Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You won't find any such evidence of such a "lie". ...
Click to expand...
That is a lie because your "hypothesis" is not mentioned in Christopher Lu's code :eye-poppi.
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).

I only skimmed Christopher Lu's thesis but did not see your "hypothesis" there either but if it was there in order to generate the code then it would be Christopher Lu's hypothesis :p!

So far it looks like you have the insane assertion that any? code for deep learning implements your "hypothesis" because your math word salad is about deep learning.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
That is silly, especially when Christopher Lu's work is referenced in the first line of the repository's readme.
Click to expand...
That is extremely silly ignorance about your own source :jaw-dropp!
The first line in Readme.md is
![Alt text](https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God/blob/master/source code/data/images/God.png "default page")
Click to expand...
Followed by irrelevant gibberish. No reference to Christopher Lu's work.
The first line in the source files is "%% Author ~ Christopher Lu". No reference to Christopher Lu's work.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(A)
Simply, it exists as a fundamental portion of the equations.

Some causal laws of physics are a part of the Supermanifold Hypothesis/Thought Curvature equations.


(B)
Lu's work shows that it is possible to query some mesoscale format in real time.


(C)
Also, deep mind shows that large scale reinforcement learning is possible.

[IMGw=300]http://i.imgur.com/TRoOnjY.jpg[/IMGw]

(D)
Combining (A), (B) and (C) it is perhaps observable that my fabric is possible/time-space complex optimal.

This is long mentioned in the work presented.
Click to expand...
HaHaHaHaHa! Look what you wrote! That's some funny **** right there!
 
ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
A hypothesis means things done with incomplete evidence.
Click to expand...
Ignorance about what a hypothesis is :p!

Simply put a hypothesis is a statement that might be true, which can then be tested or
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
...
A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); ); Q can be called a consequent.
Click to expand...
A valid hypothesis has two parts:
  • A coherent and understandable statement of the explanation.
  • A coherent and understandable statement of how the hypothesis can be tested.
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
Reality Check said:
That the hypothesis does not exist is a very big problem :jaw-dropp!
  1. A PDF that does not meet the standards of a high school science paper.
  2. A lie about having a hypothesis - you have few paragraphs of incoherent math word salad.
  3. Guesses (even "reasonable") are not mathematics.
  4. Actual gibberish, e.g. "Some tensor sequence of priors. (i.e. solid, liquid, gas)".
Click to expand...
No statement of how to test the "hypothesis" is also bad.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Ignorance about what a hypothesis is :p!

Simply put a hypothesis is a statement that might be true, which can then be tested or

A valid hypothesis has two parts:
  • A coherent and understandable statement of the explanation.
  • A coherent and understandable statement of how the hypothesis can be tested.
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.

No statement of how to test the "hypothesis" is also bad.
Click to expand...

Supermanifold hypothesis' equations are essentially standard math in deep learning.

I recall that you mentioned you lack machine learning expertise, so this thread is probably not for you...
 
Reality Check said:
That is extremely silly ignorance about your own source :jaw-dropp!
The first line in Readme.md is

Followed by irrelevant gibberish. No reference to Christopher Lu's work.
The first line in the source files is "%% Author ~ Christopher Lu". No reference to Christopher Lu's work.
Click to expand...

Click the phrase hierarchical causal fabric in the first line.

That is a link to Lu's work.
 
Myriad said:
To follow up — another unpromising sign is PGJ's habit of responding to a single word in a sentence, out of context, with a complete non-sequitur, much in the manner of an Eliza-type program. For example, I posted:









Keying weird responses off of single words taken out of context is rarely a sign of an earnest attempt to communicate a sound but technically abstruse idea.
Click to expand...

I noticed you conveniently skipped the remainder of my response to your transformation qualm:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Anyway, it is common enough in deep learning, that deep neural nets may be observed to be learning via a sequence of transformations (continuous bijective-inverse wise functions), under certain constraints/topologies, such as differentiable manifolds.

Even before the manifold interpretation, transformations are commonly applied. Every layer that the neural net learns occurs because of activations or transformations. (eg sigmoid, hyperbolic tangential function, etc.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
I'd have written "problems", plural, but I'll respond with just one because you wrote the singular.

In your image, you wrote:

C∞ is the set of infinitely differentiable functions, which is not usually regarded as a Euclidean space.

Perhaps you meant the topological space obtained by taking an infinite product of the complex numbers with the standard product topology, but that is not usually regarded as a Euclidean space either.

Then there's the question of what you might have meant by writing C∞(Rn), but (depending on what you meant by C∞) that might well be regarded as a second problem, so I won't bother to mention it or any other problems I may have detected.
Click to expand...

C∞ is typical supermanifold term.
 
Myriad said:
It's not at all odd. "Indicating" functions and operations etc. is not the same as reasoning about them or performing them. For instance, if I write:

2350!

