Hey Jim, Glad to hear you're making some headway on such an important and challenging problem!
Don't read to much in to Vladimir's response... he's probably just having a hard day or something :p If it's fair game to talk about all the other narrow-AI topics on this list, talking about SAT is fair game. Although as Vladimir notes we do have some pretty good solutions (two that are both powerful and easy to understand are: DPLL and WalkSAT [interstingly this one is by the inventor of the BitTorrent protocol :p]). It is also very important to remember that those engineering AGIs would actually use SAT more often given such a solution, so it is very hard to tell all the massive benefits to the AGI effort (and the rest of humanity) straight off. I for one would (pardon my freedom) cream myself with joy to have such a solver. Additionally my heart goes out to anyone with the drive and skill to work in areas like the ones you're in, especially one with the rocks to get up in front of a bunch of atheists and talk about their creator. Keep us updated of this and any other AGI related areas of interest (my brief google stalk turned up your interest in genetic algorithms/programming, is that related?). cheers, -david salamon On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have made a little progress on my SAT theory. As I said, I believe that > there is a chance that I might have gotten the word from the Lord on my > efforts (seriously), although I am not, in any way, saying that either the > project or the Lord's involvement is a sure thing. So I am partially going > on faith, but it is not blind faith. I haven't come close to getting > objective evidence that it will work for all cases, but so far it is acting > within the range of expectations that I developed based on simulations that > I created by parts. (These 'simulations' were simple and many done in my > mind, but some were done with pencil and paper, etc.) I have examined the > problem in parts, and by looking at the parts with different assumptions and > examining the problems using positive, critical and alternative theories, I > have come to the conclusion that it is feasible. It will be a clunker > though, no question about that. > > So anyway, I cannot yet prove my theory, but I cannot disprove it either. > I have been working on the problem for three years, and I worked on it for a > few months 20 years ago. But I have been working on this current theory > since Oct 2007. I have had experiences similar to the those that Ben and > others have talked about, where I too thought I solved the problem only to > discover that I hadn't a short time later, but this has been going for five > months since October, and I am not retracting anything yet. > > But the thing that I still want to talk about is whether or not anyone > will be able to use a polynomial time solution to advantage if indeed I can > actually do it (as I am starting to believe that I can). An n^4 or n^5 > solution to SAT does not look so great and even an n^3 solution is a > clunker. And I also do not believe that strict logic is going work for > AGI. But even so, I think I would be able to use the theory in AGI because > I believe it would be useful to use logic in creating theories and > theoretical models of whatever the program would consider, and even though > those logical theories would have to be broken up into parts (parts that > would be interconnected and may overlap) I now suspect that if simple > logical theories were composed of hundreds of variations they could be used > more intuitively and more profoundly than if they were constrained to a > concise statement of only a few logical variables. And an n^3 SAT solver > can easily handle a few thousand variables; a 2^n solver cannot. > > And what most of the readers of my previous message have not realized is > that a solution to SAT will almost surely have a greater potential effect > than the solution to the simple problem of SAT. It will be a new way to > look at logical complexity and it will eventually lead to new ways to handle > logical problems. Imagining how overlapping interrelated partitions of > logical theories which can handle up to a few thousand logical variables > each and which can handle a few thousand logical interconnections between > those parts I believe that I can see how artficial mind might be both an > intuitive network device and a strong logical analytical device. > > Jim Bromer > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
