Welcome back in continuation to the last lecture where we discussed about semantic tableaux method. We discussed some examples we discussed some examples and we discussed about when they are considered to be when they are going to be valid etc. So we will talk about some more examples in this class so that we will get ourselves familiarized with this particular kind of technique. So this technique occupies the central position for this course so that is why we are spending little bit of little bit more time on this particular kind of method. So as I said in the last lecture semantic tableaux method is all about finding some kind of counter example. Suppose if you are trying to check the validity of a given well-formed formula of a predicate logic what we are trying to do is that first you negate the formula and then you construct a tree based on the tree rules that we have discussed in the last class and then if the negation of the formula leads to the branch closure then we said that negation of that formula is unsatisfiable and whenever not x is unsatisfiable x is considered to be valid. So that is one thing which we have been doing and then the second thing is that if you want to talk about consistency of set of statements in the predicate logic then what we need to do is you construct a tree diagram for these two sentences and then when the branch does not close and on that means it satisfies the formula the given formulas and hence these two formulas are said to be consistent for example if you want to talk about consistency of these things example if you take into consideration px and qx and then another thing for all x px implies not qx let us consider that let us assume that these are the two statements that are given to you. So now we would like to see whether these two are consistent to each other or not using semantic tableaux method so the first thing we need to do in the semantic tableaux method is that always handle the formula which consists of existential quantify so now first you eliminate this quantify using this particular kind of rules suppose if you have a formula like this in your tree then if you remove this existential quantify then you are replacing it with some kind of parameter a and then each time when you remove this existential operator existential quantify you have to use a new parameter where a is new so now if you remove this particular kind of thing then this will become p a and q a so this is one of the instances of this particular kind of formula now we are checking for the consistency of these two formulas now fourth one so now this px implies not qx holds for all x in particular so that is why it holds for even this particular kind of thing one instance of this one could be even this not q a so now we use the same rule x implies y is not x and y so you apply this particular kind of rule for this one then this will become not p a and not q a so now p a and q a can be written in this sense I am just writing it here itself q a whenever you have two formulas like this p and q the tree diagram for this one is simply this p and q it looks like a trunk so p and q followed by that you have to write like this in the tree diagram so now in this one you have p a here and not p a here this branch closes I mean these two are contradictory to each other a literal and its negation is found here that is why this branch closes and there is no way in which you can go beyond this one and you have no q a and not q a here even this branch also closes so that means you list out these statements one after another and you construct a tree diagram and all the branches closes that means there exists some x p x and q x and this particular kind of formula for all x p x implies not q a is said to be inconsistent inconsistent to each other why because if you take both the statements and construct a tree it leads to the branch closure so that means unsatisfiability so it is not satisfiable in any one of these interpretations so because all the branches closes so in that sense there exists some x for all x p x implies not q x they are said to be inconsistent to each other so you can replace it with some kind of proposition for p you can replace p with some any other kind of thing in the natural language yourself can see that if you state for all x p x implies not q x and at the same time you say that there exists some x p x and q x then these two statements are to each other so let us consider another example and see whether these two formulas are said to be consistent or not so this for the sake of understanding we are taking these simple examples then later I move on to check the validity of a given predicate logical form let us say there exists some x p x and q x this is the first statement and you consider another statement such as p x or q x and then third one take any other things such as there exists some x it is not the case that there exists some x p x so just for the sake of time being you take these three things so now we want to check whether these three statements are consistent to each other or not so now you start constructing the tree diagram for these things first you eliminate this existential quantifier it will be PA and QA so now first you eliminated this one existential quantifier and then one instance of this one is going to be this one now fifth now this can be written as not there exists some x p x is nothing but this negation goes inside and negation of existential quantifier will become universal quantifier and you have to push this negation inside and this will become so now we can write straight away like this for all x not p x so now here in the second one if you eliminate this existential quantifier then you need to ensure that it is replaced by a parameter which is not used earlier so a is the parameter which is used here so we are not supposed to use it again here next time when you remove this existential quantifier you need to use another parameter let us say B other than this a this is going to be QB now so now the next one is going to be this one for all x not p x so this is going to be true for all x and all irrespective of whatever you substitute whether a or B it is going to be the case so that is why it is going to be the case not P B so now PA and QA it can be written in this sense QA so that is a fourth one fourth one after another you can write and that second one is P B and QB and then you have not P B once again since you have P B here and not P B here this branch close this it turns out to be the case that these three statements there exists some X P X and not P X and Q X there exists some X P X or Q X sorry this is R we are not supposed to close like this so this is going to be this one P B R Q B so now so this is going to be like this this is P B so this we expanded it and then it will become P B and Q B since there are connected is there which I did not notice it so now not P B and P B closes and then this branch is open so this branch is open in the sense that you have Q A here but you have Q B here so there is no way in which you can cancel you can close the branch that means this branch is open so now from the open branch open branch is the one which satisfies this particular kind of this formulas satisfies the formulas means the values that that are going to be there here satisfies that we that makes these three formulas true so what are these things when Q B is T and not P B becomes T and then both PA Q A T and this is going to satisfy these three formulas that means they are going to make this three formulas true so it is in that sense these three formulas are said to be consistent to each other so the only one thing which need to note that is the list out all these formulas one by one after another and then construct a tree diagram and if at least one branch is open that means the formula given formulas are said to be consistent but in the earlier case when we constructed a tree diagram for the given formulas all the branches close that means it is unsatisfiable so in this case at least in one instance it is satisfiable then it is considered to be these three sentences are considered to be consistent to each other so this is the way to check whether it given statements are consistent to each other or not so now let us talk about some more examples with respect to validity for validity what you will do is for example if you have given a formula X what you need to do is you need to construct a tree