David Salamon wrote:
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.
On the contrary, Vladimir is completely correct in requesting that the
discussion go elsewhere: this has no relevance to the AGI list, and
there are other places where it would be pertinent.
Richard Loosemore
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]
<mailto:[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 [Powered by
Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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 [Powered by Listbox] <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
