Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

BStrong said:
PRogrammingGodJordan said:
It is noteworthy that physicists aim to unravel the cosmos' mysteries, and so it is a mystery as to why Witten would select not to partake amidst the active machine learning field, especially given that:

(1) Manifolds apply non-trivially in machine learning.

(2) AI is one of mankind's most profound tools.

(3) AI is already performing nobel prize level tasks, very very efficiently.

(4) AI may need only be mankind's last invention.

Edit: duplicate number fixed.
Click to expand...

AI re-created what had already been done. The little gizmo didn't stay up all night working on it's own volition.
Click to expand...


Of what consequence is your comment?

Hint: It doesn't at all, remove the fact that machines are unavoidably reducing more and more cognitive tasks.



FOOTNOTE:
Also, here are other clearly physics related applications:

(1) Higgs Boson Machine Learning Challenge, dealing with physics at large hadron collider: https://www.kaggle.com/c/higgs-boson
(2) Finding τ → μμμ Machine Learning Challenge, yet another event, dealing with physics at large hadron collider https://www.kaggle.com/c/flavours-of-physics
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Look at the ignorance of thinking that math is based on "scientific evidence"! What you have is ignorance of mathematics and math gibberish as in a couple of threads.
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.

8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
I am not ignoring evidence of math ignorance and word salad that you have written:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.

8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
The definition of a supermanifold means that no supermanifold can be locally Euclidean.
There is a subset of supermanifolds that are locally super Euclidean. That means that they have a symmetry group that has operation analogous to the symmetry of Euclidean space. This subset is labeled Euclidean supermanifolds.

Your notation makes your makes gibberish.
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
For example (what you have read and cited before!): A supermanifold M of dimension (p,q) ...
Click to expand...

Once more, why bother to ignore evidence?

(A)
No where had I supposedly stated that "all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean". (Could you care to present evidence that remedies such an accusation?)
In fact, in contrast to your accusation, my earlier post (which preceded your accusation above) clearly expressed that "Supermanifold may encode as 'essentially flat euclidean super space' fabric".

No where above expresses that all supermanifolds were locally euclidean. Why bother to lie?


(B)
Anyway, as I had expressed then, they can be observed to possess some flat Riemannian metric, which entail locally euclidean description.



[imgw=140]http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg[/imgw]

Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.




FOOTNOTE
At any cost, I value your input, however wrongly such may occur a majority of the time.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Once more, why bother to ignore evidence?....
Click to expand...
You have presented only evidence of math salad for many months:
  1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
  2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
  3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
  4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
  5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
  6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
  8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
  9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
  10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
To which I can add:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
For example:
8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Gibberish "Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis" title.
I will go through the inanity of that PDF:
"Abstract" - so far so good!
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
"A particular manifold paradox emerges qua markov neural sequences’ confluence abound non-trivial causal instruction."
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies.
C∞(Rn)" is not nonsensical 'causal neural perturbation curvature' (see what you previously defined that math salad as :eek:). Followed by more nonsense.
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".
 
Last edited:
C_Felix said:
Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

No. No he cannot.
Click to expand...

Edward Witten is pretty cool. He has made some important contributions to physics. Of course that's his specialty, that is the field that he has a great deal of knowledge about and which he has spent a great deal of time thinking about.

Could he contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? Maybe, though it's not clear.

However, so can many others. I find it likely that his greatest potential contribution is to physics, which is the field that he is most qualified to contribute to, and which he has a proven record of doing.

Maybe I'm wrong in that guess. But I think that Witten is more well placed than any of us, including the OP, to assess which field he has the greatest chances of making meaningful contributions to. And given the OP's apparent reverence for his genius, I'd think that those two facts - his genius and his access to knowledge - suggest that he should simply admit that Witten's answer to this question is very likely to be more accurate than his own.
 
Giordano said:
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
Click to expand...

Interesting characterization. Let me see. I'm not sure what science I would be challenging since there is no theory for general AI. I don't think I can challenge something that doesn't exist.

Is my theory strange? I'm not really sure. It doesn't include any supernatural elements or depend on some undiscovered phenomenon. Maybe it's strange in that it doesn't depend on some popular dogmas like simulation or neural networks.

I don't think I'm under appreciated since I haven't accomplished what I set out to do. And, anything else that I may have accomplished hasn't been published so no one would be aware of it.

From time to time I think about posting an update on the research, but it usually doesn't seem to be worth the bother. Fairly standard.
 
Reality Check said:
You have presented only evidence of math salad for many months:
  1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
  2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
  3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
  4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
  5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
  6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
  8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
  9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
  10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
Click to expand...
An old hat.

We can see that you blundered above:

Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.




Reality Check said:
To which I can add:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
For example:
8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Gibberish "Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature): Aptly, the transient, naive hypothesis" title.
I will go through the inanity of that PDF:
"Abstract" - so far so good!
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
"A particular manifold paradox emerges qua markov neural sequences’ confluence abound non-trivial causal instruction."
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies.
C∞(Rn)" is not nonsensical 'causal neural perturbation curvature' (see what you previously defined that math salad as :eek:). Followed by more nonsense.
Click to expand...


C∞π(Rnπ) is a 'novel' term, consisting of a novel organization, of pretty standard components.

"Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with policy π - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.

This means there is an overall model that may learn causal laws of physics (sample), in a reinforcement learning based setting.

The above is a bit lengthy, so I went with "causal neural perturbation curvature'" instead.



Reality Check said:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".
Click to expand...



I used the word axiomatizes, rather than 'axomatizes'.

Anyway, that term simply referred to the fundamental psuedo-code/scientific logic presented on github.

Here is the precise sentence, with the link that had been long attached in the paper:

"Ergo, the paradox axiomatizes."
 
Last edited:
barehl said:
Giordano said:
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
Click to expand...

Interesting characterization. Let me see. I'm not sure what science I would be challenging since there is no theory for general AI. I don't think I can challenge something that doesn't exist.

Is my theory strange? I'm not really sure. It doesn't include any supernatural elements or depend on some undiscovered phenomenon. Maybe it's strange in that it doesn't depend on some popular dogmas like simulation or neural networks.

I don't think I'm under appreciated since I haven't accomplished what I set out to do. And, anything else that I may have accomplished hasn't been published so no one would be aware of it.

From time to time I think about posting an update on the research, but it usually doesn't seem to be worth the bother. Fairly standard.
Click to expand...

As I expressed before (you likely missed it):

(1) The genius I especially underlined in the original post, is Witten.

(2) A degree of math of manifolds, is already apart of machine learning. (So there is no need for 'challenging accepted science')
 
Roboramma said:
Edward Witten is pretty cool. He has made some important contributions to physics. Of course that's his specialty, that is the field that he has a great deal of knowledge about and which he has spent a great deal of time thinking about.

However, so can many others. I find it likely that his greatest potential contribution is to physics, which is the field that he is most qualified to contribute to, and which he has a proven record of doing.

Maybe I'm wrong in that guess. But I think that Witten is more well placed than any of us, including the OP, to assess which field he has the greatest chances of making meaningful contributions to. And given the OP's apparent reverence for his genius, I'd think that those two facts - his genius and his access to knowledge - suggest that he should simply admit that Witten's answer to this question is very likely to be more accurate than his own.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Max Tegmark, is also a physicist, that has not undergone official artificial intelligence training, and yet, he has already contributed important work in the field of machine learning.

Tegmark presents consciousness as a mathematical problem, while Witten presents it as a likely forever unsolvable mystery.


Roboramma said:
Could he contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? Maybe, though it's not clear.
Click to expand...

It is unavoidable, he could contribute; manifolds (something Edward works on) applies empirically in machine learning.

One need not be a nobel prize winning physicist to observe the above.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
An old hat.
Click to expand...
I know that your ignorant math salad and gibberish is old hat, e.g. no supermanifold is locally Euclidean. That s a basic property of supermanifolds - they are locally "Grassmann", i.e. have a Grassmann algebra that explicitly violates rules for Euclidean spaces, specifically ab != ba.
For others:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn)

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
C∞π(Rnπ) is a 'novel' term, ...
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
The lie comes from your existing definition of C∞π(Rn) as different ignorant nonsense :eye-poppi!
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math

Thanks for the clarification on your Thought Curvature abstract:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
axiomatize = "1.To establish a set of axioms that describe or govern certain phenomena".
This is an axiom. A good example are the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
The ignorant gibberish is that some "paradox" establishes a set of axioms.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind

Into the introduction and:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
Deepmind’s atari q architecture encompasses non-pooling convolutions
Click to expand...
DeepMind is a "neural network that learns how to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans". It can play several Atari games. It does not have an architecture related to those Atari games. What DeepMind does have is "a convolutional neural network, with a novel form of Q-learning". I have found 1 Google DeepMind paper about the neural network architecture that explicitly includes pooling layers but not as an implemented architecture element, Exploiting Cyclic Symmetry in Convolutional Neural Networks.

