Why is this at all important? ~PM > Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Could Brain Emulation be NP-Hard? > From: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:41:18 -0700 > To: [email protected] > > > > On Jun 24, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think Data types with no meaningful order can be difficult but it is > > not impossible to create things like keyed (I can't remember what the > > data structure is called) indexes and even more elaborate indexes as > > needed. But this can become a more serious issue when you have to have > > a lot of specialized indexes. > > > You can do it all within a single (exotic) quasi-spatial indexing structure. > It is how it is done in real systems. > > > > I can intuitively see that data types where intersection > > and equality are not equivalent could be a problem but I am not sure > > what you mean. > > > Dynamic search algorithms tend to have very poor selectivity traditionally. > O(n) worst-case search is no way to build a scalable computing system. > > > > Since you have derived more than one example of > > bad-computer science thinking from relational database concepts I am > > guessing that this has something to do with database processing. So > > searching on a constraint can become time consuming? But that can be > > parallelized by minor redesigns. > > > It has nothing to do with databases, though these issues are manifest in > large-scale databases. Parallelization doesn’t work the way you think it does. > > Let’s keep make it even simpler: please describe an indexing structure for > finding cube intersections that is general, parallelizable, and has constant > space complexity. A “minor redesign” won’t solve this problem. When it was > finally solved in 2007, over a quarter century had passed since anyone had > previously made progress on it, and I am willing to bet that you know nothing > about what the actual solution looks like. > > > > Many computer scientists have thought about expressing topological > > relationships between data objects. So it is not in itself a new idea > > that I have never heard of or thought about before. > > > > The mathematical concept has existed for half a century. A useful computer > science reduction of the mathematics is maybe five years old. I doubt what > you think you know about this idea is relevant. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: 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
