It seems like everything is "compressed" some way usually in computer processing. Going back to my banking days we'd have a debit to general ledger, but what this represents is somebody walking around and filling out a ticket, perhaps talking to someone else, but all the software sees is the end result which could be viewed as a kind of compression of the entire transaction. "I went to Europe" is a compression of the trip down to a single proposition. But I think what you are asking is: can programming be done in generalizations, and if so, how can that be formalized?
On 6/5/17, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > An encoding is almost always a compression method. The data encoding is > referring to some kind of object or event which can be described more > fully. So anytime we devise or use an encoding and a system of operations > that can act on those encoded references we are effectively developing a > compression system that can act on some kind of compressed data without > fully (or excessively) decompressing it. > > So the basis for this kind of thing is well established. > > Jim Bromer > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I realized that traditional logic is a system of compression which allows >> for some computations that can be run without fully decompressing the >> data. >> However, at certain steps at some (relatively low) levels of complexity >> the >> data has to be decompressed (to a great degree). So this example proves >> the >> system is feasible and it is not completely based on binary addition or >> multiplication methods (which are also examples of compression systems >> which can operate on compressed data without decompression.) I did not >> want >> to use binary arithmetic as an example because computers were designed >> around those principles. >> >> So since an example is easy to find, this proves that the methodology can >> be studied as a separate branch of computer science. The question then is >> whether other, more powerful systems, can be developed. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The Halting Problem shows that the results of programs (programmable >>> logic) cannot be completely computed - for every possible program - >>> without >>> running the program. (The Gödel Incompleteness Theorem shows that there >>> are -some- comprehendible logical problems that could not even be >>> theoretically resolved programmatically.) >>> >>> But there are some programs that can be computationally processed so >>> that >>> a system of results can be produced more quickly than actually running >>> the >>> program. >>> >>> The significance of this came to me after I started criticizing the >>> proposition that an advanced representational compression could >>> be sufficient to produce AGI at this time. The problem is that >>> representational compressions have to go through stages of decompression >>> and recompression in order to do any computation on the data, and given >>> the >>> degree of compression that would be needed for AGI that would make the >>> system way too slow. >>> >>> While logical computation is a simple process using binary >>> representations of simple logical states for each literal (logical >>> variable), the problem is that logical Satisfiability statements are >>> (most >>> familiarly) compressions of multiple logical states. A logical statement >>> is >>> (typically) a compression of a system of individual 'solutions'. So >>> what would be needed would be a computational method that can act >>> efficiently on a wide variety of logical solutions. In other words we >>> need >>> a compression method which can do computations on the compressed >>> representations without (excessively) decompressing them for each >>> computation. I started thinking about this project from the view that my >>> goal is not to make p=np but to try to develop a methodology that might >>> one >>> day be more efficient than methods that we currently use. >>> >>> I started thinking that it might be possible to create compression >>> representations that acted from different levels of abstraction. These >>> levels of abstraction might be thought of as programs. I started >>> thinking >>> about Turing's Halting Problem and I realized that while you cannot find >>> a >>> shortcut to the completion state of every possible computer program, >>> you can for some kinds of programs. The results of a system that I >>> am imagining could be decompressed (at the end of the analytical >>> computational stages) to produce solutions using the >>> levels-of-abstraction >>> sub-program. but the system could run through the computational steps >>> without actually running that sub-program. The compressed >>> representations >>> would not have to be excessively decompressed in order to run a >>> computation >>> on them. >>> >>> I am all but certain that an example is feasible (although I do not have >>> one right now). >>> >>> And incidentally, an advancement that shows that a compression system >>> might be accompanied by an effective computational method that can act >>> on >>> the compressed representations without fully decompressing them might be >>> interesting to some people. The system does not have to beat Turing at >>> run-around-the-house chess or to prove Gödel wrong from under a table at >>> a >>> week-long Oktoberfest or be dependent on winning a million dollars, it >>> only >>> has to be interesting, incrementally improvable and salient to the study >>> of >>> logic. >>> Jim Bromer >>> >> >> > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > 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
