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 <> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Bromer []
> 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:
> RSS Feed:
> Modify Your Subscription:
> Powered by Listbox:

RSS Feed:
Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox:

Reply via email to