Magnus, thanks for the message. But I think it would fit better in the nupic-theory mailing list.
http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic-theory_lists.numenta.org Regards, --------- Matt Taylor OS Community Flag-Bearer Numenta On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Magnus McWootton <[email protected]> wrote: > I just had a thought, and its do with the hierarchy, and inference, and > spacial pooling. > > when you are inferring, you wind up, every symantic, a percentage error, > coming up the proximals, > you can use a threshold to instantly activate it at some error. but > wouldnt it be better, if you just passed up the error? > it works better this way, because then your smaller groups will work better, > because they dont get stuck at an error minima. > the later symantics can then "continuify" the error to a more exact > quotient, by reading the error of the previous level, using > the errors together to make a new error, which would have less error than > the previous level, most of the time. > > then you could keep passing the error till the last region, then have an > exact "nearness" to the novel input > using every single symantic together, leaving activation till later, making > use of the distribution together. > > notes about my system-> > Its purely spacial, with no temporal yet, that makes this idea much easier > to do. i also finish at a single > collection, so all i have to do to inference is pick the cell of least > error. and it also has a separate inferencing stage from training > so i dont know if this idea applies to htm, but possibly could be useful > to know. > > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > _______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
