b, instead of the vector b, we will be looking at vector b plus delta b. So, you have exact solution x. Your computed solution is going to be x cap. So, we will like to look at the error norm of x minus x cap. Now, that is going to be absolute error. So, it is more appropriate to look at the relative error. So, our assumption is A x is equal to b. A is in binary matrix which is invertible matrix and the right hand side is a non-zero vector. So, as a consequence our exact solution x is also going to be non-zero. In practice, you are going to solve A plus delta A x cap is equal to b plus delta b and our aim is to bound x minus x cap its norm divided by normic. And as I mentioned the norm is going to be either one norm or two norm or is going to be infinity norm. Now, what we are going to do is in order to simplify our analysis, first we will assume that there is only error in the right hand side. Next, we will consider the case when there is error also in the coefficient matrix delta A. So, this is for simplification. Finally, we are going to look at the general equation that is A plus delta A is the coefficient matrix right hand side is B plus delta B. But to start with exact equation is A x is equal to b and we look at only perturbation or error in the right hand side. So, we have the error delta B it is supposed to be a small error this is your computed error x cap. So, a computed solution x cap. So, let me write x cap is equal to x plus delta x where delta x is equal to x cap minus x. Now, this is our claim that norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to norm A into norm A inverse into norm delta B by norm B. Norm delta B by norm B is the relative error in the right hand side norm delta x by norm x is the relative error in the computed solution. And we are going to show that norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to norm delta B by norm B and it gets multiplied by this number norm A into norm A inverse. So, this number is going to play an important role that is going to be our condition number of the matrix. So, let us derive this formula that norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to norm A into norm A inverse into norm delta B by norm B. So, we have our A x is equal to B then A x plus delta x is equal to B plus delta B. So, using the fact that A x is equal to B you get A delta x is equal to delta B. Now, look at norm B norm B is equal to norm A x norm A x is less than or equal to norm A into norm x. So, it is here that I use the fact that we are using the induced matrix norm that is why we have got this fundamental inequality. Now, from here you get 1 upon norm x to be less than or equal to norm A divided by norm B. Our assumption is norm B is not equal to 0 that implies x not equal to 0. So, we make sure that we are not dividing by 0. This equation A delta x is equal to delta B. We write as delta x is equal to A inverse delta B then take the norm of both sides and again use the fundamental inequality. So, you will get norm A inverse into norm delta B. Now, combine the equation 1 and 2 to obtain norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to norm A into norm A inverse into norm delta B by norm B. Norm A into norm A inverse that is called a condition number and if this condition number if it is small. So, we will specify what we mean by small then norm delta B by norm B small will also imply that norm delta x by norm x is not too big and which will mean that the system is not overly sensitive to perturbations in B. First thing we are going to show is that condition number of a matrix A is always going to be bigger than or equal to 1. Condition number is defined for invertible matrices. It is defined as norm A into norm A inverse. We look at induced matrix norm. So, the induced matrix norm has got consistency condition that means norm A B is less than or equal to norm A into norm B. So, we will make use of this relation and also the fact that if you are looking at induced matrix norm then norm of the identity matrix is going to be equal to 1. So, using these two results we will show that condition number is always bigger than or equal to 1 and this is something consistent that you are starting with some error norm delta B by norm B.  So, this result or the error we start with if at all it will get increased it cannot reduce. So, norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to some number which is bigger than or equal to 1 into norm delta B by norm B. So, the best result will be when your matrix has condition number to be equal to 1. Then norm delta x by norm x will be less than or equal to norm delta B by norm B. So, let us first show that condition number is always bigger than or equal to 1. So, we are looking at the induced matrix norm. So, norm A is maximum of norm A x divided by norm x x not equal to 0. Here norm A x will be a vector norm you can keep in mind that it is either 1 norm or 2 norm or infinity norm. So, if I look at identity matrix then you have got norm i is equal to maximum norm x by norm x x not equal to 0. So, it is going to be equal to 1. So, this is the first result and then you have got 1 is equal to norm identity which is equal to norm A inverse which is less than or equal to norm A into norm A inverse. So, that is the consistency condition and this is our condition number of A. So, the best possible condition number is going to be kappa A is equal to 1. Norm of identity matrix is equal to 1 that is true for induced matrix norm. If you consider some other norm then this result may not be true. Like remember we have defined Frobenius norm. So, the Frobenius norm was defined as norm of A f is equal to summation i goes from 1 to n summation