Mark, Your last email started "OK. I'll bite. "
I guess you didn't "bite" for very long. We are already back to explicitly
marked "HeavySarcasm" mode.
I guess one could argue, as you seem to be doing, that indicating which of
500k dimensions had a match between two subtrees currently being compared,
could be considered equivalent to explicitly representing a huge 500k
dimensional binary vector -- but i think one could more strongly claim that
such an indication would be, at best, only an implicit representation of the
500k vector.
THE KEY POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS WAS ABOUT NOT HAVING TO EXPLICITLY
DEAL WITH 500K TUPLES in each match, which is what I meant when I said not
explicitly deal with the high dimensional vectors. This is a big plus in
terms of representational and computational efficiency. I did not say there
was nothing equivalent to an implicit use of the high dimensional vector,
because kernels implicitly do use high dimensional vectors, but they do so
implicitly rather than explicitly. That is why they increase efficiency.
My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives as its first, which usually
means most common, definition of "explicit" the following:
" fully revealed or expressed without vagueness,
implication, or ambiguity."
The information that two subtree to be matched contains a given set of
subtrees, defined by their indicies, without more, does not by itself define
a full 500K vector, nor even the full dimensionality of the vector. That
information can only be derived from other information, which presumably is
not even used in the match procedure
Of course there are other definitions of the world explicit which mean
exact, and you could argue that indicating a few of the 500K indicies is
equivalent to exactly specifying a corresponding 500K dimensional vector,
once one takes into account other information.
When a use of a word in a given statement has two interpretations one of
which is correct, it is not clear one has the right to attack the person
making that statement for being incorrect. At most you can attack him for
being ambiguous. And normally on this list people do not attack other
people as rudely as you have attached me for merely being ambiguous.
Ed Porter
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Waser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hacker intelligence level [WAS Re: [agi] Funding AGI research]
<HeavySarcasm>Wow. Is that what dot products are?</HeavySarcasm>
You're confusing all sorts of related concepts with a really garbled
vocabulary.
Let's do this with some concrete 10-D geometry . . . . Vector A runs from
(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) to (1, 10000, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0). Vector B runs from
(0,0,0) to (1, 0, 10000,0,0,0,0,0,0,0).
Clearly A and B share the first dimension. Do you believe that they share
the second and the third dimension? Do you believe that dropping out the
fourth through tenth dimension in all calculations is some sort of huge
conceptual breakthrough?
The two vectors are similar in the first dimension (indeed, in all but the
second and third) but otherwise very distant from each other (i.e. they are
*NOT* similar). Do you believe that these vectors are similar or distant?
>> THE ALLEGATION BELOW THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MATH BECAUSE THOUGHT
>> COLLIN'S PARSER DIDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH A VECTOR HAVING THE FULL
>> DIMENSIONALITY OF THE SPACE BEING DEALT WITH IS CLEARLY FALSE.
My allegation was that you misunderstood the math because you claimed that
Collin's paper "does not use an explicit vector representation" while
Collin's statements and the math itself makes it quite clear that they are
dealing with a vector representation scheme. I'm now guessing that you're
claiming that you intended "explicit" to mean "full dimensionality".
Whatever. Don't invent your own meanings for words and you'll be
misunderstood less often (unless you continue to drop out key words like in
the capitalized sentence above).
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=72881028-794447<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