…. I've indicated a series of 2,349 multiplication operations, but I have not posted an equation or done any mathematics.
Click to expand...

I observe my prior statement.

As mentioned, the super m equations contain many other operations, including tensor aligned operations, under continuous topological consistencies.

The deep learning book by Bengio et al is an optimal start, if you are not familiar with deep learning mechanics, or if you are
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
C∞ is typical supermanifold term.
Click to expand...

But you don't know what it means.

You wrote euclidean superspace in boldface italic, but C∞(Rn) is neither Euclidean nor a superspace of Rn.

Do carry on.


ProgrammingGodJordan probably found "C∞" by Googling articles such as Wikipedia's article on supermanifolds, saw phrases such as

Wikipedia said:
look like a "flat", "Euclidean" superspace
Click to expand...

and didn't know enough math to understand those adjectives were describing local coordinate charts rather than C∞.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
But you don't know what it means.

You wrote euclidean superspace in boldface italic, but C∞(Rn) is neither Euclidean nor a superspace of Rn.

Do carry on.


ProgrammingGodJordan probably found "C∞" by Googling articles such as Wikipedia's article on supermanifolds, saw phrases such as



and didn't know enough math to understand those adjectives were describing local coordinate charts rather than C∞.
Click to expand...

Your comment is invalid. Pay attention to especially item (3) below:

(1)
Euclidean space may encompass Rn and manifolds are locally euclidean in nature:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_space

Pertinently, other events are observed as noise, in the manifold regime:
http://www.deeplearningbook.org



(2)
Superspace may entail in its basis, some super manifold:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superspace



(3)
Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermanifold
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
But you don't know what it means.

You wrote euclidean superspace in boldface italic, but C∞(Rn) is neither Euclidean nor a superspace of Rn.

Do carry on.


ProgrammingGodJordan probably found "C∞" by Googling articles such as Wikipedia's article on supermanifolds, saw phrases such as



and didn't know enough math to understand those adjectives were describing local coordinate charts rather than C∞.
Click to expand...

Makes sense that his math is as arbitrarily plagiarized as his code.
 
fagin said:
I think you missed W.D.Clinger's spoiler...
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss it. My response already addressed this reality.
..but here is a summary below:


(A)
He seemed to miss the instance that deep learning refers loosely to particular regions of manifolds, and it is those regions that appear to generate embeddings of interest. (Deep Learning Book, Bengio et al.)


(B)
In a similar way, the regions of supermanifolds may encode 'flat eulcidean like superspaces', also mentioned in wikipedia. (These are the regions I take interest in wrt causal reinforcement learning, as it is probable that separate regions may be 'noise'.)

Ironically, it is particularly the charts he mentions, that I reference in my supermanifold hypothesis paper. (See the sentence regarding 'result map sequences' from the super-m paper.)
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
fagin said:
I think you missed W.D.Clinger's spoiler...
Click to expand...

No, I didn't miss it. My response already addressed this reality.
Click to expand...
ProgrammingGodJordan addressed my spoiler by confirming what it says.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(B)
In a similar way, the regions of supermanifolds may encode 'flat eulcidean like superspaces', also mentioned in wikipedia.
Click to expand...
ProgrammingGodJordan is trying to support his (literally) bold-faced, italicized claim that C∞(Rn) is Euclidean by linking to an "Informal definition" at Wikipedia. Here's the relevant sentence of that section, with my highlighting:

Wikipedia said:
Locally, it is composed of coordinate charts that make it look like a "flat", "Euclidean" superspace.
Click to expand...
If the supermanifold were actually Euclidean, there would be no reason for Wikipedia to include the two words I highlighted.

If we scan down to the more technical sections of that Wikipedia article, we see things like this (italics as in the Wikipedia article):

Wikipedia said:
The resulting topology is not Hausdorff, but may be termed "projectively Hausdorff".
Click to expand...
ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Ironically, it is particularly the charts he mentions, that I reference in my supermanifold hypothesis paper. (See the sentence regarding 'result map sequences' from the super-m paper.)
Click to expand...
Being able to mention a word that's defined during the very first lecture of a course on manifolds does not imply mastery of the subject.

As ProgrammingGodJordan continues to demonstrate, mentioning a word doesn't even imply understanding of the word.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
ProgrammingGodJordan addressed my spoiler by confirming what it says.


ProgrammingGodJordan is trying to support his (literally) bold-faced, italicized claim that C∞(Rn) is Euclidean by linking to an "Informal definition" at Wikipedia. Here's the relevant sentence of that section, with my highlighting:


If the supermanifold were actually Euclidean, there would be no reason for Wikipedia to include the two words I highlighted.

If we scan down to the more technical sections of that Wikipedia article, we see things like this (italics as in the Wikipedia article):


ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.


