Failure Analysis presupposes a fine discrimination of what constitutes a failure. The ability to reliably create a good theory in response to a failure requires intelligence as a pre-requisite. I studied a lot different kinds of ideas like this 20 or 30 years ago. But, as far as I am concerned the real question now is how can we reliably create a better theory from earlier theories. Part of the problem is that we may, in many cases, not have a good criteria to determine how good the theory is and a good theory may fail because a minor part of it is not reliable. The kinds of discussions that we have in these groups are demonstrations of this problem but they are usually complicated theories that are largely based on basic assumptions that we can develop well. (Notice that some people have assumptions that seem obviously wrong and there can be other assumptions that people disagree with even though they cannot substantiate their point of view. For example, some people think my theory that a polynomial time solution to logical satisfiability is quite possible seems like blatant nonsense to some people, while I think their certainty about something which is famously unproven is based on some pretty insubstantial premises.
So what do I do to try to create a better theory. I keep trying different things and if the results do not produce any improvements then I have to adjust my expectations of the feasibility of finding a solution. On the other hand, if I find something that works in a variety of simple cases then I can keep trying more complicated cases to see if it works within the significant characteristics of the problem. (Like looking at the increase in complexity for the worse cases as the number of variables increase, and then examining a range of problems in well-known formats like 3-SAT.) But failure in Logical Satisfiability is easy to discriminate as long as you are careful. Jim Bromer Why nod - just start with simple projections of conjectured relations. On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Piaget Modeler via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm just beginning this enquiry, > > Found this: http://research.me.udel.edu/~jglancey/FailureAnalysis.pdf > > as well as a pointer to Anticipatory Failure Determination (AFD) > > Cheers so far... > > ~PM > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [agi] Failure Predictors > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:13:51 -0700 > > > Wonder if anyone is still alive on this thread besides Jim B. > > I guess it's the summer. > > > When we experience an expectation failure, somehow I think we form a > theory of the failure, and seek to elaborate that theory. > > I don't have the right keywords but is there any literature or research on > creating failure predictors, or forming failure hypotheses? > > Kindly advise. > > ~PM > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> | > Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-f5817f28> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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
