Playing Games with "Ruids"
in [Ruby]
|
From: Seebs on 31 Mar 2010 13:31 On 2010-03-31, thunk <gmkoller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and wanted to do > my best to communicate on it that i know how without spending too much > time. You know, in a TINY FRACTION of the amount of time you've spent posting incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness rants, you could have written: "I have developed a new model for self-assembling expert systems based on individually small components combined with a system for self-organizing." Or whatever it is that you do. The above is my best guess, but I have no idea whether it's even close. Just, you know. A plain English description of what it actually is that you have, rather than something that reads like a schizophrenic's project notebook. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Aldric Giacomoni on 31 Mar 2010 13:03 thunk wrote: > > at the current stage i'm authoring "system ruids" that i consider to > be "processing" oriented". reminds me of "boot strapping" in the > sense that I feel I am only laying the foundation of this domain for > what is to come. very few surprises happening. srand used to seed > each batch... no surprises. > > there is a "black box" recording every attribute acquisition asf. > > as said, the hook to the helper_class methods can be used for > anything. i'm keeping it all as simple as I can for now. > > you slingers can take it to new places, I'm clint eastwood. I think you may be suffering from techno-aphasia. The technical terms you use don't fit what you're saying, and you're making us all suffer. It would be great if you could describe it to us as you would describe it to a six-year-old child. We all here have the best of intentions for every Ruby-ist, but we all agree on what a block is, what bootstrapping means (A way to kickstart a system because it can't start on its own, but will run on its own happily afterwards), and what a 'black box' is in technical terms. I think you may be using the term 'black box' in the aeronautics term. ** See.. it's part of the issue - no one here knows which vocabulary you are using, so we have no idea what anything you say means. ** -- Aldric PS: > ummm, i taught my heathkit to play tic-tac-toe on its octal keyboard. > yup, then charged into checkers and couldn't beat it but like tic-tac- > toe it would not make a mistake so games ended in ties all the time. > charged into chess and got totally humiliated :) but then that's how i > learned something in 1978 or so. If this does not mean "In 1978, I taught <some machine> to play Tic Tac Toe, then taught it to play Chess and it beat me", then I don't know what it means. Mind you, I'm skipping over the part where you taught an AI to play Checkers. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Ryan Davis on 31 Mar 2010 21:57 On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:35 , thunk wrote: > i can see if you are assuming i'm a smartass cs101 guy impersonating an old fart, that that would fit. Actually I bet that a good portion of us now strongly believe that you're a crazy person impersonating a crazy person. Peter Hickman was dead on when he likened you to Arthur T Murray. You're rambling comes off much more in a Murray-style than Illias of yesteryear. At least I could understand what Illias was saying, even if he was crazy. Coherency has benefits, crazy or not. Either way, you're still batshit insane in my book. I'd appreciate it if you'd honor Ezra's request: put up (the code) or shut up. Respect that the rest of us here have ACTUALLY been talking about ruby and our signal:noise is important to us. You're ruining that ratio and we'd like you to either stop ruining it by contributing to the signal, or simply leave.
From: thunk on 1 Apr 2010 02:10 Thank you much for the constructive postings! I have been learning. Maybe one could say there is some "convergence"? Using the term "Boid" carried too much SI / AI for some folks here, I adjusted, and decided to call the atomic program units: "Ruids" When I see 2000 or so of these units "fire" in one second, and watch the results of their execution produce reports I am getting a thrill which I wanted to share. Dealing with ruid behavior really fascinates me! Thunk
From: Seebs on 1 Apr 2010 02:11
On 2010-04-01, thunk <gmkoller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I have been learning. Maybe one could say there is some > "convergence"? Not really. > Using the term "Boid" carried too much SI / AI for some folks here, I > adjusted, and decided to call the atomic program units: "Ruids" But you still haven't said what they are. > When I see 2000 or so of these units "fire" in one second, and watch > the results of their execution produce reports I am getting a thrill > which I wanted to share. But you haven't told us what their "execution" is. > Dealing with ruid behavior really fascinates me! If only giving any kind of simple English explanation of what you were talking about fascinated you! In short, I give up. If you do in fact have an idea, you are too inarticulate for the idea to be transmitted to other people. With any luck, maybe the idea will eventually occur to someone who is not allergic to definitions. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |