ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence , consciousness , Edward Witten , Max Tegmark

Reply
Old 13th August 2017, 04:52 PM   #41
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by John Jones
You haven't learned **** from shinola after all this time. I'm suspecting dain bramage.
What is "shinola"?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th August 2017 at 05:14 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 04:58 PM   #42
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Originally Posted by PRogrammingGodJordan
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.
AI re-created what had already been done. The little gizmo didn't stay up all night working on it's own volition.

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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th August 2017 at 05:02 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 05:03 PM   #43
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,460
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Regardless, be it one or a thousand words, prior responders, (and you too) are yet to approach the question.
Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

No. No he cannot.
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 05:08 PM   #44
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

No. No he cannot.
...but is the contrast likely true?

Hint: Manifolds, apply empirically in machine learning.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th August 2017 at 06:01 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 05:14 PM   #45
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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) ...
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.





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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 13th August 2017 at 05:46 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2017, 09:28 PM   #46
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Once more, why bother to ignore evidence?....
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 ). Followed by more nonsense.
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th August 2017 at 09:44 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 03:54 AM   #47
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,767
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
Genius Edward Witten, could he help to intensify artificial intelligence research?

No. No he cannot.
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.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:06 AM   #48
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
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.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:33 PM   #49
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.




Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 ). Followed by more nonsense.

C∞π(R) 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.



Originally Posted by Reality Check
14 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A Curvature abstract ends with gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axomatizes".


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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 01:16 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:37 PM   #50
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Originally Posted by Giordano
it seems fairly standard for arguments that seek to challenge accepted science with a strange theory proposed by a "under appreciated" genius
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.
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')
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 12:43 PM   #51
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
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.
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.


Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Could he contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? Maybe, though it's not clear.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 02:31 PM   #52
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
An old hat.
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 by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 02:34 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 02:49 PM   #53
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: A nonsense definition and a lie about C∞π(Rn)

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
C∞π(R) is a 'novel' term, ...
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 !
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 by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 02:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 03:09 PM   #54
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind

Into the introduction and:
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
Quote:
Deepmind’s atari q architecture encompasses non-pooling convolutions
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 by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 03:13 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 03:44 PM   #55
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,104
Supermanifolds is just another term for Kryptonian origami.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 08:20 PM   #56
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 !
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.


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

And why do you deny the following:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 08:25 PM   #57
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
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')
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 08:54 PM   #58
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Jodie
I can psychically sense that this manifold destiny is doomed therefore I don't need to provide evidence for this intuitive conclusion.
Still need that empirical evidence...

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 09:21 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:05 PM   #59
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Myriad
Supermanifolds is just another term for Kryptonian origami.
...

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 09:08 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:08 PM   #60
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by faqin
Perhaps he's a member here?...............................
Perhaps he would then be motivated to do some heavy machine learning.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 09:22 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:17 PM   #61
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
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.

Have you been absent internet access, until just today?

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

https://singularityhub.com/2015/11/1...inding-cancer/

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

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...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)

Originally Posted by barehl
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.

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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 09:21 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:20 PM   #62
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
(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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 10:56 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:32 PM   #63
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
...
15 august 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post - the ignorant nonsense was "Deepmindís atari q architecture".
No Atari architecture.
No q architecture
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 09:48 PM   #64
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
ProgrammingGodJordan: A fantasy of "super-manifolds were locally Euclidean"

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Where had I supposedly mentioned that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?
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
Quote:
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.
"flat" is not actually flat. "Euclidean" is not Euclidean. An "informal definition" is not a mathematical definition !

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2017 at 09:51 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:13 PM   #65
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
Thumbs down ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
And why do you deny the following:
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.
Quote:
The Grassmann numbers represent some direction sequence, from some real valued x, in ϕ(x,θ,θ_).
That sentence is nonsense with a bit of irrelevant underlining. Supermanifold has
Quote:
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".
Note the quotes! The directions belong to the supermanifold and are expressed are elements of the Grassmann algebra.
This is a Grassmann number
Quote:
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
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:21 PM   #66
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 !
Where had I supposedly expressed that super-manifolds were locally euclidean?

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

Prediction: Reality Check shall continue to blather on, absent evidence.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 11:02 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:21 PM   #67
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Have you been absent internet access, until just today?
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":

Quote:
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')
)

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)

Quote:
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.
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:

Quote:
I am curious. What advances are you working on?
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.

Quote:
Any public data on that?
No, not a word.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:46 PM   #68
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
PART A

Originally Posted by barehl View Post
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.
Wrong.
Chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:



Why didn't you research before commenting?




PART B

Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Originally Posted by barehl
The smartest AI today can't match the cognitive ability of a mouse.
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/2015/11/1...inding-cancer/

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

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.
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):






PART C

Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
I am curious. What advances are you working on? Any public data on that?
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.

As you present no public data, there is no demonstration of any machine learning know-how, of yours.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 11:00 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:49 PM   #69
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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
That portion on grassmanian numbers, does not suddenly remove your blunder, as is demonstrated below:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 14th August 2017 at 11:02 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 10:52 PM   #70
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718



Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
15 august 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: An inanely colored and irrelevant post - the ignorant nonsense was "Deepmindís atari q architecture".
No Atari architecture.
No q architecture
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Ignorant nonsense about Deepmind.
You are demonstrably wrong, as you will see below.



Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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".

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-Int...rdan-Bennett-9




Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
(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?



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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 11:01 PM   #71
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2017, 11:08 PM   #72
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
Wrong.
Chess is a cognitive task; chess is doable by computer, in a cognitive manner.
Anyway, cognitive computing encompasses artificial intelligence:


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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:10 AM   #73
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Cognitive computing, deals with actual cognition.
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.

Quote:
Anyway, if not computers (i.e. cognitive computing), what do you plan to implement your supposed theory on?
Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 12:43 PM   #74
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by 11958330
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.
As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.


Originally Posted by barehl
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
If not computers (cognitive computing) what do you plan to implement your model on?
Why would you ask me about a theory that you've already dismissed?
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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th August 2017 at 02:01 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 01:00 PM   #75
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,508
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
As I showed you before, cognitive computing entails artificial intelligence:
And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.

Quote:
As seen on the wiki page above, Ai is already doing cognitive tasks.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 02:06 PM   #76
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
And, to repeat myself, I have no interest in "cognitive computing". I'm not going to discuss it.
Cognitive computing deals with cognition in brains. (As seen here)


Originally Posted by barehl View Post
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.
Whether or not you are interested in the definition, cognitive computing entails machine learning today.


Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Why are you asking me about a theory you've already dismissed?
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.







FOOTNOTE:

Originally Posted by barehl
Cognition refers to the ability to understand. No existing computer is capable of this...
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 by ProgrammingGodJordan; 15th August 2017 at 02:08 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:16 PM   #77
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read my post

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
That portion on grassmanian numbers, does not suddenly remove your blunder, as is demonstrated below:
16 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Demonstrates an inability to read - my post was about other Grassmanian nonsense he posted!
15 August 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Grassmann number ignorance and nonsense. is about nonsense n a 30 March 2017 post.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:18 PM   #78
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,309
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 by Reality Check; 15th August 2017 at 09:21 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:23 PM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,743
ProgrammingGodJordan if Witten is such a genius, how come he's ignoring you?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 09:27 PM   #80
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,718
Typo Correction, reply 49 (updated empty 'eta' url')

"Simply", it consists of manifolds as models for concept representation, in conjunction with policy π - a temporal difference learning paradigm representing distributions over eta.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.