Prev:  Gravity vs. Atomic Bonds; at times/places, gravity triumphs.
Next: Herald Story is Absolute Nonsense  Minister
From: Tomasso on 19 Dec 2009 23:58
nuny(a)bid.nes wrote:
> On Dec 18, 4:51 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>> zzbun...(a)netscape.net wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>>>> "Forthminder" <menti...(a)myuw.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
>>>>> no longer afford. It would be far better to
>>>>> reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
>>>>> and wasted on nuclear physics and create
>>>>> artificial intelligence on supercomputers --
>>>>> another spendy resource that should be taken
>>>>> away from the Dr. Strangeloves of this world
>>>>> and be directed towards what really matters --
>>>>> the coming Technological Singularity.
>>
>>>>> Mentifex
>>>>> --
>>>>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Mind.html
>>>>> http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
>>>>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html
>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2009/12/nuclear-physics-hi...
>>
>>>> AI is a branch of (mathematical) physics.
>>
>>>> Just think of it as a structural extension of information theory.
>>
>>> Well, that's impossible. Since the only thing the AI idiots
>>> even know about "structure" is "ICs". Which is why the non-idiot
>>> people invented XML and Desktop Publishing rather than transitors
>>> anyway
>>
>> To make it clearer for you:
>>
>> I wrote " structural extension", not "physical extension".
>>
>>> And since the only thing the idiots know about information theory
>>> is IBM
>>> that's why the invented HDTV, mp3, mpeg, Digital Books, USB,
>>> Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
>>> Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock
>>> Wristwatches,
>>> Digital Terrain Mapping, GPS, Data Fusion, Home Broadband, and the
>>> 21st Century.
>>> Rather than idiot stuff like Analytic Continuation anyway.
>>
>> Well no!
>>
>> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not application of
>> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
>> discretisation.
>>
>> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models
>
> A reasonable *what*?

Sorry for the typo.

The "a" was unintended. Ie. "If a representational framework is reasonable
for holding models...".

The framework could be a grammar for constructing annotated digraphs
togehter with some transformation rules. Eg, a language or a category.

RDF schemas provide that kind of framework within XML However
these are probably too weak for the task unless teh annotation includes
probabilities as well as the other tags ubiquitous in XMLs.

Tomasso.


>> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
>> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
>> "answers to questions worth answering".
>>
>> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
>> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
>> "sense making".
>>
>> Tomasso.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
From: Tomasso on 20 Dec 2009 00:03
Tomasso wrote:
> nuny(a)bid.nes wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 4:51 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>>> zzbun...(a)netscape.net wrote:
>>>> On Dec 17, 6:17 pm, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
>>>>> "Forthminder" <menti...(a)myuw.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>>> Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
>>>>>> no longer afford. It would be far better to
>>>>>> reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
>>>>>> and wasted on nuclear physics and create
>>>>>> artificial intelligence on supercomputers --
>>>>>> another spendy resource that should be taken
>>>>>> away from the Dr. Strangeloves of this world
>>>>>> and be directed towards what really matters --
>>>>>> the coming Technological Singularity.
>>>
>>>>>> Mentifex
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> http://www.scn.org/~mentifex/Mind.html
>>>>>> http://mind.sourceforge.net/aisteps.html
>>>>>> http://mentifex.virtualentity.com/m4thuser.html
>>>>>> http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2009/12/nuclear-physics-hi...
>>>
>>>>> AI is a branch of (mathematical) physics.
>>>
>>>>> Just think of it as a structural extension of information theory.
>>>
>>>> Well, that's impossible. Since the only thing the AI idiots
>>>> even know about "structure" is "ICs". Which is why the non-idiot
>>>> people invented XML and Desktop Publishing rather than transitors
>>>> anyway
>>>
>>> To make it clearer for you:
>>>
>>> I wrote " structural extension", not "physical extension".
>>>
>>>> And since the only thing the idiots know about information theory
>>>> is IBM
>>>> that's why the invented HDTV, mp3, mpeg, Digital Books, USB,
>>>> Multiplexed Fiber Optics,
>>>> Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, Atomic Clock
>>>> Wristwatches,
>>>> Digital Terrain Mapping, GPS, Data Fusion, Home Broadband, and the
>>>> 21st Century.
>>>> Rather than idiot stuff like Analytic Continuation anyway.
>>>
>>> Well no!
>>>
>>> Much of that stuff in your list is application of physics, not application of
>>> representation. Some of it is about compression. Some is about
>>> discretisation.
>>>
>>> If a representational framework is a reasonable for holding models
>>
>> A reasonable *what*?
>
> Sorry for the typo.
>
> The "a" was unintended. Ie. "If a representational framework is reasonable
> for holding models...".
>
> The framework could be a grammar for constructing annotated digraphs
> togehter with some transformation rules. Eg, a language or a category.
>
> RDF schemas provide that kind of framework within XML However
> these are probably too weak for the task unless teh annotation includes
> probabilities as well as the other tags ubiquitous in XMLs.
>
> Tomasso.

