> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] > > John, > > Your comments appear to be addressing reliability, rather than stability...
Both can be very interrelated. It can be an oversimplification to separate them, or too impractical/theoretical. > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> > wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] > > > > My underlying thought here is that we may all be working on the wrong > > problems. Instead of working on the particular analysis methods (AGI) or > > self-organization theory (NN), perhaps if someone found a solution to > large- > > network stability, then THAT would show everyone the ways to their > > respective goals. > > > For a distributed AGI this is a fundamental problem. Difference is that a > power grid is such a fixed network. > > Not really. Switches may connect or disconnect Canada, equipment is > constantly failing and being repaired, etc. In any case, this doesn't seem to be > related to stability, other than it being a lot easier to analyze a fixed network > rather than a variable network. > There are a fixed amount of copper wires going into a node. The "network" is usually a hierarchy of networks. Fixed may be more limiting, sophisticated and kludged rendering it more difficult to deal with so don't assume. > A distributed AGI need not be that > fixed, it could lose chunks of itself but grow them out somewhere else. > Though a distributed AGI could be required to run as a fixed network. > > Some traditional telecommunications networks are power grid like. They > have > a drastic amount of stability and healing functions built-in as have been > added over time. > > However, there is no feedback, so stability isn't even a potential issue. No feedback? Remember some traditional telecommunications networks run over copper with power, and are analog; there are huge feedback issues of which many taken care of at a lower signaling level or with external equipment such as echo-cancellers. Again though, there is a hierarchy and mesh of various networks here. I've suggested traditional telecommunications since they are vastly more complex, real-time and many other networks have learned from it. > > Solutions for large-scale network stabilities would vary per network > topology, function, etc.. > > However, there ARE some universal rules, like the 12db/octave requirement. > Really? Do networks such as botnets really care about this? Or does it apply? > Virtual networks play a large part, this would be > related to the network's ability to reconstruct itself meaning knowing how > to heal, reroute, optimize and grow.. > > Again, this doesn't seem to relate to millisecond-by-millisecond stability. > It could be as the virtual network might contain images of the actual network, as an internal model and use this for changing the network structure for a more stable one if there were timing issues... Just some thoughts... John ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
