Oh, you're right... I was mentally translating his problem into one that made more sense to me biologically, as I see no reason why one would assume all cell assemblies to have a fixed size ... but it makes slightly more sense to assume an upper bound on their size...
ben On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 6:05 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Right, but his problem is equivalent to bounded-weight, not > constant-weight > > codes... > > > > Why? Bounded-weight codes are upper-bounded by Hamming weight, which > corresponds to cell assemblies having size of S or less, whereas in > Ed's problem assemblies have fixed size of S, which corresponds to > constant Hamming weight. > > From the article, > http://www.jucs.org/jucs_5_12/a_note_on_bounded/Bent_R.html > > "The weight, w, of a binary word, x, is equal to the number of 1s in > x. For a constant-weight (w) code, every word in the code has the same > weight, w. In a bounded-weight (w) code, every word has at most w > ones." > > -- > Vladimir Nesov > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