j goes from 1 to n A i j square whole thing raise to half. So, this Frobenius norm or it is like for the vector that is the Euclidean norm. And here you treat A as a vector of length n square then you have got this Frobenius norm. When you look at the identity matrix it is 1 along the diagonal and 0 elsewhere. So, norm i Frobenius norm is going to be square root of n whereas, if you consider norm i 2 which is equal to norm i 1 which is equal to norm i infinity these are going to be equal to 1. So, if you consider the condition number with respect to the Frobenius norm that means norm A f norm A inverse f this is going to be bigger than or equal to root n. Let us look at some examples of matrices for which the condition number is going to be equal to 1 that is the best possible condition number. So, I am going to look at two examples. So, one is orthogonal matrix. So, the orthogonal matrix has the property that if I call it matrix Q then it is Q transpose Q is equal to identity. So, we are going to show that condition number with respect to two norm of orthogonal matrix is going to be equal to 1. And then we will look at permutation matrices. So, the permutation matrix is obtained from the identity matrix by finite number of row interchanges. So, let us first look at orthogonal matrix. So, let me recall that on R n we have got we have defined inner product. So, inner product of x with y vectors in R n it is defined as y transpose x. So, it is summation j goes from 1 to n x j y j then norm x 2 is the norm induced by this inner product. So, it is inner product of x with x and it is positive square root. So, it is x transpose x raise to half this is going to be equal to summation j goes from 1 to n x j square whole thing raise to half. Look at matrix Q which is of size n by n and which satisfies the property that Q transpose Q is equal to identity. Then our claim is that condition number of this orthogonal matrix with respect to two norm it is going to be equal to 1. So, for a orthogonal matrix if you consider condition number with respect to some other norm like our one norm infinity norm then that need not be equal to 1. But if you are looking at the induced matrix norm induced by Euclidean vector norm then the condition number is going to be equal to 1. Why are these matrices with condition numbers equal to 1 important because they do not augment the error you start with. You start with error norm delta b by norm b in the computed solution the error is 0. So, it is less than or equal to the error you start with. So, that is why if you can work with orthogonal matrices or if you can work with matrices with condition number is equal to 1 that will be best computationally. Now, in order to show that condition number of orthogonal matrix is equal to 1 we will first show that two norm of orthogonal matrix is equal to 1 and from that it will follow that the condition number is equal to 1 and then we will consider an example of a orthogonal matrix. So, look at norm of q x two norm square that is equal to inner product of q x with itself by definition of inner product this is q x transpose into q x. Now, q is equal to x transpose into q into x it is transpose is equal to x transpose q transpose the order gets reversed. So, you have x transpose q transpose q x q transpose q is equal to identity. So, that means this quantity is equal to x transpose x, but x transpose x is nothing but Euclidean norm of x square. So, thus for a non zero vector x norm q x by norm x is going to be equal to 1 and what is the matrix norm it is maximum of such quotients over all possible x not equal to 0 vector, but the quotient is always equal to 1. So, that will give us norm q two is equal to 1 if q is orthogonal matrix q transpose also is orthogonal because look at q transpose it is transpose into q transpose that will be nothing but q q transpose and orthogonal matrix is such that q transpose q is identity q q transpose is identity and hence if q is orthogonal q transpose is also orthogonal then by this result you get norm q transpose it is two norm is equal to 1, but orthogonal matrix means inverse of q is nothing but q transpose. So, thus norm of q inverse it is two norm is equal to 1 and then the condition number with respect to two norm of q which is norm q multiplied by norm q inverse. So, that is going to be equal to 1. So, now let us look at an example of a orthogonal matrix. So, I am going to look at two by two matrix and for that matrix we will also calculate its one norm and infinity norm. In our last lecture we had seen that for one norm and for infinity norm you have got a formula when you want to look at one norm then that is nothing but the column sum norm. So, if you want to look at each column take the moduli of the entry sum it up. So, like that you will get n numbers look at the maximum and that is a one norm. If you want to look at infinity norm then it is the row sum norm that means what we did for columns you have to do it for rows. So, in each row you consider the moduli of the entries sum it up there are n rows. So, you are going to get n numbers the maximum among that is going to be your infinity norm. On the other hand for two norm we do not have a such a formula we have to be satisfied only with an upper bound and that upper bound is the Frobenius norm. For orthogonal matrix we have seen that two norm of the matrix Q is going to be equal to 1. So, here is an example of two by two orthogonal matrix it is 1 by root 2 1 by root 2 first column 1 by root 2 minus 1 by root 2 is equal to second column it is a symmetric matrix. So, Q transpose is equal to Q and you can verify that Q square is equal to identity matrix because it is a orthogonal