What is missing in the PDF is any references for DeepMind.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I know that your ignorant math salad and gibberish is old hat, e.g. no supermanifold is locally Euclidean. That s a basic property of supermanifolds - they are locally "Grassmann", i.e. have a Grassmann algebra that explicitly violates rules for Euclidean spaces, specifically ab != ba.
For others:
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
The lie comes from your existing definition of C∞π(Rn) as different ignorant nonsense :eye-poppi!
24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math

Thanks for the clarification on your Thought Curvature abstract:
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
axiomatize = "1.To establish a set of axioms that describe or govern certain phenomena".
This is an axiom. A good example are the Peano axioms for the natural numbers.
The ignorant gibberish is that some "paradox" establishes a set of axioms.
Click to expand...



Where had I supposedly mentioned that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

And why do you deny the following:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.
Click to expand...
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As I expressed before (you likely missed it):

(1) The genius I especially underlined in the original post, is Witten.

(2) A degree of math of manifolds, is already apart of machine learning. (So there is no need for 'challenging accepted science')
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what you posted. I also know where the flaws are in everything you talked about. For example, your claim that AI is making dramatic advances in cognition is hogwash There's no truth to it. The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse. The most common thing that Amazon's Alexa says is, "I don't understand what you just said." That's the default response. My post was in response to Giordano's characterization which seemed to include a fair amount of dishonesty.

I have not responded to what you've written because, as far as I can tell, you haven't said anything yet worth discussing.

Tegmark? Here he is back in 2014 jabbering away about emergent properties and Integrated Information Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM. That was three years ago. What advances in machine cognition have been made by either Tegmark or IIT since then? Well, none.

At 10:30. He says, "I think consciousness is the way that information feels when it is being processed."

Well, there you go then -- consciousness solved! I'm sorry but I can't take Tegmark seriously when he talks about consciousness. He's flailing in the dark.
 
barehl said:
Yes, I know what you posted. I also know where the flaws are in everything you talked about. For example, your claim that AI is making dramatic advances in cognition is hogwash There's no truth to it. The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse. The most common thing that Amazon's Alexa says is, "I don't understand what you just said." That's the default response. My post was in response to Giordano's characterization which seemed to include a fair amount of dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Have you been absent internet access, until just today?

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':

https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/...ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-observes-many-times-more-lung-cancer-signals



(PART-A)

Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED human-kind:

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go')
n) etc, etc

Will artificial intelligence take your job?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-wn8ghcoY

Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo



(PART-B)

Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

However, this does not remove part (PART-A) above, it is unavoidable that deep learning models already exceed humans in many cognitive (notably not all) tasks.





(PART-C)

barehl said:
I have not responded to what you've written because, as far as I can tell, you haven't said anything yet worth discussing.

Tegmark? Here he is back in 2014 jabbering away about emergent properties and Integrated Information Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzCvlFRISIM. That was three years ago. What advances in machine cognition have been made by either Tegmark or IIT since then? Well, none.
At 10:30. He says, "I think consciousness is the way that information feels when it is being processed."

Well, there you go then -- consciousness solved! I'm sorry but I can't take Tegmark seriously when he talks about consciousness. He's flailing in the dark.
Click to expand...


Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225

I am curious. What advances are you working on? Any public data on that?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I have found 1 Google DeepMind paper about the neural network architecture that explicitly includes pooling layers but not as an implemented architecture element, Exploiting Cyclic Symmetry in Convolutional Neural Networks.

What is missing in the PDF is any references for DeepMind.
Click to expand...

(1)
My thought curvature paper is unavoidably valid, in expressing that deepmind did not use pooling layers in AtariQ model. (See atari q paper)




(2)
Don't you know any machine learning?