diagram for not X and then if all the branches closes that means you land up with a contradiction all the branches closes then not X is considered to be unsatisfiable and that ensures us that X is going to be valid so that is what we will be doing in the case of checking the validity of a given well-formed formula in the predicate logic this is an important decision procedure method because so in this method this also solves as a proof in a sense that any proof is considered to be considered to be ending in finite steps in finite intervals of time so now let us consider this example for all X for all Y for all Z R X Y R Y Z etc and the second statement is for all X for all Y R X Y R Y X and the third statement for all X there exists some Y R X Y and the fourth one for all X R X X so now we want to show whether 1 2 3 the first three statements leads to the fourth statement are not that means fourth statement is considered to be a semantic consequence or logical consequence of 1 2 3 so for that what you will be doing simply is that list out all the three statements one after another and you take the negation of the conclusion and then you start constructing the tree and if it turns out that all the branches closes then the negation of the conclusion is unsatisfiable that means the given conclusion is considered to be the correct kind of conclusion from these three premises so now let us consider this particular example and then we will see so why we are doing all the same because you have to for getting ourselves familiarized with this particular kind of technique we are solving these particular kinds of problems so now the statements are the given statements in the predicate logic are like this first one for all X for all Y for all Z this is the case R X Y and R Y Z implies R X Z this is the kind of some transitivity property second we have for all X for all Y we have R X Y implies R Y X 3 for all X there exists some Y R fourth one so now this is considered to be the conclusion X for all X R X X so now we want to check whether this particular kind of statement follows from these three are not using the technique of semantic tableaux method so for that what you need to do is you take into consideration the negation of this formula so that is not for all X R X X there is a different kind of notation that is being used here sometimes I write R X X and some other textbooks it is simply written as R X X so just to separate the predicates with the individual variables subscript and superscript and subscript you write in this way so it does not matter whatever way you write R X X means this X and X are in some kind of order it can be written in this sense or followed by X X or it can be written even in this sense so it is used interchangeably and the other thing is that for quantifiers in some textbooks you put parenthesis like this just to separate this one for example you can write like this in some other textbooks it is simply this parenthesis is ruled out and then you can simply write X and X okay so this is only for our convention and all the all these things are correct on correct kind of correct ways of representing the same thing so now we are showing that 1 2 3 is a set of prepositions leads to 4 that means these three things leads to this particular kind of thing so now for the semantic tableaux method you start with the negation of the conclusion so now not for all X R X X means this one if you simplify this one and this is there exists some X and then you push this negation inside it will become R X and X so that is what you are going to write here so this is there exists some X not R X so this brackets needs to be clear now so now the strategy for this semantic tableaux method is that first you need to eliminate this existential quantifier before handling the universal quantifies so the best thing to remove best thing to handle is this fifth one so that is when you replace this when you eliminate this existential quantify and we have a rule if something is true this then ? of a where you have to replace this thing with ? of a where a the parameter a is new so now this is going to be like this ? of R a and a the first thing that we will be trying to do so now in the same way 617 so now coming back to this one for all X there exists some Y R X Y that means there exists some Y R X Y holds for all X that means it holds for even when you substitute a for that also is going to be it is going to hold for that particular kind of thing also so this is for all X there exists some Y R X Y so now this particular kind of thing holds for all X that means there exists some Y R even if you replace it X with a that is going to hold now so now this is what you are going to write here there exists some Y so how did you get this one five existential instantiation for all Y R so this is a by this is this three universal instantiation because you have removed this universal quantified so now eight since this is the only thing which we have in this one which starts with the existential quantifier we settle with this thing and then we move on to the universal quantifiers so now there exists some Y R a Y if you remove this particular kind of existential quantifier you have to ensure that when you replace Y with any other parameter that parameter should not figure out in any one of this any one of things about this particular kind of formula that means when you remove this Y it has to be it has to be B rather than a anything other than a you can substitute it for this one so this is going to be R a B rather than R a a because a is already exhausted here so this is seven existential instantiation nine so now coming back to this one so this is over and this is now coming back to this one for all X for all Y R X Y in place R Y Z you take any you substitute any values X and Y that R X Y in place R Y X holds that means if you substitute X for a Y for B then also that is going to hold so in that sense this is going to be R R a B so you substitute X for a and Y for B and this is going to be the case and then R for Y the substituted B and for a substituted a so this is R a B implies R B a so how did you get this one to substitute X for X for a Y for B this is what we have now you expand this one so whenever you have a formula X implies Y it is like this X implies Y is not X and Y so now play this on this one it will become not R a B and then R B a problem is little bit lengthy and all so one needs to have a little bit patience to check this validity of this particular kind of formula so three might be a little bit big but it is still manageable it ends in finite intervals of time in finite steps now this is what we have now observe this particular kind of thing R a B and you have not R a B is exactly contradictory to each other it is like X and not X now this branch closes here itself so now we need to expand this particular kind of branch is this branch which is open there is no BA etc so now what is unchecked is this one so we need to note that universal quantifiers whenever a formula starts with the universal quantifier you can there is no way you can check the formula and all in the case of preposition logic for example if your P ? Q ? Q etc and all R ? B while constructing the semantic tab blocks method first when you are checking this particular kind of formula then you write it like this and then you check this formula like this that means you are not you are no longer using the same formula again but if this formula starts with universal quantifier like this P X Q X this can be used n number of times because really you can use the same form because it happens for all X so in the case of preposition logic each time when you are expanding the tree with this formulas you are checking this formulas next time when you do it when you check this particular find a formula you do like this not R not R P not R so now you check this formula and all the formulas are checked so you put tick mark for this particular kind of thing that is not going to happen in this particular kind of situation it can be used recursively and all so now coming back to this particular kind of formula now in this formula what you do is this thing you substitute X for A Y for B and Z for C Z for E so wherever you have X you substitute with A and wherever you have Y you substitute with B and wherever you have Z you substitute again with the A that substitution should be uniform then this formula will become