matrix norm Q 2 is equal to 1. On the other hand when you want to consider norm Q 1 look at the first column sum of the elements is going to be root 2 the second one also the sum of the moduli. So, modulus is important that is again root 2. So, norm Q 1 is going to be equal to root 2 and norm Q infinity where you have to look at the rows that also gives you root 2 the matrix is symmetric. So, this is for orthogonal matrix now we will look at permutation matrix. So, you start with identity matrix and to start with you interchange only two rows any two rows you interchange the matrix which you get it is going to have property that p square will be equal to identity because you have identity matrix you interchange two rows. Now, if you interchange these two rows again then you are going to get back to your identity matrix. So, your p square is going to be equal to identity matrix and your matrix p is going to be a symmetric matrix. So, p transpose is equal to p. So, this matrix being orthogonal matrix its two norm is going to be equal to 1 because that we have proved just now that for any orthogonal matrix the two norm is going to be equal to 1. Then you look at one norm. So, it is a special matrix we had identity matrix and then we are interchanging the rows look at the matrix. So, it is this is my starting matrix now what I am doing is I am interchanging two rows. So, let us interchange first row and third row for example. So, the third row is 0 0 1 and then remaining entries 0. The second row will remain as it is 0 1 0 0 and third row we are interchanging first and third row. So, third row now becomes 1 0 0 and then remaining entries 0 and remaining part of the matrix is remaining unchanged. So, here you have all 0. So, this is my matrix p. Now, if I want to look at its one norm I have to look at its the columns of norm. Now, in each column there is only one entry which is non-zero and that is equal to 1 1. So, norm p 1 is equal to 1 norm p infinity also will be equal to 1 because in each row you have got only 1 non-zero entry and that is equal to 1. You have p square is equal to identity because if you interchange again the same rows you are going to get back the identity. So, you have norm p 2 is also equal to 1. Now, p inverse is equal to p because p square is identity and that gives us condition number of p with respect to one norm or two norm or infinity norm is equal to 1. So, this permutation norm is equal to 1. So, this permutation matrices they came into picture when we wanted to look at Gauss elimination with partial pivoting. So, there at each stage we may need to interchange the rows. These interchange in rows they were accounted for by pre multiplying your matrix by a permutation matrix. So, by a matrix obtained from the identity matrix by interchange of one row. Then what we wanted to do was take all permutation matrices together and take all lower triangular matrices together.  So, let me just look at two such matrices. So, I have got p 1. So, this is obtained from the identity matrix by one row interchange p 2 is again a matrix obtained by from identity by one row interchange. These two rows they will be now different. So, we have got p 1 square is equal to identity p 2 square is equal to identity. Let us look at matrix p 1 p 2 and then we also have p 1 transpose is equal to p p 1 p 2 transpose is equal to p 2.   So, it is identity and which will mean that p 1 p 2 is orthogonal matrix. So, the condition number of p 1 p 2 will also be equal to 1 and in this case even the condition number with respect to one norm or infinity norm is going to be equal to 1. Let us find a lower bound it is not always possible, but in this case because see what the result which we are getting is norm delta x by norm x is less than or equal to condition number of a into norm delta b by norm b. So, this less than or equal to it means that may be condition number of a into norm delta b by norm b that product is big, but still norm delta x by norm x can be small. So, what is ideal is to have an upper bound and also an lower bound. Now, in numerical analysis such a thing is not always possible. In fact, most of the time you have to be satisfied with only a upper bound and then one tries to give the upper bounds which are tight or which are the best possible and so on. So, now we are going to look at the lower bound in the case when a x is equal to b and a x plus delta x is equal to b plus delta b. We have already found an upper bound and now we are going to find lower bound the method is similar. So, you have a x is equal to b that means x is equal to a inverse b. So, that gives you norm x to be less than or equal to norm a inverse into norm b. From this we will get 1 upon norm a inverse into norm b to be less than or equal to 1 upon norm x. Then a delta x is equal to delta b. So, norm delta b will be less than or equal to norm a into norm delta x and then that gives you norm delta b by norm a to be less than or equal to norm delta x. When we obtained upper bound we had done other way. We had written norm b to be less than or equal to norm a into norm x and delta x to be equal to a inverse delta b. Now, we apply the fundamental inequality to x is equal to a inverse b and a delta x is equal to delta b and then combine these two results. So, you will get norm delta x by norm x the relative error in the computed solution to be bigger than or equal to norm delta b by norm b from here and then 1 upon norm a into norm a inverse. This upper bound we had already found. So, here condition number of a is in the numerator, here condition number of a is in the denominator. If the condition number of a is equal to 1, then you are going to have norm delta