Pei Wang wrote:
Ok, I understand this --- that NARS is a TM at both the life-historyAgain, I'm not saying that NARS is not a TM in any sense, but that it is not a TM at the questing-answering level. As I said in the paper, if you consider the life-long history of input and output of the whole system, NARS is a TM. Also, if you check each individual inference step, NARS is also a TM. However, when we talk about the "computability" and "computational complexity" of a problem/question, it is at neither of the two levels (it is shorter than the whole life, but longer than a single step). It is at this level NARS is not a TM (and not merely "doesn't LOOK like a TM").
level and at the inference step level. Which is pretty much what I
had in mind.
As for the in between level, I'm going to have to read your paper
some more and think about it and get back to you.
Cheers
Shane
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
