To make what I was saying a little more clear, I would not come to the conclusion that a supposed polynomial time solution to a certain class of "graph Laplacians" was stupid just because I was not sure what they were talking about and I repressed a passing momentary sense that I might be too stupid to figure it out intuitively. Since I was able to consider the possibility that I did not understand it and that I might not be bright enough to figure it out without spending months on it to learn the background mathematics I would not be able to repress that kind of thought. And I would not want to. ( http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/short-algorithm-long-range-consequences-0301.html ).
Also, my use of (my more general definition of) projection is a good method to learn about new things but it is not a good method of recognition unless there is someway I can make its application wider and more efficient. In certain cases, like that of using visual recognition (and projection), weighted networks can be used to recognize a variety of shapes of human beings efficiently and we can suppose that given good figures to work with this could be extended to numerous kinds of shapes. However, images do not always provide good figures to work with. Furthermore, this method hasn't been shown to work with understanding language very well. So although I think that conceptual projection is an important one, the method would still suffer from the relevancy problem which is considered by some to be related to the frame problem. Jim Bromer ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