example here you have like this for all X for all Y for all Z R X Y and R Y Z implies R X Z so now you are substituted like this X for A wherever you have X you substitute with A wherever you have Y substitute with B and then wherever you have Z you substitute with A so now this will become R now you are eliminating this quantifiers now one instance of that one is this particular kind of thing so now this will become a B the first one and R Y Z means instead of Y we have B here B and A implies this one R X Z or X means A Z means X and Z are same so that is why we did like this because we have a term R BA somehow you need to eliminate this particular kind of term so that is the reason why we cleverly chosen these variables to be like this so now this is what you substitute it here now this will become R so now if you further simplify this one so this is X implies Y so now this will become not of not of R so this is not X not R A B and R BA and then this simplifies to this one R A and A so now this is going to be like this not of R AB is like this not of R A and B and this is not of R B and A this remains as it is so now you need to substitute the entire thing here for this open branch so now we have just write it down here just remove this particular kind of thing let this branch remains the same so now you observe whatever is the open branch and you list it out on this particular kind of thing and you have not R A B and then you have not of R AA and then all the way down these are the things which we have so now observe this particular kind of thing not of R AA and you have not R AA is a branch close actually this should be like this since we do not have space here so we have gone the other way round so not R AA and then you have R AA this closes now coming back to this one R AB and not R AB this branch closes now not R BA there is something called not R BA is this here R BA is there here and then all the way down here you have to write this also this I forgotten R BA is there and not R BA is there even this also closes so now all the branches closes so what does it mean so we started with these three formulas and then this is considered to be the conclusion and we negated the conclusion and that leads to the branch closure that means negation of the conclusion is unsatisfiable that means X has to be valid valid means it has to be true that means this is the this is considered to be the the original conclusion is considered to be the true kind of conclusion that means this follows from these three statements so in the same way you can check whether 1 and 2 leads to 3 2 and 3 leads to 1 all these things you can check just taking into consideration the same thing that first you list out the premises and you take the negation of the conclusion and then see whether it leads to the branch closure or not if it leads to the branch closure that means the negation of the conclusion leads to unsatisfiability that means negation of X is considered to be contradiction that means X has to be the case X has to be true X has to be tautology so that is a way to prove to show that a given formula is considered to be valid whether or not a given formula follows from that are not so now let us consider some more examples which are considered to be invalid and those formulas which are invalid you can construct a counter example within the domain all the open branches indicates that is a kind of counter example within the domain so let us consider some more examples so that you will get used to this particular kind of technique that is a semantic tableaux method this one or two examples we will be considering and then we will end this lecture so now let us consider it is coming back to the consistency again the problem of consistency let us say we have a set like this Px implies Qx and then there exists some x Px and there exists some x not Qx so we have the in then in our set we have these three formulas so now we are checking whether these three formulas are consistent to each other are not so now you start you numbering those things one two three now we are checking the consistency so the first thing that you do is as usual in the semantic tableaux method in the predicate logic is that you have to handle the predict existential quantifiers first you can handle any one of these things now if you eliminate this existential quantifier here is an instance PA to existential instantiation now you do not have to jump to this one now you need to handle this one so now this is going to be not Q but you are not supposed to use a it has to be B so this is three existential instantiation is this one so now 61 Px ? Qx holds for all x so that is why it has to hold for PA ? QA it has to be true for even PB ? QB you can you can all you can also use that particular kind of things so we have used this PA in place QA now this is going to be PA QA so PA and not a closes and not QA and you have not QB and this branch opens that means this particular kind of interpretation satisfies this three formulas and all that makes this three formulas true together that means this these three statements are said to be consistent to each other now if you change this problem a little bit and then we are trying to see whether so now in this case these three formulas are said to be consistent now just slightly change this particular kind of problem and then let us talk about the same problem in a different so now let us see whether you take these two statements into consideration now whether or not this not Qx follows from these two statements are not so now so now we write it in the conclusion now so for all x Px ? Qx there exists some x Px and then there exists some x not Qx whether this follows are not from these two premises so how do we check whether or not this argument is valid or not so again we use the semantic tableaux method in that the first step includes the negation of the conclusion that is not there exists some x not Qx you start with this particular kind of thing so now here we have a definition for all x Qx is same as there does not exist some x not x in the same way there exists some x Qx is same as not for all x not x this is the standard definitions and all so exist universal quantifier can be defined in terms of existential quantifier than existential quantifier is defined in terms of universal quantifier in this sense so you use this particular kind of thing and then you put it here so this is simply for all x Qx 3 by definition so what we have done here taken list out the premises you take the negation of the conclusion and then we are constructing a tree and we are going to see whether the branch closes are not so now fifth one always handle this existential quantifier when you remove this thing there exists some x Px it is going to be a so to instantiation is this one PA so now six one you can handle any one of these things now they all these two starts with for all x of the so now one instance of this one is going to be PA sorry this is going to be not PA implies QA so this is the instance of this one so universal instantiation of this one is going to be PA implies QA so this is if you expand this one it is going to be lies not PA and QA now you have another formula this thing for all x Qx that means it has to be true for even a also so that is why you can write it straight away like this 4.1 Q A so this is for universal instantiation this so now PA and not PA but this branch remains open that means from these two premises that means negation of the conclusion negation of the conclusion does not lead to contradiction so that means we are not able to we are able to construct a counter example even after denying the conclusion so what we in the context of in the basic concepts we discussed about invalidity an invalid argument is an argument in which you have your premises to be true and the conclusion is false if we can come up with an example where premises are true and the conclusion is false and that is considered to be any count it considered to be a counter example for the given argument and hence that argument is invalid so here is an instance where you are even if you deny the conclusion you still have it still makes this satisfiable and all that means true premises and false conclusion is going to be satisfiable in this particular kind of thing especially when Q A is true PA is true then this whole statements are going to be true that means your true premises and a false conclusion