Don't you know that convolutional layers can be in a model, without pooling layers?
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy of "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Where had I supposedly mentioned that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?
Click to expand...
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"
The fact is that no super-manifolds are locally Euclidean and you stated that some super-manifolds can be "essentially flat euclidean super space".

Since you insist though:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
"Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric" with a citation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermanifold
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...
"flat" is not actually flat. "Euclidean" is not Euclidean. An "informal definition" is not a mathematical definition :eek:!
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
And why do you deny the following:
Click to expand...
Because I was hoping not to have to point even more nonsense from you. But since you insist.
The 30 March 2017 post gives
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.
The Grassmann numbers represent some direction sequence, from some real valued x, in ϕ(x,θ,θ_).
Click to expand...
That sentence is nonsense with a bit of irrelevant underlining. Supermanifold has
These local coordinates are often denoted by
ϕ(x,θ,θ_)
where x is the (real-number-valued) spacetime coordinate, and θ and θ_ are Grassmann-valued spatial "directions".
Click to expand...
Note the quotes! The directions belong to the supermanifold and are expressed are elements of the Grassmann algebra.
This is a Grassmann number
In mathematical physics, a Grassmann number, named after Hermann Grassmann (also called an anticommuting number or supernumber), is an element of the exterior algebra over the complex numbers.[1] The special case of a 1-dimensional algebra is known as a dual number. Grassmann numbers saw an early use in physics to express a path integral representation for fermionic fields, although they are now widely used as a foundation for superspace, on which supersymmetry is constructed
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"The fact is that no super-manifolds are locally Euclidean and you stated that some super-manifolds can be "essentially flat euclidean super space".

Since you insist though:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
"Supermanifold may encode as "essentially flat euclidean super space" fabric" with a citation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermanifold

"flat" is not actually flat. "Euclidean" is not Euclidean. An "informal definition" is not a mathematical definition :eek:!
Click to expand...

Where had I supposedly expressed that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

Are you aware that essentially need not mean exactly? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/essentially

Prediction: Reality Check shall continue to blather on, absent evidence.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Have you been absent internet access, until just today?
Click to expand...
Yes, let's say that I've been absent. Why don't you list for me what you are talking about and I'll just cross out any that don't involve cognition. Hint: a computer playing chess does not involve cognition.

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":

Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED human-kind:
Click to expand...

1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go'))

Impressive. Anything actually related to cognition?


Will artificial intelligence take your job?:

Humans need not apply:

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:

Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

However, this does not remove part (PART-A) above, it is unavoidable that deep learning models already exceed humans in many cognitive (notably not all) tasks.
Click to expand...

Yes, learning models exceed humans so profoundly that no one has been able to demonstrate it or even propose an experiment to demonstrate it or even give an estimate of what century it could be demonstrated. That is truly amazing.


Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark:

I am curious. What advances are you working on?
Click to expand...

About two years ago, I identified two subsystems in the brain that are responsible for awareness and problem solving. After that, I came up with a new theory of knowledge which is directly related to cognition but can be applied to decision making in complex systems. I'm currently working on the theoretical basis of comprehension. That's what none of the systems you've mentioned have.

Any public data on that?
Click to expand...

No, not a word.
 
PART A

barehl said:
Yes, let's say that I've been absent. Why don't you list for me what you are talking about and I'll just cross out any that don't involve cognition. Hint: a computer playing chess does not involve cognition.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:

gztAhsV.png


Why didn't you research before commenting?




PART B

barehl said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
barehl said:
The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse.
Click to expand...

Highlighted portion is trivially, demonstrably wrong.

Here are a sequence cognitive fields/tasks, where sophisticated ARTIFICIAL neural models EXCEED human-kind:

'Deep Learning AI Better Than Your Doctor at Finding Cancer':
https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/...ai-better-than-your-doctor-at-finding-cancer/

"AI beats doctors at visual diagnosis, observes many times more lung cancer signals":
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-observes-many-times-more-lung-cancer-signals


1) Language translation (eg: Skype 50+ languages)
2) Legal-conflict-resolution (eg: 'Watson')
3) Self-driving (eg: 'OTTO-Self Driving' )
5) Disease diagnosis (eg: 'Watson')
6) Medicinal drug prescription (eg: 'Watson')
7) Visual Product Sorting (eg: 'Amazon Corrigon' )
8) Help Desk Assistance ('eg: Digital Genius)
9) Mechanical Cucumber Sorting (eg: 'Makoto's Cucumber Sorter')
10) Financial Analysis (eg: 'SigFig')
11) E-Discovery Law (eg: ' Social Science Research Network.')
12) Anesthesiology (eg: 'SedaSys')
13) Music composition (eg: 'Emily')
14) Go (eg: 'Alpha Go'))