Being able to mention a word that's defined during the very first lecture of a course on manifolds does not imply mastery of the subject.

As ProgrammingGodJordan continues to demonstrate, mentioning a word doesn't even imply understanding of the word.
Click to expand...

(1)
At the day's end, what I am interested in, is essentially the euclidean regime, including euclidean bound operations that may occur over the superspace.

Beyond the above euclidean bound operations, there appears not to be any empirical data.



(2)
This is why the super-m hypothesis encodes that there exists some neighbourhood persisting amidst the euclidean space/superspace.

Pay attention to the use of the word neighbourhood above.



FOOTNOTE:
Maybe I need to update the wording, if it is causing misunderstanding, or highlight the word neighbourhood in my paper.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
There is a reason why I typically ignore your comments.

Repository is a common github aligned term: https://help.github.com/articles/cloning-a-repository/
Click to expand...
Your genius at coding seems to have failed you again.
This is the result of follow the link you provide.

266158d5c88d10caa.jpg


:big:
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Click the phrase hierarchical causal fabric in the first line.

That is a link to Lu's work.
Click to expand...
That gives a mistake and a lie
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is the third line in the Readme.md.
    There is a ignorant graphic as the first line.
    There is "Description" as the second line.
    There is gibberish as the third line.
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is a lie since that phrase is not in the thesis.
    Not even "causal" or "fabric" appear :eye-poppi!
    There is obviously the word "hierarchical".
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your comment is invalid.
Click to expand...
Your post is invalid. Pay attention to what you actually link to :jaw-dropp!

A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally. That is what the Wikipedia article you link to has
Informal definition
An informal definition is commonly used in physics textbooks and introductory lectures. It defines a supermanifold as a manifold with both bosonic and fermionic coordinates. Locally, it is composed of coordinate charts that make it look like a "flat", "Euclidean" superspace
Click to expand...
Added highlighting of the English and double quotes you are denying.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Your post is invalid. Pay attention to what you actually link to :jaw-dropp!

A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally. That is what the Wikipedia article you link to has

Added highlighting of the English and double quotes you are denying.
Click to expand...

I am particularly interested in the charts, ie this flat euclidean bound space.

This is why 'resultant map sequences' was mentioned.

See the quote below:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
At the day's end, what I am interested in, is essentially the euclidean regime, including euclidean bound operations that may occur over the superspace.

Beyond the above euclidean bound operations, there appears not to be any empirical data.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I am particularly interested in the charts, ie this flat euclidean bound space.

This is why 'resultant map sequences' was mentioned.

See the quote below:
Click to expand...

Yet you're not so interested in the "looks like" aspect of the Wiki entry you keep linking to. Curious.
 
Reality Check said:
That gives a mistake and a lie
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is the third line in the Readme.md.
    There is a ignorant graphic as the first line.
    There is "Description" as the second line.
    There is gibberish as the third line.
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is a lie since that phrase is not in the thesis.
    Not even "causal" or "fabric" appear :eye-poppi!
    There is obviously the word "hierarchical".
Click to expand...

(A)
The causal is simply a description of how physical systems compose in particle terms, to construe compositional paradigms.

So, laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles under particular constrains is measured.

In the above paradigm, interactions cause particular configurations of the aforesaid compositional paradigms.

The above system is hierarchical, and so, it is a hierarchical causal fabric.

(B)
It is actually the fourth non-empty line, but still the first sentence.
Maybe I should have used the word sentence instead.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(A)...
Click to expand...
29 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Nonsense irrelevant to a lie of citing a paper that contains nothing on a nonsensical phrase!
Your assertion was a link in the first line:
1
2
3
4 This is the first sentence in the fourth line
Click to expand...
That assertion was wrong.
The link remains a lie - the Christopher Lu paper is not about your nonsensical phrase. It is as much a lie as stating that the Christopher Lu paper is about Earth's atmosphere because it has "laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles".

Which reminds me:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.

See the posts by W.D.Clinger for why the "hypothesis" is invalid math word salad, e.g. ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.
Hausdorff space include real numbers. Not Hausdorff implies no real numbers and thus not Euclidean (without quotes).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
29 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Nonsense irrelevant to a lie of citing a paper that contains nothing on a nonsensical phrase!
Your assertion was a link in the first line:

That assertion was wrong.
The link remains a lie - the Christopher Lu paper is not about your nonsensical phrase. It is as much a lie as stating that the Christopher Lu paper is about Earth's atmosphere because it has "laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles".

Which reminds me:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.

See the posts by W.D.Clinger for why the "hypothesis" is invalid math word salad, e.g. ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.
Hausdorff space include real numbers. Not Hausdorff implies no real numbers and thus not Euclidean (without quotes).
Click to expand...


sA6PAz9.jpg


Albeit, your ramblings are irrelevant and garbage, and my prior quote applies:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
This is why the super-m hypothesis encodes that there exists some neighbourhood persisting amidst the euclidean space/superspace.