x by norm x is equal to norm delta b by norm b. So, this is the best situation possible that you start with some error and you do computations. So, we are going to perform various operations, but then in the end the relative error in the computed solution is the same as the relative error in the relative error which we started with. So, this is for this a x is equal to b and only the perturbation in the right hand side. Now, let us look at a example. So, this condition number of a norm a into norm a inverse if it is big. So, afterwards we will see what we mean by big and small, but I want to give you an example where the condition number is of the order of 10 raise to 6. So, it is really a big number and then you perturbed the right hand side slightly. So, your norm delta b by norm b is going to be small, but the error in the computed solution it becomes very big because of your big condition number. So, look at this example a is a 2 by 2 matrix, this matrix its inverse is given by minus 900 raise to 6. So, it is a 999, then 999 and then minus 1000. So, when you look at norm a 1. So, look at the first column, look at the second column, add up the entries, look at the maximum. So, norm a 1 is going to be 1999. Then when you consider infinity norm you have to do it with the rows. So, again norm a infinity is 1999. Norm a inverse its one norm and infinity norm they are the same. So, when you consider the condition number you have to look at norm a into norm a inverse. So, that means it is going to be 1999 square. So, that is approximately equal to 4 into 10 raise to 6 or to be more precise 3.996 into 10 raise to 6. Now, you look at this system we choose right hand side. So, that the exact solution is 1 1, if x 1 is equal to 1, x 2 is equal to 1 you are going to get the first entry to be 1999, second entry to be 1997. Per tub system has right hand side to be 1998.99 and the second one is 1997.01. So, it is a very small perturbation. So, your delta b is going to be equal to minus 0.01 and 0.01. So, very small number when you solve the perturb system. So, your exact solution is 1 1 and you are changing the right hand slightly and computed solution is 1 1. So, your exact solution which you are getting it is 20.97 and minus 18.99. So, your exact solution is 1 1 and you are getting the solution which has nothing to do with your earlier solution. You were starting error was 5.0 into 10 raise to minus 6 and now your error is not 0.1. So, norm delta x infinity by norm x infinity is 19.99. So, this situation this is something one has to be careful about that you want to solve some system. Now, if it perturbs slightly and that is bound to happen you are using computer. So, there is going to be always some error.  So, when we looked at our error norm delta x by norm x it was about 20. That means the error is of the same order as your solution. So, that is why the big condition number that is something one has to worry about. Here remember there is no approximation the 2 by 2 matrix you are doing exact calculations, but there is a error which is not acceptable. Now, what we could have done in this case the matrix A is given to us. So, if the matrix is given to us its condition number is fixed. So, what can I do I have I have been given a system I solve it and then it happens. So, if such is the case then you cannot do much, but what you have to be careful is your starting matrix is well conditioned, but in the process you are making it to be ill conditioned. So, that is what happens when you divide by a small number. So, we are considering Gauss elimination method in that Gauss elimination method when you determine the multipliers you consider A 2 1 by A 1 1 that was our multiplier M 2 1.  So, this is something you should avoid another is there are some ways to make the matrix to be well conditioned it may not work for all matrices, but for some matrices it will work. So, that part we will see how to do it. So, here it was I wanted to give you an example where the condition number is big and that affects your solution in such a manner that you get a completely unacceptable solution. So, now we had looked at perturbation only in the right hand side. Now, let us look perturbation in the coefficient matrix actually the most general condition is you will you are going to have perturbation in the coefficient matrix you are going to have perturbation in the right hand side. What I am going to do is now consider only perturbation in the coefficient matrix with right hand side to be exact obtain the result and then state the result in the general case. The methodology is the same it is just question of writing it down. So, now A x is equal to B is our original system the perturb system is going to be A plus delta A x is equal to B our assumption is that A is invertible. So, first we have to make sure that our perturbed system the coefficient matrix A plus delta A is going to be an invertible matrix. So, we are going to find a condition on delta A which will imply that A plus delta A is going to be invertible. These perturbations whether it is in the right hand side B or whether it is in the coefficient matrix they are supposed to be small perturbations. If you change your right hand side drastically then of course, the solution which you get is going to be something totally different then we do not expect it to have any relation with our original solution. So, what we are doing is when you are perturbing it slightly how does the computed solution behave. So, we are first going to find a condition on delta A which will guarantee that A invertible implies A plus delta A invertible. So, for that we are going to prove a result that if a matrix C has norm less