Richard, Your response is very unclear.
You say "authors NEVER discuss the y = x^^2 equation as if it counted as "nonlinear"." This implies the concept of "non-linear" I have asked you to define does not, repeat not, include functions that include powers of their arguments, meaning they are not included in what you consider "non-linear" in your four factors of design doom. But then you say "Even though "linear" means y is directly proportional to x in its limited sense, there is a universally accepted general sense that is not so restricted." Taken together this implies your concept of non-linear does not include "y is directly proportional to x" and does not include things like y=x^2, and does not include a lot more that falls into the definition of linear. But, Richard, this does not say what your concept of "non-linear" is. Furthermore, it does not justifies the insulting putdown of Russell Wallace you made in your Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:38 PM post. Please, try to be a little bit tighter in your reasoning. For example, please spend more time explaining "non-linear" as used in your four factors of design doom rather than defining a subset of the definitions of "linear." If on the other hand, the error was a typographical error and what you meant to say is that "Y = X^2" is non-linear please tell us. But if that is the case, please tell us if "non-linear" as used in your four factors of design doom was limited to only power functions, or if it includes other types of non-linear functions commonly used in AI such as binary functions or sigmoidal functions. Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: **SPAM** RE: [agi] Adding to the extended essay on the complex systems problem Ed Porter wrote: > RICHARD! > > > > THEN WHAT IN THE HELL _DO_ YOU MEAN BY "NON-LINEAR?" > > > > You keep trying to buy your way out of apparently unjustified statements > by attacking people --- who interpret your words using their common > meanings --- for not having the telepathic power to know the special > "Richard" sense of your words. If you pick up a book on "nonlinear mathematics", of any variety, you will find that the authors NEVER discuss the y = x^^2 equation as if it counted as "nonlinear". Even though "linear" means y is directly proportional to x in its limited sense, there is a universally accepted general sense that is not so restricted. This usage is considered so elementary that nobody would ever bother to explain it: it is understood by mathematicians everywhere. You learn this at about high-school level. I have to assume a basic level of mathematical competence or I cannot say anything. Richard Loosemore > > > (Note: any definition of "non-linear" you claim you meant should cover > the large class of AGI approaches you claim are bound to fail because of > Richard-complexity.) > > > > Ed Porter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:38 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: **SPAM** RE: [agi] Adding to the extended essay on the > complex systems problem > > > > Russell Wallace wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > The real gotcha, though is the "Are the functions describing > >> > the behavior deeply nonlinear". You're just not going to find that > with the > >> > first three. > >> > >> Actually, it's true of every program significantly more complex than > >> "Hello World" that the functions describing the behavior are deeply > >> nonlinear. This shouldn't be too surprising, because it's also true of > >> every electronic device significantly more complex than a length of > >> wire, every chemical system other than a hydrogen atom, every > >> mechanical device with more than one or two moving parts, every fluid > >> dynamics system that involves turbulence - and every neural network > >> more complex than a one-layer perceptron, so if complexity made > >> systems undevelopable, not only could ANNs not operate, but organic > >> brains could neither develop in the individual nor evolve in the > >> species. > >> > >> The notions of nonlinearity and complexity simply don't do what > >> Richard wants them to do. > > > > You have fallen into two traps that I have to deal with over and over. > > > > 1) The claims are meant to be applied at a chosen level of description - > > jumping down to other levels of description is not relevant. > > > > For example, if a physicist that "below the elastic limit, a spring is a > > linear system", would you drop down a level and call the physicist a > > fool, because "every chemical system other than a hydrogen atom [is > > deeply nonlinear]" .... the exact statement that you just made above? > > > > If you would not do such a thing to the physicist, why do you try that > > trick on the argument I just presented? > > > > 2) There is a widely accepted, broader sense of 'nonlinear' than merely > > "not described by an equation in which x is proportional to y". That > > broader sense is roughly equivalent to "cannot separate the variables". > > > > You then go flying off on a sequence of non-sequiteurs ("so if > > complexity made systems undevelopable ...") which imply that I made > > arguments that I did not. > > > > > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > 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/?&; > > 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/?&; 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=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