that so that will serve as a counter example so open from the open branch you can construct a counter example so for this particular kind of thing you can choose a domain to be anything as a set of people a set of rivers or anything and then in that particular kind of thing you need to have some kind of relation or in particular predicate and then you whatever is true here you listed out Q A and PA are true and based on that you can judge that you know I can easily construct a counter example for counter example within the domain so if we can come up with a counter example within the domain then obviously that argument is considered to be invalid so in this way we can solve some difficult problems as well this consider one more example and then we will finish it off so in the context of distribution of universal quantifiers we asked ourselves whether universal quantifiers are distributed or not so that is a particular kind of thing for example if we have this formula for all X P X R Q X so from this whether or not it follows that means whether we can derive this particular kind of for all X P X or for all X Q X if for all X P X implies for all X P X are for all X way then this is distributed over this distributed over disjunction universal quantifiers are distributed over the disjunction so again we want to see whether this particular kind of thing holds are not so P X R Q X and then here it is individually we have written like this so now again the using the semantic tableau method whether this argument this follows are not is the one which we are trying to check so you list out the premises like this P X R Q X and then you start with the negation of the conclusion for all X P X for all X Q X so now three you simplify this particular kind of thing then it will become for all X P X negation of the disjunction will become conjunction and then this will be for all X Q X so now this can be written in this sense for all X P X and then if you simplify this thing it will be like this Q X is only three simplification you will get this one three again simplification you get this one so now fourth six one now you further simplify this one not for all X P X not for all X P X the same as there exists some X you put this negation inside and then it will be it is not the case so there exists some X not P X and then seventh one there exists some X not Q X so how did we get this one for by definition and five by definition the definition is this one so the problem is not it over now so now we have there exists some X not P X there exists some X not Q X and then we have this particular kind of thing so now you always try to eliminate this existential quantifiers first before going to the universal quantifiers so now first time when you eliminate this existential quantifier and this will become not be a so this is six existential quantization and then eight seven if you apply extension again then this will be not Q it should not be a it should be B now we have this for all X P X implies a cure that is going to hold for any any value any parameter you can substitute into it that is going to hold that means it satisfies that particular kind of formula so now we have not PA and we have not Q B and then for example if you substitute it as PA and so one instance of this one is going to be PA or Q A it can very well be like this also PB or Q B also so we take this into consideration then this will be like this PA and Q so now in this case this branch closes and this branch remains open but if you take the other one into consideration instead of PA Q A you have taken into consideration PB and Q B so then what will happen is the thing which happens this branch closes and this left hand branch remains open in either cases one of the branches remains open that means for all X P X R Q X you will not be able to derive for all X P X R for all X Q X so now that means that it does not imply this particular kind of thing you can check whether you saw you replace it with there exists some X and then you can construct a tree and you can see whether it distributes over the disjunction are now so in this lecture what we have done is we have taken into consideration the semantic tablax method and then we discussed in some detail with some examples as for getting ourselves familiarized with this particular kind of technique so this semantic tablax method is simple to use and the rules are rules are very few in number and then it is easy to use and it can be implemented in computers as well so there are some of the some important uses for this particular kind of technique but the problem here is that are we are human beings do we use a method like this particular kind of thing that is a question that needs to be answered and all is it close to common sense reasoning or the way we reason etc and all that is a difficult question to answer but as far as the implementation into computers and machines etc and all this technique is going to be a widely used in so in that context the one which is closer to the human reasoning is what we call it as natural deduction method so that is what we are going to take up in the next lecture in the next lecture we will be talking about the natural deduction method in the context of predicate logic.


T. F. N. N. Headline news update. Good morning, folks. Steve Rhodes coming to you live from the shores of sunny Delray Beach, Florida. This year, 11 a.m. update. We got a bit of a mixed bag. The mix is coming from the Dow, which is off 34 points and then in the semis down 20, about six tenths percent there. The S&P is flat. The Nasdaq is up by one tenth percent or 16 points. One percent for the Russell. It's a nice 17 point move there. You've got gold trading out of 20, 30. That's up six bucks. Silver's trading out of 25, 53. That's up 13 pennies. Life's recruit having a tough day. Again, back four percent trading out at 68.94. Natural gas is off 9 cents, trading at 2.5, 2.11. And a 30-year treasure up 1.3 ticks, trading out at 1.32.17. Let's go try to figure out what all that means by looking at that nine panel. Market update chart. Nip or left-hand corner. We've got the ES mini. What do we have here? We actually have a sell the D point pattern. Yesterday formed a three river evening star pattern out here. Now we just have a consolidation with inside his profile and obviously with inside its trend lines, both descending and ascending trend line out there. Support out here down around the 41, 18 level. Spot politics is climbing, but still below its 50 day exponents moving average. The problem would be if it closed above that level today and that is currently at printing at 19, 14. If it does that, then that sell the D point pattern inside the ES mini may bust through those support levels in the NQ. The NQ actually formed a roadsman to mitigate her top yesterday. That because of its three river evening star pattern. Price here is consolidated with inside a new profile. In fact, let me tell you, well, you know, we'll do that during the trader's end show. So there is a new profile that is formed out there inside of the NQ, particularly at the US dollar index, just a good old fashion consolidation with inside his profile levels from 100.96 to 101.38. Gold has formed a new daily profile or the net actually formed yesterday. Price is trading above the top of that profile, which at 2019, that says that we should go run back towards its highs. That's has got a roadsman to mitigate her top as well. So the real resistance level here is 20 63 40 silver is trained by the top of its profile. That may be targeting. It's a little shooting star candle from a few days ago that high 26 21 lights. We cruise made its way back to the point seven 86 retracement likely targeting the swing point from back here on March the 20th, but is at a potential support area. We'll certainly take a look at Lightspeed crude during the trader's end show. And if we take a look at natural gas, it is busting through its roadsman to mitigate her bottom to close below $2 and 14 cents. Well, there will be that will suggest no bottom inside of natural gas. The 30 treasure each trade above the top of its profile and suggest a further move higher. It may be targeting the swing point from April the 6th. Folks, stay tuned for the trader's end show if you will. But if you're off to start your Wednesday, please have a wonderful one. We'll look forward to speaking to you again soon. Take care and be safe out there.


Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're on the ground at the Cosmopolitan Resort in downtown Las Vegas. It's 120 degrees outside, perfect for a conversation about IoT and industrial internet where you can't be in a beautifully air-conditioned taking care of data center all the time. So we're really excited to be joined by our next guest who's been playing in this field for a long time. It's Hema, we call him up. He likes to just go by Hema, likes Bono and Brittany and share all the famous people. So welcome to theCUBE. Thank you, thank you. Interesting conversation, you said you just come off a lot of partner conversations here. We were commenting for a company doing their first developer conference that 1700 people show up. Pretty impressive feat and obviously you need a partner ecosystem. So what were some of the conversations with the partners you were having? Absolutely, and I've been in the valley for long enough and I attended the first Java one and it was as small as this. And that's what I'm thinking of where we'll be in 10 years, right? I think one of the key things about a platform is that's what Harrell talked about in the morning. We don't do all of it, right? It's an ecosystem play, partners have to add to it. And so the conversations I was having was with a group of partners who had APIs on top of the platform. And so one example is a good need in the cloud space is monetization and metering, right? If you think about if I'm a service provider, how do I know who's using what? How do I segment the customers and give them different price points and sort of dynamic pricing? Right. And so one of the partners I talked to was give them an API. You as a service provider or an application provider, just call their API, go to their portal, look at the analytics on who's using what and change the pricing, right? That's one example. The second example partner I talked to was anomaly detection. A lot of the industrial use cases are about detecting anomalies in the data. You don't want to write that from scratch as a developer, right?  And so we're trying to have this conversation about how do developers get access to the APIs so that they can take down the development time from months to weeks to days. Right. And the other play you've been around for a long time is nobody buys a platform, right? They buy applications to solve business problems. So if you don't have an application store, you can never kind of get to the platform, Nirvana, that you're trying to get to. And nobody can do it all. So as we see in all the shows we go to, we go to a lot of shows. Ecosystem is really, really important. No one company can do it all. Absolutely. And I know I've been on the other side of the spectrum where we tried to do a platform, it didn't work, right? Because it's a hard sell. What's actually very different with R-Spaces, it's much harder. Because if you go talk to a VP of operations or any CEO of an industrial company, they care about two outcomes. How do I reduce my unplanned downtime and increase productivity? They don't care what's the platform underneath that, right? Right, right, right. So it's always- No line item budget for platform. Yeah, exactly. It's all about am I managing my assets better, am I monitoring them better, and am I leveraging them to make more revenue, right? Make more power, make the trains go longer. And so to make that happen, we cannot scale as fast as the market needs us to, right? Because the developers are trying to build these applications at a pace that is unprecedented. You know, Scott from Microsoft, he made this statement in the keynote today. It is the coolest job today to be a developer, right? And in this context, you have so many developers just trying to do a lot of cool things. And so the partner ecosystem just accelerates that, you know, paths to market faster, yeah.  Microsoft's competing for the developer. You know, Amazon's competing for the developer. Everybody wants the developer. And I just, I love kind of the GE commercials now that they run on television with the software guy that's trying to convince his friends he's not working on low-to-moke, he's actually working on software. So what is, you know, how are you selling that into developers? What's really the thing that's hooking them to get so many of them here for this inaugural event? I know, I have a funny story to tell. I went to Stanford Engineering School for recruitment the first year I joined. I was there for an hour, not a single developer show. How long ago was this? Four years. Okay. We did the same earlier this year. You won't believe how much interest there is. I think what's happened is, the sort of the trend of IoT has become, the market has become more aware, but then people understand industrial IoT is a problem by itself, like it's a different scale. So what we are telling the customer, developers, it's a cool thing to do.  Is it a cool technology that I'm going to develop and do I make a real outcome? Right. With this, with predicts, we're able to tell the developers you do both. Cutting edge of technology. We're talking about blockchain. We're talking about microservices. So we're talking about technologies that are there out there, you know, ahead of the market. And the second one is, the key to success in the industrial space is customer interaction. Because I walked into a locomotive re-manufacturing facility thinking I could do a mobile app with touchscreen. I found out they're wearing gloves. Touchscreens don't work. Right, right. And then they're looking at virtual reality kind of a thing. And so the actual customer sort of feedback and how they use it is pushing us to do a lot of cool stuff. And so that's what one part of telling the developer is, this is real. You got a lot of new cool APIs. It accelerates the development you need to do. And then the second part of it is, you know, the outcomes, the business outcomes. Being a technologist in the valley, having built platforms, I've always been intrigued by what is the real customer outcome. Right, right. With Predix, you have so much closer to the customer outcome, because you're sort of merging the physics and the math and the math and delivering outcomes closer to the customer. Yeah, yeah. And as you said, you're working with all the same tools. You're working with open source. We've been here for a couple of hours. We're already talking about Docker. We're talking about microservices. We're talking about all the stuff that you hear about at every other conference, whether it's EMC World or VM World or Oracle Open World, or it's the same types of technologies really bringing to bear. But it's funny, your perspective, you've been around for a while, as you've got more exposed to the operations technology side of the house, right? And this integration of the two, what's kind of your thought as you've kind of brought your IT experience into this existing world? Like I said, they're wearing gloves, right? It's harsh environments. It's not all super controlled. As an engineer, by degree, by profession, we like to touch things, right? In code, it's very virtual, right? What I've loved in the first year I was here, I visited an airplane manufacturing facility, right? And I saw how it was being built, how software can make a change. So for me, switching on to the operations side gave me a real perspective of what things are really used for. My previous life was building banking software, there's nothing to touch in a bank, I'm still here, right? And so, I think that's what's been interesting for me and when we talked about Owen, that's exactly how my team felt when we started here. Everyone would ask us, what do you do at GV, you know? They don't do software, they build airplane engines, right? But once we start telling them the story about how the kind of outcomes, right? Make a plane go faster, train go faster, make more power, these outcomes tend to rhyme with developers because I think software has come to a place where, you know, I use this metric, 80% of the software that gets written doesn't get used, right? In this space, the customer don't let us do that because they're driven by bottom line and top line. And when they're driven by that so much, you have to show them real value and then you only do work that adds value. And so that's been the interesting transition for me from this pure software world to a merged space where you get to see real outcomes. Right, you get a touch, it's metal, right? It's big, big machine. Everybody likes big machines, right?  And it's easier for me to tell my daughter what I do now. Like, what do you do? Oh, you're flying on a vacation, I make that plane run go faster. Yeah, yeah, that's great. Well, let's shift gears a little bit again on such great connectivity between IT and OT in your past life. You've got a patent on, it's a very long title. People can go check it out on LinkedIn. But the part that jumped out to me was the occasionally connected devices. And we think about all these value chains and now these software chains. And it's an API world and it's an app world and it's connected to the cloud and it's all this stuff. Well, sometimes the connections just don't stay. But stuff's gotta still happen, something's gotta happen, and things gotta continue to work. So have you kind of taken that experience and applied that in this OT space? So it's interesting you mentioned that, right? When we started Freedix, people thought we were a cloud platform. We are not. We are what we call as an edge to cloud platform. Edge is all about disconnected world. If you go back to even two years back, the operational side was completely air gapped. There was no connectivity between that operational side and the cloud side. Now, when we try to open it up, right? It doesn't mean they're always connected because the operating environment's deep sea oil rig, you only have satellite connection at very exorbitant prices for a short time. And so you may have connection, but you don't wanna burn your dollars with all the connection. So occasionally, connected sort of applies into this industrial world a lot as much as mobile because here, price is premium, connectivity is premium. And so what we are starting to do is give them the capabilities to build these applications where they can assume that there's no connectivity, store the data locally, run analytics locally. And so what we talked about in the keynote this morning is this notion of a digital twin. How do you take that digital twin and move that to the edge? And when it's in the edge, it is not connected to the cloud. It may be connected occasionally, but when you're completely disconnected, how do you still use all the analytics? How do you still do all the outcomes? And I'll give you a good example. In the past world, when you want to make more power, you would have to send the data to the cloud or somewhere in the local M&D center and run an analytic that says make more power or not, right? When you make more power, the life digweeds because you got to operate at a higher temperature. We push that analytic with all the data to the edge. Now you can make the decision on, do I optimize on the life thing or the power production based on how much money you're going to make? So this is this notion of disconnected nature at the edge so that you're making decisions in real time where the data is and where the assets are. So I come from a mobile space. We thought of disconnected in the mobile space. It was a sort of similar transition into industrial space. You know, the technologies are almost similar. We have a database that runs on the edge. We have a database that runs in the cloud. We have to occasionally sync the data. The kinds of data are different. The volume is different, but it's similar model, right? That's interesting. You're the first one that kind of tied it back to a mobile which is such an easy analogy because we all carry it in our pocket, right? Sometimes it's connected, sometimes it's not. Sometimes you work independently, sometimes you're on the web. At some point in time they get re-synced up again. Exactly. So when someone's kind of starting this journey, say it's an old line company, they've got good systems, they work, everything's working. Where do they start? Do they start with the edge device? You put a little bit of compute and store next to things? Is it, you start with the low hanging fruit on what you can send to the actual cloud? How do they kind of sort through the decision tree to figure out what goes where, when? And so that's an interesting question because we see customers in every different segment, like some of them are very comfortable with data moving to the cloud, right? Healthcare has done that, transportation has done that. There are some businesses which are heavily regulated, which they want to keep the data in the operational environment. So it's sort of driven by the use case and their comfort of how far can they go with sort of going beyond what they've done, right? The easiest approach what we tell people is, if you already are collecting data in the cloud, and I say in the cloud, it's sort of a not real cloud, but today we have MND centers, monitoring and diagnostic centers for our wind turbines. So that data is already being sent to some central location. In that case, what we tell them is, extend the data, write analytics on that data so that you're delivering this predictive maintenance capabilities. So that's an easy transition to do pure cloud. In some cases where they don't have any edge sort of data collection, we ship with and we demoed this in the keynote today, we have a box that they can put right next to their asset, could be a turbine, could be a jet engine, and then collect the data and then do some local analytics, and you have nothing to do with the cloud. And then you just manage all of these assets, right? So it's been a combination of which is the customer, what domain they are in, how regulated they are, and sort of then decide based on the use case. The other thing we tell them is don't go big, right? It's just hard coming from GE, right? We think everything from GE is big. I know. And so telling the industrial guys, absolutely don't go big. And it's good that Jeff and our leadership was thinking of fast works and lean and sort of pushing that message within the organization. Now we are sort of leveraging the same thing and saying, hey, this is software. We are a lot more agile than any of what you've seen. So let's go incremental gains. Let's find out the smaller value. So start with, like you said, small edge or small cloud, and then grow that as you show more outcomes. Yeah, it's great because everybody we've talked to has a big software background at GE. It's amazing that they've done such a good job, Bill and team bringing in really software DNA. And that said, you're in big industrial heavy stuff that's been running a long time, but you're still kind of pushing the edge. And I want to bring up a topic we talked about. When you first walked up, and that's blockchain. A lot of stories on Bitcoin, everybody kind of knows the story of Bitcoin, whatever, I was thinking Bitcoin is an application, blockchain is a platform, but we're really seeing a lot of investment of effort and at least conversations on the blockchain front from IBM, SAP and you guys, what's your kind of take on the potential for blockchain, kind of the timing for blockchain? How do you see, where does it fit and what's the timing on how it's gonna slowly increase its importance in the marketplace?  You know, the conferences have gone from 20 people to a thousand people in less than like three months. What's interesting is this whole transformation that the industrial economy is going through, the companies are going through, it's enabling us to sort of insert these technologies which by themselves are hard to digest, but now we are telling them you're going distributed, right? Critics is a distributed architecture. As part of that, let's think about a distributed ledger so that we were talking about an aviation use case. When a plane comes into a service, the service is actually done by at least 20 different companies, very manual, and there's one centralized sort of reconciliation of all of that. Now we're telling them, ignore the centralized reconciliation, run a distributed blockchain, and then each of you gets to know all the transactions that have been done in the blockchain and non-reperiate it so that you all can be verified on what you've done. They're like, hmm, that's interesting. I've never thought about it. How does it reduce my apex? How does it reduce my capex? And so it's triggering those thoughts because it's no longer about, oh my God, that's a new technology. We have crossed that bridge with the cloud sort of transition. And so that's one example of where we are seeing the adoption of blockchain. The other interesting thing that's much closer is the digital twin. The whole point of digital twin is you have a virtual model of the asset and all the configuration changes it's going through are captured somewhere. But what's key in the service industry like ours, it has to be attested by someone. Applying blockchain when the servicing of that particular asset is done by multiple players and each of them is being verified is awesome. That way, then the technology sort of a curve is lower in terms of how much investment you have to make. And then there's complete non-repedation on that. So I think from just a timeline standpoint, I think the next six months are going to be like really strong POCs. And people might call it early adoption curve, but the next six months is where I see, proving out that this applies mid to early, mid to late 2017 is when I think we'll see the larger adoptions and real projects. You made a really interesting comment about once everybody kind of got over the hump with accepting cloud, now suddenly they're pretty open to trying new technologies. My buddy, Gary Ornstein from MIMP's sequel tweeted to me during the keynote, Jeff, what databases are they talking about? You're at Sybase. I'm like, Gary, they're talking about every database. They're really kind of horses for courses depending on the application. So the ability to adopt, integrate, try lots of new technology seems to be really taken off within the industrial space. I think people think it's a lot of, the transformation is a lot of technical, but it's actually a lot cultural, right? To make them think about change and technology and cloud, how do you make them think as a culture change is acceptable, right?  And so it's a part, half technical, half cultural, and you get them to the cultural change, accepting the cultural change, technology is like, it's easy, it's not as hard as it used to be. Right, right, that's funny because we say it all the time, it's people processing tech and the tech's actually the easy, the people in process is the hard part. And what we're finding out with the cloud transition is the people, right? Like typical traditional IT, they may not have a role now. If it's all cloud, what are they managing? Are they managing systems? No, because the cloud manages it. Now everyone's thinking like, I'm gonna write code, I'm a developer, that's the transition we are going through. Right, he might give you the last word, running out of time, top two priorities for the next six months. Digital twin and edge. And then I'm going to add a third one because we mentioned it in the keynote, service availability. So we call it service quality, service availability, the two trust for a cloud is the uptimes. Those are three main areas. We'll keep an eye on that and we'll check in with you again at Minds of Machines later this year. All right, thanks for stopping by. Bye, thank you. All right, you see, Mom, Jeff, you were watching theCUBE. We are in Las Vegas at the lovely Cosmopolitan Hotel. Thanks for watching. Thanks.