Will artificial intelligence take your job?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_-wn8ghcoY

Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The wonderful and terrifying implications of computers that can learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo


FOOTNOTE:
Mankind has not yet mirrored the human brain in software/hardware, (as is demonstrable in groups such as Henry Markram's movement)

Example of recent machine learning work by Tegmark:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225
Click to expand...


Impressive. Anything actually related to cognition?
Yes, learning models exceed humans so profoundly that no one has been able to demonstrate it or even propose an experiment to demonstrate it or even give an estimate of what century it could be demonstrated. That is truly amazing.
Click to expand...

Thousands have been able to do so, including those from the list I provided above.

You erred in believing that the models above 'had nothing to do with cognition', and that they were less than mouse level cognition. All of your beliefs here, are demonstrably absent evidential sources, and scientific data contrasts said beliefs (See the WikiData below):

gztAhsV.png




PART C

barehl said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I am curious. What advances are you working on? Any public data on that?
Click to expand...
About two years ago, I identified two subsystems in the brain that are responsible for awareness and problem solving. After that, I came up with a new theory of knowledge which is directly related to cognition but can be applied to decision making in complex systems. I'm currently working on the theoretical basis of comprehension. That's what none of the systems you've mentioned have.

No, not a word.
Click to expand...


As you present no public data, there is no demonstration of any machine learning know-how, of yours.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Because I was hoping not to have to point even more nonsense from you. But since you insist.
The 30 March 2017 post gives
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.

That sentence is nonsense with a bit of irrelevant underlining. Supermanifold has

Note the quotes! The directions belong to the supermanifold and are expressed are elements of the Grassmann algebra.
This is a Grassmann number
Click to expand...

That portion on grassmanian numbers, does not suddenly remove your blunder, as is demonstrated below:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Recall that it is I that brought the fact that supermanifolds may yield euclidean description (response 604 on that thread)
... contrary to your non-evidenced, invalid quote (reply 596 in that thread - your invalid words: "...any point in a supermanifold is never euclidean").

It is thus silly to present the same correction I had issued to you, as if I hadn't long corrected your earlier blunder, by revealing the very same url to you.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[imgw=190]http://i.imgur.com/JYrZOW4.jpg[/imgw]


Reality Check said:
15 august 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post - the ignorant nonsense was "Deepmind’s atari q architecture".
No Atari architecture.
No q architecture
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
Click to expand...

You are demonstrably wrong, as you will see below.



Reality Check said:
DeepMind is a "neural network that learns how to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans". It can play several Atari games. It does not have an architecture related to those Atari games. What DeepMind does have is "a convolutional neural network, with a novel form of Q-learning".
Click to expand...


What is the relevance of your line above?

Here is a more detailed, intuitive, mathematical description of mine, regarding deepmind's flavour of deep q learning (written in 2016):

https://www.quora.com/Artificial-In...p-Q-networks-DQN-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9




Reality Check said:
I have found 1 Google DeepMind paper about the neural network architecture that explicitly includes pooling layers but not as an implemented architecture element, Exploiting Cyclic Symmetry in Convolutional Neural Networks.

What is missing in the PDF is any references for DeepMind.
Click to expand...

(1)
My thought curvature paper is unavoidably valid, in expressing that deepmind did not use pooling layers in AtariQ model. (See (2) below).




(2)
Don't you know any machine learning?

Don't you know that convolutional layers can be in a model, without pooling layers?
PaUaBx9.png


WHY NO POOLING LAYERS (FOR THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO)?

In particular, for eg, pooling layers enable translation in-variance, such that object detection can occur, regardless of position in an image. This is why deepmind left it out; the model is quite sensitive to changes in embedding/entities' positions per frame, so the model can reinforce itself by Q-updating.


SOME RESOURCES TO HELP TO PURGE YOUR IGNORANCE:

(a) Deepmind's paper.

