Someone who really believes that P=NP should go to Saudi Arabia or the Emirates and crack the Blackberry code.
- Ian Parker On 12 August 2010 06:10, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Bromer [mailto:jimbro...@gmail.com] > Re: [agi] Re: Compressed Cross-Indexed Concepts > > > > David, > > I am not a mathematician although I do a lot of computer- > > related mathematical work of course. My remark was directed toward John > > who had suggested that he thought that there is some sophisticated > > mathematical sub system that would (using my words here) provide such a > > substantial benefit to AGI that its lack may be at the core of the > > contemporary problem. I was saying that unless this required mathemagic > > then a scalable AGI system demonstrating how effective this kind of > > mathematical advancement could probably be simulated using contemporary > > mathematics. This is not the same as saying that AGI is solvable by > sanitized > > formal representations any more than saying that your message is a > sanitized > > formal statement because it was dependent on a lot of computer > > mathematics in order to send it. In other words I was challenging John > at > that > > point to provide some kind of evidence for his view. > > > > I don't know if we need to create some new mathemagics, a breakthrough, or > whatever. I just think using existing math to engineer it, using the math > like if was software is what should be done. But you may be right perhaps > proof of P=NP something similar is needed. I don't think so though. > > The main goal would be to leverage existing math to compensate for > unnecessary and/or impossible computation. We don't need to re-evolve the > wheel as we already figured that out. And computers are v. slow compared to > other physical computations that are performed in the natural physical > world. > > Maybe not - developing a system from scratch that discovers all of the > discoveries over the millennia of science and civilization? Would that be > possible? > > > I then went on to say, that for example, I think that fast SAT solutions > would > > make scalable AGI possible (that is, scalable up to a point that is way > beyond > > where we are now), and therefore I believe that I could create a > simulation > > of an AGI program to demonstrate what I am talking about. (A simulation > is > > not the same as the actual thing.) > > > > I didn't say, nor did I imply, that the mathematics would be all there is > to it. I > > have spent a long time thinking about the problems of applying formal and > > informal systems to 'real world' (or other world) problems and the > > application of methods is a major part of my AGI theories. I don't > expect > you > > to know all of my views on the subject but I hope you will keep this in > mind > > for future discussions. > > Using available skills and tools the best we can use them. And, inventing > new tools by engineering utilitarian and efficient mathematical structure. > Math is just like software in all this but way more powerful. And using the > right math, the most general where it is called for and specific/narrow > when > needed. I don't see a problem with the specific most of the time but I > don't > know if many people get the general. Though it may be an error or lack of > understanding on my part... > > 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/?& > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com