Talk League of Ireland football. Delighted to see Keith Cown joins us once again on Highland. Keith it's good to see you. Good to see you too Ashley and thanks for having me on again. Yeah good to see as well. You've got the latest club collars on you so you have. That's it. Yeah just about as you open the car to go to training so this is the only reason to have it all. I'll have to be prepped so I haven't much time to get changed when we get down there so just happy to have it all today. Yeah well listen you were back at Finn Park for the first time since since you departed. You did of course have a fantastic career with Harps over two spells. For you personally what was it like coming back playing for a different club at Finn Park last Monday? Yeah I must say it was strange now it was it was very strange coming back and you know I suppose being on the the different side of it and you know kind of hoping for a you know show and then I suppose and but at the same time because of things I've switched around I was still in the same changing room because Harps had the new changing rooms now and they're across the other side of the pitch so I must say it was it was nice to be back it was a couple of faces there that the V still around and it was nice to see them and it was nice to you know get a chat to them but ultimately as I said there at the start it was it it was strange going out in the pitch and you know so it was not representing Harps but you know once the once the whistle went you know it was kind of business as usual. Yeah Ollie said after the game that 2-2 was a fair enough result would you concur with that would you? It probably was you know over the over the 90 minutes like we still I felt ourselves we started we started the game quickly well and then you know maybe through a few mistakes and that there may be trying to you know play in the wrong areas we kind of invited them out of pressure and allowed Harps to get a foothold in the game and they got two two quick goals to see them and a half time. I thought in the second half maybe we had a bit more of the play and try to create things a bit more maybe seem like they were happy enough to maybe sit with with the 2-1 but then again created a couple of great chances near the end. Sam Long, our keepers made a couple of great saves, Andy Lines has pulled one off the line sorry Andy Kunz pulled one off the line so no that was it was really kind of all hands of the pump you know we created I suppose couple of good chances in the second half so I suppose you know over the over the case that the the whole 90 minutes I'd say a draw if probably a fair result yeah. Okay next up we'll just stay with draw harder because I've got Bulls now on Friday night Bulls will be buoyed by that one against Slago on Tuesday night going to the showgrounds and taking victory what sort of task do you expect them now and Friday against them? Yeah that's going to give them a big lift I suppose you know they'd have been disappointed conceding the late goal against Dairy last Friday night for Dairy take all three points down there you know go and then picking themselves up going to Slago which you know have been have been going really well you know to go there and to get to get affected at the showgrounds is you know it's quite difficult you know but then I suppose Slago went there on Friday and sorry Shells went there on Friday and got a result at the showgrounds as well so that'll be two Dublin teams you know have gone there and got six points and then you with with you should need to go there as well on on on Saturday coming they'll be hoping to maybe pick up their first one of the season looks like will be disappointed with the way that it's gone for them but yeah I suppose we'll have had a massive lift from that as I said with the disappointment of Friday night pass so they'll be they'll they'll be tails up come to draw harder and they'll be expecting to lift all three points there as well I'd say yeah our main game here in Highland this weekend is of course going to be the northwest derby of Funharps against Derry City on on Saturday you've already played in a derby this year Keith against undock in a derby that used one as well what's can you compare a louth derby to a northwest derby yeah I suppose having played in both of them now I suppose that there are similarities yes um I suppose you know with both sets of fans you know with in both derbies both sets of fans you know can get themselves involved in the game there was a great over and back down in louth with them and it's always the same whether it's in whether it's in Finn Park or whether it's in in the brandy well as well so yeah they'll look at typical derbies you know kind of but a blunt thunder but a you know archivist between the two sets of players not as well um but I suppose you know the having played in having played it in more than northwest derbies there's there's nothing quite like a Funharps Derry City derby really yeah well there's another one to come this weekend how important then is this game for Funharps against Derry on on Saturday Keith given that they haven't had a home one yet yeah I think it's I think it's massive for harps I think um you know when it comes to derbies like you know formerly goes like the window and a free Derry will know that as well um you know there's been size in the past that I've gone to Finn Park Derry City sides that have you know been doing really well and it's just it's just a totally different atmosphere you know the crowd can get on top of you they can affect the game as well um we've seen it in the past where you know where players maybe have done things you know out of character or maybe a bit rash in times and you know it can take something as simple as a you know a silly tackle or a silly booking that can you know change the whole flow of the game so I think harps will really be looking forward to this one I think they'll see this as a big opportunity maybe to maybe to get that first home one there's no reason why they can't know the experience that they have in the ranks you know the with Barry McNamee Connelly you know you only my hand at the last they forget getting a goal Eric Woods as well getting a goal Ryan Rainey they have quality within the side so there's no reason uh there's no reason why they couldn't be looking to pick up three points yeah well some might say that maybe if harps were to one this weekend it would probably be a league upset given where we're Derry are how far away are harps from Derry do you think on the pitch Keith because of the last number of seasons we've seen them a lot closer but that has changed this year has it yeah well I suppose just Derry seem to have had this great start you know where they you know have yes that look they have a great side and they have a great squad and they've you know good manager etc but they you know they're they're getting that bit of luck and you can say well you know they're creating their own up but they're picking up points that they're picking up wins scoring goals and you know 93rd 94th minute of games you know which is great but so that they seem to be you know having their real purple patch now you know there's always in a season where a team will struggle to put you know we'll struggle to get results maybe this is harps you know time where they're struggling to get a bit of form struggling to get a few results and they'll and they'll uh check on you know somewhere near the middle of the season or maybe it could happen on the night we don't know so it's just it's it can be a case of you know getting that wee bit of luck at the right time as I said there before it can come and tackle it can come in any form just to just to change the flow of the game and we know like a Northwest RV sorry a Northwest RV it does get the it does get the juices flow it does bring out something and players players kind of go to a different level where you kind of hope they don't go there every week but players do really rise to the occasion and you know harsh fans and you know harsh players and harsh management will be looking