than 1 now which norm any induced matrix norm. So, if norm C is less than 1 then I plus C is invertible. So, this is the first result we will prove and then we will prove then we will obtain a sufficient condition for invertibility of A plus delta A. So, C is an n by n matrix such that norm of C is less than 1 I want to show that I plus C is invertible. So, I will show that it is 1 to 1 in order to show that it is 1 to 1 consider I plus C x is equal to 0 vector that will mean that x is equal to minus C x take norm of both the sides. So, you will have norm x is equal to norm C x and by fundamental inequality it is less than or equal to norm C into norm x that is why I said that consider any induced matrix norm. Now, here norm of C is less than 1. So, this relation implies that norm x has to be equal to 0 vector because if norm x is not equal to 0 then I can say that 1 is less than or equal to norm C cancel norm x, but then norm C is less than 1 and I am getting 1 less than or equal to norm C. So, contradiction. So, norm x has to be equal to 0 not a 0 vector it should be norm x is equal to 0 it is a scalar and this implies that x is equal to 0 vector by property of norm. So, I plus C is 1 to 1 and hence it is invertible. Now, we use this fact to obtain a sufficient condition on delta a which will guarantee invertibility of a plus delta a. So, let a be invertible and delta a be such that norm delta a by norm a is less than 1 upon condition number that means 1 upon norm a into norm a inverse. So, this condition I can write or it will imply that norm delta a into norm a inverse is less than 1. So, we have norm delta a to be less than norm a inverse we have norm delta a into norm a inverse to be less than 1. So, actually norm delta a is less than 1 upon norm a inverse. Now, I look at a plus delta a this will be identity plus delta a into a inverse a I take a common I know that this is invertible this is my matrix C. So, what is norm of C? Norm of C is norm of delta a into a inverse which is less than or equal to norm delta a into norm a inverse by consistency condition and then from this condition you get this to be less than 1. So, you will get i plus c to be invertible and a is already invertible. So, a plus delta a inverse will be equal to a inverse into i plus c inverse using the fact that if a and b are invertible matrices a b inverse is equal to b inverse a inverse. We look at the perturbation in the coefficient matrix a and we assume that norm delta a is less than 1 upon norm a inverse or equivalently norm delta a by norm a is less than 1 upon condition number of a. So, norm delta a by norm a it is the relative error in the coefficient matrix. So, norm delta a by norm a it is the relative error in the coefficient matrix. And we assume that it is less than 1 upon condition number of a and that will guarantee that a plus delta a is invertible. So, a x is equal to b a plus delta a x plus delta x is equal to b then a x is equal to b will give us a times delta x is equal to. So, a x is equal to b. So, that will get cancelled and then a delta x is equal to minus delta a into x plus delta x taking this on the other side. Now, a is invertible. So, take a on the other side and then you will get norm delta x to be less than or equal to norm a inverse norm delta a using the triangle inequality here norm x plus norm delta x. Now, I am multiply and divide by norm a and then write norm a into norm a inverse to be condition number. So, I have condition number of a delta a by norm a norm delta a by norm a norm x plus norm delta x. Whatever is related to delta x I take it on the other side. So, I will get 1 minus condition number of a norm delta a by norm a into norm delta x to be less than or equal to condition number of a norm delta a by norm a into norm x that will give us norm delta x by norm x to be less than or equal to this condition number of a this bracket and then norm delta a by norm a. Remember that this quantity we are assuming it to be less than 1. So, even in this case what is going to matter is the condition number. You have got the relative error is less than or equal to condition number of a divided by something into norm delta a by norm a. So, tomorrow we will consider some conditions or we are not going to calculate the condition numbers. So, by looking at a matrix we should be able to sort of guess or we should have some way of knowing whether it is ill conditioned or well conditioned. So, some geometric picture these are the things we will do in our next lecture. So, thank you.


Welcome! The following video will demonstrate how to program a thin-door window contact into a 2GIG GC2 panel. To program a door window contact into a security zone, you will first need to access the installer toolbox. Press the 2GIG logo on your GC2 panel screen. Enter the installer code. The default installer code for the GC2 is 1561. You are now in the installer toolbox. To access zone programming, press System Configuration. You'll see Q1, select RF sensor number 01-48, 63-74, displayed in the upper ribbon of the screen. System configuration is navigated via questions and sub-questions. Wireless zones are programmed in Q1, so we're already on the correct question for wireless devices. First, you'll want to decide which zone number to assign to the thin-door window contact. Note, the words sensor and zone are interchangeable. In this training, we'll use the term zone number. By default, we're already on the correct sub-question to select the zone number. The white field is called the answer box. 01 will display in the answer box by default, which means we've selected zone number 1. If you would like to change this sensor to a different zone