Hello Linas,
I agree, the constant y should be in reasonable bounds for a solution to be
usable.

Hello Nil,

> If P = NP it would mean that, given a problem reframed as reasoning
> such that its solution is a proof p of size s, one could construct p
>  in a polynomial time of s, which sounds very doubtful.


Thank you very much, that is exactly a kind of answer I was hoping for. It
is very inspiring and induces many thoughts.

That's in theory, in practice however I think we could make P = NP for
> some class of inputs via clever use of meta-learning (such as
> inference control meta-learning that we're experimenting within
> opencog, see
>
> https://blog.singularitynet.io/introspective-reasoning-within-the-opencog-framework-1bc7e182827
> ).
>

>
In fact I had this dream where we could have a sequence of NP problems
>
and progressively learn how to solve them in P.
>

Very interesting approach. I found myself many times thinking of AI as a
black box that could solve anything we place before it. And after all this
time, I still consider the final AI capable of things intellectually
unimaginable by merely mortal humans. Although there are problem setups
that are contradictory, and as such unsolvable, P vs NP problem sounds
solid to me.

My approach is to manually resolve some NP complete
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-completeness> problems such are Boolean
SAT or Traveling salesman in polynomial time. I have some indices that it
is a possible task. (My apologies to Singularity.net crew due to mess that
P = NP would do to AGI Coin. But there are so much important possibilities
it would open for many science tasks - including protein folding - to leave
the big question unresolved. I don't know what to hope for. P != NP makes
no mess at all, but P = NP generates too many possibilities just to ignore
it if P = NP is possible. Time will tell.)


Obviously for a finite set of inputs, one can turn any complex
> algorithm into a logarithmic one (think of a pre-calculated binary
> decision tree, where each branch is a bit describing the input and
> each leaf is the solution). But it should still be possible to learn
> an actual algorithm rather than a finite giant decision tree, that
> performs worse that log, is more compact, but performs better than NP
> for a bunch of real-world problems.
>

I think of algorithms as a possible compressed forms of their output.

sri, 7. stu 2018. u 14:19 'Nil Geisweiller' via opencog <
[email protected]> napisao je:

> Hello Ivan,
>
> If P = NP it would mean that, given a problem reframed as reasoning
> such that its solution is a proof p of size s, one could construct p
> in a polynomial time of s, which sounds very doubtful.
>
> That's in theory, in practice however I think we could make P = NP for
> some class of inputs via clever use of meta-learning (such as
> inference control meta-learning that we're experimenting within
> opencog, see
>
> https://blog.singularitynet.io/introspective-reasoning-within-the-opencog-framework-1bc7e182827
> ).
>
> In fact I had this dream where we could have a sequence of NP problems
> and progressively learn how to solve them in P.
>
> Obviously for a finite set of inputs, one can turn any complex
> algorithm into a logarithmic one (think of a pre-calculated binary
> decision tree, where each branch is a bit describing the input and
> each leaf is the solution). But it should still be possible to learn
> an actual algorithm rather than a finite giant decision tree, that
> performs worse that log, is more compact, but performs better than NP
> for a bunch of real-world problems.
>
> Nil
>
> On 11/6/18 7:00 PM, Ivan Vodišek wrote:
> > Hello everyone :)
> >
> > I have a question regarding to my independent research relating to
> > OpenCog. I read somewhere (I really don't remember where) that if P = NP
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem> then it would be
> > beneficial to AI in general.
> >
> > There are science fields which would obviously benefit if P = NP. But my
> > question is: how would specifically OpenCog benefit from that solution?
> > Somehow, it should be a matter of reducing a large number of possible
> > combinations, but I don't really see were would AI fit into this
> > equation. Googling around didn't produce anything interesting, so I'm
> > making a post to this OpenCog community in a hope for an answer.
> >
> > Thank you all for your time,
> > Ivan V.
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "opencog" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > an email to [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>.
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>.
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6W5UhHawabD6NAyT7hEMfkJNCAhd%2BzJcXgFZpJu-MhoMg%40mail.gmail.com
> > <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6W5UhHawabD6NAyT7hEMfkJNCAhd%2BzJcXgFZpJu-MhoMg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "opencog" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/e1418e0e-8604-2421-0597-4846a7644d3c%40gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAB5%3Dj6W6GfPkQpUM0i_g6LjwBERf0XM906p%2B7rTn-nvRvPEZ7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to