Pay attention to the use of the word neighbourhood above.
Click to expand...

To minimize your ignorance, I encourage that you observe this text by Bengio et al..

See particularly chapter 5.1.1.3.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
More nonsense does not hide an ignorant statement about supermanifolds: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to my usage of the word neighbourhood, in the supermanifold hypothesis:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
RA3GJle.png
Click to expand...



The reality is, you appear to lack understanding of manifolds in relation to deep learning; thus this appears simply to be beyond your domain...

Furthermore, Christopher Lu's code can be observed to learn some manifold of Rn nature.
https://github.com/HFTrader/DeepLearningBook
http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-03-NN-Manifolds-Topology/
 
Last edited:
 
Reality Check said:
A couple of posts with insults does not make denying what supermanifolds are any more sensible, ProgrammingGodJordan:
A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.

Or make a thesis contain math word salad:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
Click to expand...

Albeit, supermanifolds may appear in the euclidean regime.

Also, I mentioned that my paradigm exists in the neighbourhood of such a regime, wherein x in ϕ(x,θ,θ`) may denote real numbers.

Derive from that what you shall so desire. (although your desires thus far do not halt the validity of the above)
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...insults snipped...possible copyright violation by HFTrader snipped...See particularly chapter 5.1.1.3.
Click to expand...
This is the official source for the Deep Learning textbook and includes
FAQ
•Can I get a PDF of this book?
No, our contract with MIT Press forbids distribution of too easily copied electronic formats of the book.

•Why are you using HTML format for the web version of the book?
This format is a sort of weak DRM required by our contract with MIT Press. It's intended to discourage unauthorized copying/editing of the book
Click to expand...
You have linked to a possible copyright violation by HFTrader who did convert the web pages to a PDF.

Chapter "5.1.1.3" does not exist :eek:!
However there is chapter "5.11.3 Manifold Learning". They look at manifolds that are locally Euclidian:
From any given point, the manifold locally appears to be a Euclidean space.
Click to expand...
This is basic stuff that I first learned about 30 years ago in math textbooks and post-graduate physics courses. Since then I have refreshed my knowledge several times.
 
Reality Check said:
That Wikipedia article shows that statement is basically quote mining (close to lying about) the article:

The quotes are there for a reason!
Click to expand...

Your comment above does not alter the instance that supermanifolds may persist in the euclidean regime.

Particularly, euclidean bound operations may occur on points over the superspace.

As long mentioned, such are the operations of interest.


RealityCheck said:
This is basic stuff that I first learned about 30 years ago in math textbooks and post-graduate physics courses. Since then I have refreshed my knowledge several times
Click to expand...

Yet this basic topic appears to elude your understanding/expression, especially the usage of simple words such as neighborhood.


RealityCheck said:
5.1.1.3 does not exist...
there is a chapter 5.11.3.
Click to expand...

Yes that was a typo of mine.
Yes the correct chapter is 5.11.3.
This is perhaps your first sensible criticism.

I typed the chapter number from memory, and so came the possibility such that I entered an extra point...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your comment ...
Click to expand...
Repeating ignorance about supermanifolds does not change that they are not locally Euclidean as everyone reads that Wikipedia article you cited understands.

The phrase "persist in the euclidean regime" sounds like you have no idea about what the "super" part of "supermanifolds" comes from. This is the application of concepts from supersymmetry to manifolds which turns manifolds into explicitly non-Euclidean "regimes" both globally and locally.

Adding insults does not help - I know what neighborhood means in math. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a manifold can be Euclidean. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a supermanifold is never Euclidean.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Repeating ignorance about supermanifolds does not change that they are not locally Euclidean as everyone reads that Wikipedia article you cited understands.

The phrase "persist in the euclidean regime" sounds like you have no idea about what the "super" part of "supermanifolds" comes from. This is the application of concepts from supersymmetry to manifolds which turns manifolds into explicitly non-Euclidean "regimes" both globally and locally.

Adding insults does not help - I know what neighborhood means in math. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a manifold can be Euclidean. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a supermanifold is never Euclidean.
Click to expand...


[IMGw=300]http://i.imgur.com/kHuXEPE.jpg[/IMGw]

(A)
Here is a simple example to show that your highlighted text is invalid:

See the paper: "Non-anticommutative N=(1,1) Euclidean Superspace"

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0402062

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superspace


(B)
Try not to use words such as "never", etc.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Please don't develop AI, nothing good will come out of it. Especially for programmers .. especially for those nearest to it ;-)
Click to expand...

Too late.
Google, Microsoft, Baidu etc are in on it.


From what Musk says, maybe we are the biological boot loaders of some superintelligence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom