Yeah, maybe. I can see if that's the way the "reference implementation" was being
marketed and sold. But such marketing would be foundationalist from the start. What's more common
(regardless of hyperbolic rhetoric) is it's just a largely arbitrary point in the space against
which to compare. Sometimes it's the first one. Sometimes it's the so-far-best one. Etc. But simple
"reference" doesn't imply a full span.
A friend of mine was a fan of My Big TOE: https://www.my-big-toe.com/. I read
about half of the book and accumulated too many criticisms to continue. When I
tried to explain my criticism, I realized that this was the first TOE my friend
had ever really read through. So even though it's terrible, it provides a
fantastic reference implementation for him.
On 3/30/22 13:25, Marcus Daniels wrote:
On 3/30/22 10:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The whole motive of adopting the reference implementation -- being lazy --
locked me in to a certain performance for the solver. I would expect the same
sort of thing would happen with inheritance or horizontal gene transfer. I
could start a divide and conquer search (as you say with last common ancestor
nodes), but I would never be confident in what I had if I did that. It would
probably take as long as starting over to gain that confidence. The
foundationalist view, if I understand what you mean, is that there are ideal
ways to do this and that the melting and freezing of abstractions could find
them once and for all.
Glen wrote:
< Hm. I'd have thought your motivation to be execute and compare against the reference implementation, not to adopt it. To
me, it's a validation of your solver that, in the lower DoF condition, you got the same performance. So re: foundationalist,
yes, you've understand my usage right. "Ideal" is a little ambiguous in that a foundationalist can allow for
multiple "equivalent" foundations. E.g. let's say you have two foundations that span the same space. But in 1
foundation, an end point is reached with more steps/hops than the other one. If "ideal" means shortest path from
origin to end point, then the other is more ideal. But if it means something else, like "stays close to some other, more
ubiquitous foundation", then maybe not. Jon made the comment that he rejects all the old proposition-style foundations
as wrong-headed. But culturally, because many of us are so entrenched, such may be more tractable (were they to actually
*work* as foundations, of course). >
The so-called "reference model" (implementation of the model) in this context could be
optimized to profit X, whereas with more DoF (that the reference model could not expose), one could
reach profit X + Y where Y was positive. No solver could get the reference model to a X +Y
profit. The term "reference model" to me would suggest to me that profit X + Y was
possible with a sufficiently good solver.
--
Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