The structural aspect of this has been dealt with quite adequatelt by W3C
and the Semantic Web initiatives, but the the probabilistic (and information
theoretic) aspects are under-developed.

Tomasso.

>>> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
>>> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
>>> "answers to questions worth answering".
>>>
>>> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
>>> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
>>> "sense making".
>>>
>>> Tomasso.
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
From: Ian Parker on 21 Dec 2009 07:13
On Dec 20, 5:03 am, "Tomasso" <brea...(a)you.fool.au> wrote:
To construct RDF tags on something like a probabilistic basis we need
LSA, possibly coupled with K-Means clustering. Web 3.0 envisages
creating an SQL database of RDF tags and the web pages they are
associated with.

Web 3.0 does not in itself envisage the creation of "methods" ie.
pieces of code, although RDF tags may be contained in the comment
statements of a program.

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AQIg8QuzTONQZGZxenF2NnNfNzY4ZDRxcnJ0aHI&hl=en_GB

This is an example of translation from Arabic to English. Don't know
Arabic? Don't worry the commentary is so extensive that you can get
the point. There are a number of points where you can insert RDF tags.
Information generated by these tags would considerably improve the
translation. Any physicist will scream if you said that the Stefan
Boltzmann law was linear with temperature. In the tag we will get the
4th power.

The candidate translation has to fit in with RDF. RDF is generated
DIRECTLY from Arabic and LSA. LSA BTW is not language dependent.
Google Translate matches words in bilingual texts. It should also take
English from an RDF and do probabilistic word matching.

To answer the original question. A supercomputer is basically a set of
computers doing parallel operations. Linguistics has a different
structure from Big Physics. Big Physics demands a parallel set of
operations to solve one problem. In linguistics and AGI we are solving
a set of problems. Let us translate from Arabic -> English, let us
generate RDF from Arabic. Then we must go (IN PARALLEL) and analyse
our translation in the light of this. This would in fact produce just
a glimmering of understanding.

There is NO understanding in ANY of the machine translations quoted.


- Ian Parker

> The structural aspect of this has been dealt with quite adequatelt by W3C
> and the Semantic Web initiatives, but the the probabilistic (and information
> theoretic) aspects are under-developed.
>
> Tomasso.
>
>
>
> >>> of parts of reality (whether RDF or anything else) then information
> >>> can stop being measured in "bits" and start being measured as
> >>> "answers to questions worth answering".
>
> >>> Noto Bene, the above sentence is not trivial. Furthermore, it is not well
> >>> understood by many people. It's starting to find a home in fields like
> >>> "sense making".
>
> >>> Tomasso.
>
> >> Mark L. Fergerson
From: Eugene Miya on 30 Dec 2009 12:28
In article <cd02d7b4-5a4c-48ca-ba59-b180876757c4(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Forthminder <mentifex(a)myuw.net> wrote:
>Big Physics is a luxury that the human race can
>no longer afford. It would be far better to
>reallocate the enormous funds being squandered
>and wasted on nuclear physics and create
>artificial intelligence on supercomputers --

What a strange collection of cross posted groups you have here Arthur.

I can think of the guys not only in physics but other parts of science
and engineering who would think of the AI waste (including AI people who
continue to view the problem of not as power and resources which is what
supers are mostly about). I will say this: the physicists seem to be
far better in conveying their message to funders than CS/AI people.

>the coming Technological Singularity.

What ever that means.

And yes, I have spoken with my friend who have coined the term and don't
get consistent answers from them. But I still like them anyway. ;^)


Cut down follow up news groups and keep them relevant.

--

Looking for an H-912 (container).

From: Eugene Miya on 30 Dec 2009 12:33
In article <cafda204-041b-4ac2-8f89-e55d3015e396(a)2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
nuny(a)bid.nes <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 3:18=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> The local news reported early this year that
>> LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (go ahead - you pronounce it) and his
>> diversity accountants "discovered" a $420+ million shortfall in the LA
>> City budget, =A0"almost $1 million day."
That should be "more than $1M".
> And people wonder how the Austrian "made such a mess" of California.
> Mark L. Fergerson

Actually, this Californian just spent a week in Austria (Wien and
Innsbruck and elsewhere) from SC'09 invitation. Arnold only inherited
the mess. I suspect that he's glad to be terming out. The problem is
the conflicting desires of the CA populice. The problem with the CA
budget was before Gray Davis and Pete Wilson. Jerry Brown saw the
problem in the 1970s on his second term as gov, and he's running again
(and the leading contender in both parties because he was the first
politician to suggest a Balanced Budget Amendment). He can just put a
finger in the dike.


--

Looking for an H-912 (container).

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev:  Gravity vs. Atomic Bonds; at times/places, gravity triumphs.
Next: Herald Story is Absolute Nonsense  Minister