number, press the right arrow to change the zone number, or type the desired number in using the number keys on screen. You'll see the new selection appear in the answer box. Once the desired zone number displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Select the sensor type. 00 unused will display in the answer box by default. There are two ways to change the sensor type. Option 1, scroll through a list of options using the right arrow. Option 2, use the on-screen keypad to type in the two-digit code for your desired sensor type. For the thin-door window contact, you'll want to select either 01 exit entry 1 or 02 exit entry 2 if the sensor will be placed on a door. The first option, 01, will set an entry delay of 30 seconds. This gives the user a 30-second countdown to disarm the panel once the thin-door window contact is triggered while the panel is armed. The second option, 02, will increase the entry delay to a 45-second countdown. Select 03 perimeter if the sensor will be used on a window. The alarm will instantly trigger with no countdown as soon as the window is opened while the panel is armed. Once the desired sensor type displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Select the equipment code. 0000, other will display in the answer box by default. Press the right arrow until 0862, 2 gig thin-door window contact displays in the answer box. You can also type 0862 to select this option. Press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Next, you'll want to input the serial number for the thin-door window contact. You'll find the serial number on the sensors box labeled as a TXID number. The number is also shown on a sticker on the sensor itself. You can either add the serial number with the panels on-screen keyboard or add it in wirelessly. If you choose to add the serial number wirelessly, first remove the battery pull tab if you have not done so already. The sensor should be in a closed state. Close the sensor by aligning the rare earth magnet to the read switch of the transmitter. The read switch is denoted by three notches. Now we can start the pairing process. Press shift, then learn. You will see a message that the panel is waiting for the sensor transmission. Trigger the sensor by pulling the magnet and transmitter apart. Close the sensor again by aligning the magnet to the transmitter's read switch. You'll see a confirmation message that the transmitter was received, and you'll see the type and ID number displayed on-screen. Note, the panel will register any sensor within range, so you'll need to make sure the ID number on-screen matches the serial number or TXID of the thin-door window contact you're adding. Press OK. You will see the serial TXID number in the answer box. Press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Select the equipment age. Since this is a new 2GIG contact, leave the selection as zero-new. Press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Next, select the loop number. The thin-door window contact can function in a few different configurations, which dictate loop number. If you're converting a hard-wired door contact to wireless, use loop 1. This will require you to connect one end of the included wire lead into the transmitter and the other end to a normally closed device. Note, for this option, the magnet is not used. In most applications, the transmitter and magnet are used to monitor door activity. For this application, the wire lead is not used. Select loop 2 for this application. Loop 3 does not apply to the thin-door window contact and should not be selected. Once the desired option displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Choose whether to enable or disable the dialer delay. The dialer delay is used to help prevent false alarms. To enable the dialer delay, use the right arrow to select option 1. To disable the dialer delay, leave option 0 disabled. Once the desired option displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Next, add the voice descriptors. Press insert. The word abort will automatically appear in the answer box. Change the word by either using the right and left arrow buttons or by typing the word's 3-digit code using the keyboard. For a list of all voice descriptors and their associated codes, see the installation and programming guide. To add another word, press insert again and repeat the steps just discussed. You can add up to 5 words. Once the desired word or words displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Next, choose whether or not to send reports to the central monitoring station. If you would like reports related to the thin-door window contact to be sent to the central monitoring station, select 1 enabled. Press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Next, decide whether or not you want the panel to monitor supervisory signals of the thin-door window contact, such as low battery, tamper, and more. Select 1 enabled to activate this feature. Press the down arrow to go to the next sub-question. Lastly, the panel can be made to enunciate sensor names by selecting a chime. Use the right arrow to scroll through a list of chime options. Once the desired option displays in the answer box, press the down arrow to go to the summary page. Review the summary page to ensure all information is correct. Review all answers. If you need to edit any of the information, press edit current. To exit programming mode and save your changes, press skip. Then press end. The option to save changes is selected by default. Finally, press exit. The system will automatically save the new information and the panel will reboot. The thin-door window contact has now been programmed into the 2GIG GC2 panel.