that that definitely happens on Saturday. Well you mentioned about a purple patch that Darius came through I'll tell you that's not a bad purple patch is it Keith you find yourself unbeaten in the league with what eight games played and you've got a six point advantage at the top of the table um if you're talking about purple patches that's the sort of patch that you want that it is a fantastic start for the County Stripes. Yeah great after eight games to find themselves top as you said with the six point cushion there um you know confidence will be sky high throughout that team you know you talk about the likes of well patching you know do you remember when I got there you know a couple of go over like four or five goals each already this season rolling boys as usual seems to be chipping in with goals uh I'd say they're I'd say with losing a couple last injury as well which we've been disappointed about then you have Paddock Magalene coming back and apparently he's making a massive difference um already just coming back in and just grabbing those games by the by the scruff of the neck as I have as as Ray Higgins alluded to their last week uh up and up up on Dilly Mount from they got the two one one laid on against Bose so all that uh all that experience and again just all that momentum you know is it just seems to be going Derri's way at the moment and they'll be hoping that that just keeps it just keeps continuing you look at the quality that she and I go versus have you look at the quality that Pats have as well so they'll be hopping their heels but the minute it seems to be Derri that are leading the way and as I said they'll be hoping that'll continue yeah the game in Tuesday now is we know finished two two uh could there be lots of goals in the star bit the weekend yeah well you know I suppose you know harsh fans and you know they would be saying that they're struggling for goals that they're creating these chances but you know they've been they've been struggling to uh they've been struggling to finish them off two goals will definitely lift the conference of strikers you know that's the way it goes um a game they'll be just hoping maybe you know they can keep maybe a few out at the other end as well we heard a young Maureenie come in there to make his uh make his debut obviously Mark McGinley uh Mark McGinley McGinley we're not sure if he's going to be uh eligible for the game on Saturday obviously his suspension is set off against Shamak Rovers so yeah look at a game Derri will just they'll feel like that they'll score in any minute of any game because of the way things have been going for them so yeah look I see goals I see you know I see a couple of decisions that the referee need to be strong on um Nick all that there mix it mix up a great derby and a mix of great ones for the fans and the spectators yeah there'll be a thunderous exciting start to it will there no indeed indeed and that's what that's what everyone's looking for you know as as I said there before like as soon as as soon as that game starts form will have nothing to do with it and you know everyone will know that and the derri players will know that too they know through experience you know and they'll have within the ranks of the management and there's a few players that have been there before in those situations they'll know as soon as they get there you're facing maybe a different fanhouse team than that then maybe is playing when when you're playing someone from Dolbon or someone from down the country for that you know so um they'll be they'll know what to expect okay uh Slega Rovers up against UCD on Saturday as well as Slega will be very disappointed with that defeat at the hands of both the last night um of course they were looking to maintain their push at the top of the table but they are fourth and you would expect them to have too much for UCD would you Keith? Yeah well you know I thought they might have too much for shells as well last weekend but then you know that didn't seem to materialize either they'll be very disappointed losing back-to-back games at home um you know 1-0's as well uh you know they had a great start in Kena as well you know top of the scoring charts so far just after eight games I know but he's up there with five goals so you know he'll be looking to get back back back on the score sheet UCD still looking for their first win um you know it's it's been a it's been a I suppose a rocking off start for them you know they've they've shown a well in some games that they can be resolute and they can keep a clean sheet of games just hasn't hasn't really worked out for them um again with the UCD you know they you know they they always have such great footballers as talented players really well organized really well drilled um but again you know they just need that little bit extra at times to see themselves through games so they'll be they'll be look they'll be going there as look let's let's just try and get three points let's just try and be nice and solid maybe let's just try and keep a clean sheet as is what they'll be looking for and whatever comes after that it's they'll be a bonus for them. Yeah some quite some quarters rather might suggest that Shelburne-Shamick Rovers is a bigger derby match than Funharps against Derry this weekend Keith but can Demian Duff's side build on some of the recent good performances and obviously that result against Slago and cause the hoops problems the cause the defending champions problems? Yeah well they have to believe that they that they will and I'm sure I'm sure Demian Duff will have them will have them well organized and well drilled um he didn't know exactly what's going on probably around the the the camp there over on Tallah um I suppose if you're asking me is it such a big derby as as the Northwest Derby I'm gonna say no because I'm totally biased in that regard and you know I think you have to experience maybe the the Northwest Derby you know even just to watch it you know it is it is something pretty special but yeah look I think you know it's a massive one for Shells last week going to go to Slago uh you know getting that one up there which is which is a difficult which is going to be difficult for a lot of teams going there so um I think I think Shams look for a big distance to travel for them with the quality that they have from the ranch you know with the squad and that's probably the biggest uh that's the biggest problem that Bradley has is probably picking a team that he thinks has gone out to you know win each week and then and then you're thinking if if something's all right I definitely have the players to try and tweak this so maybe his his embarrassment or riches he doesn't know which which team to go with or which players to go with so it's a great problem to have I'm sure a lot of managers would love that problem but uh you know yeah I think just in his situation I suppose with the investment that goes in there you know you need to be pretty pretty much one in every week that's the pressure that comes with the top jobs but I'm sure they'll be able to handle it and they'll be looking to they'll be picking up all three points we're going to talk the park yeah one other game at Richmond Parks and Pats against Dundalk I think this one was draw written all over it Keith would you agree again no uh Pats also Pats also have such great quality you know and and again Dundalk on um with what they've shown it kind of fits and starts this season that that they have the same you know they they have the players you know they really it could be it you're talking it wouldn't be a far away with the draw on this one um again you look the you have players within the ranks that can score goals um again it's uh it's a tough one to call but I think you might be too far away with the draw you get your fiber on that this week Ashley you'll see you might get a few points back okay I might go for home ones as well maybe draw it on fun harps listen Keith it's always good to talk to you it's good to see you and we'll chat again over the weekend cheers Ashley good man thanks so much