(b) If (a) is too abstruse, see this breakdown, why atari q left out pooling layers. (A clear, similar explanation similar to the 'WHY NO POOLING LAYERS (FOR THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO)?' section above, or as is long written in thought curvature paper)




FOOTNOTE:
It is no surprise that deepmind used pooling in another framework. Pooling layers are used in deep learning all the time, and models can include convolutional layers along with or without pooling layers. (Deep learning basics)
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:
Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.
 
barehl said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task; chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:

gztAhsV.png

Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.
Click to expand...

Cognitive computing, deals with actual cognition.

Anyway, if not computers (i.e. cognitive computing), what do you plan to implement your supposed theory on?
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Cognitive computing, deals with actual cognition.
Click to expand...
Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this, nor has any theory been published that would allow this. It has not been proven impossible but it does not exist today. If you want to pretend otherwise, well...it's your sandbox; have fun.

Anyway, if not computers (i.e. cognitive computing), what do you plan to implement your supposed theory on?
Click to expand...
Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?
 
11958330 said:
I haven't mentioned cognitive computing, only actual cognition. If cognitive computing is what you are so excited about then there is little point in continuing this conversation. I have no interest in that.

Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this, nor has any theory been published that would allow this. It has not been proven impossible but it does not exist today. If you want to pretend otherwise, well...it's your sandbox; have fun.
Click to expand...

As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
gztAhsV_d.jpg
Click to expand...

As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.


barehl said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
If not computers (cognitive computing) what do you plan to implement your model on?
Click to expand...

Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?
Click to expand...

Based on the evidence on the Wikipedia page above, your prior words "I haven't mentioned any cognitive computing" is nonsensical, because it is the class of cognitive computing into which models of cognition would fall. (Unless you had specified some other medium on which your supposed model could run on, apart from computers.)
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:
Click to expand...
And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.

As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.
Click to expand...
To repeat myself again, cognition is about understanding; I'm not interested in any other definition. If you insist on another definition for cognition then you can use that and just assume that I am only interested in understanding, not in whatever you consider cognition to be.

Why are you asking me about a theory you've already dismissed?
 
barehl said:
And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.
Click to expand...

Cognitive computing deals with cognition in brains. (As seen here)


barehl said:
To repeat myself again, cognition is about understanding; I'm not interested in any other definition. If you insist on another definition for cognition then you can use that and just assume that I am only interested in understanding, not in whatever you consider cognition to be.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you are interested in the definition, cognitive computing entails machine learning today.


barehl said:
Why are you asking me about a theory you've already dismissed?
Click to expand...

I could care less about your supposed model.

However, I was unraveling your error; your claim to have not mentioned anything about cognitive computing, is silly, because computing is thus far our only means of implementing reasonable cognitive models.





[IMGw=200]http://i.imgur.com/JYrZOW4.jpg[/IMGw]

FOOTNOTE:

barehl said:
Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this...
Click to expand...

Ai today can understand stuff, contrary to your contrasting claims:

Wikipedia Ai Page: "Natural language processing gives machines the ability to read and understand human language..."
 
Last edited:
A couple of crazily colored, irrelevant (e.g. obsessing with pooling layers) and insulting posts which I will ignore. I will list what we have so far before I return to the Thought Curvature PDF (linked so anyone can see the word salad it contains).
  1. 24 March 2017: W.D.Clinger (a mathematician) points out one of many problems in your math
  2. 27 March 2017: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
  3. A more complete explanation of how supermanifolds are not locally Euclidean
  4. 24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
  5. 31 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A web page about a subset of supermanifolds does not state that all supermanifolds are locally Euclidean.
  6. 8 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  7. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Still does not understand what makes his math gibberish!
  8. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: " C∞(Rn)" is not the mathematical notation for any manifold which is M.
  9. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: More irrelevant math that looks like gibberish is not a spoiler because you have shown that you can write math gibberish since 24 March 2017.
  10. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: The OP has an idiotic, strawman question because it is ignorant about Edward Witten.
  11. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that I am ignoring the evidence of math salad you persist in giving us.
  12. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  13. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  14. 14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  15. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Repeats a nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn).
  16. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
  17. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy that you stated "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"
  18. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorance of the role of quotes in English emphasized again!
  19. 15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense.
  20. 16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read - my post was about other Grassmanian nonsense he posted!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom