On 6/8/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to
remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
Omega = 0.998020554253273471801908...
For which choice of universal Turing machine?
It's actually
On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a great
painting.
And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia–and to the
wisdom of crowds fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon
Valley–but it's also a fair
Unfortunately, it wasn't an open Source ...
On Thursday 07 June 2007 10:52:03 pm Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to
remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it should be On 6/8/07, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoted
someone else as saying:
I don't agree with Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia since I don't believe
that a relatively unified vision is necessary for it. I do, however,
On Friday 08 June 2007 08:21:28 am Mark Waser wrote:
Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse
arising therein.
On 6/8/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source programs
out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open
Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it
can't create
Josh writes: http://www.netflixprize.com
Thanks for bringing this up! I had heard of it but forgot about it. While I
read about other people's projects/theories and build a robot for my own
project, this will be a fun way to refresh myself on statistical machine
learning techniques and
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many members,
that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose someone decides to start an
external project, then adding $c
Nice article for robotics and possibly step to creating a humanoid agi
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191447/boffins-create-bionic-baby
http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=1591
has more pics and videos
James Ratcliff
-
Take the Internet to Go:
Sure. Successful and innovative aren't the same thing -- in fact, they're
often at odds. The best versions of something from the point of polish and
usability generally come after lots of hard experience with its earlier
versions.
Bell Labs, where Unix came from originally, was very
Really Open Source software projects almost never have a total open door
policy on the contributions that are accepted. There is usually a small
group that determines whether contributed changes are good enough and fit
the overall project goals and architecture well enough.
Wikipedia is one of
Well-said Samantha :-)
On a different note: something YKY and Mark may want to read about a
possible approach to running a new AGI consortium: eXtreme Research. A
software methodology for applied research: eXtreme Researching vy
Olivier Chirouze, David Cleary and George G. Mitchell (Software.
--- Shane Legg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/8/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to
remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
Omega = 0.998020554253273471801908...
For which
On 6/8/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed a serious problem with credit attribution and allowing members
to branch outside of the mother project.
For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many
members, that is worth $C in the consortium. Suppose
On 6/7/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reasoning about Uncertainty (Paperback)
by Joseph Y. Halpern
BTW, the .chm version of this book can be easily obtained on the net, as are
many others you listed...
I also recommand J Pearl's 2 books (Probabilistic Reasoning and Causality).
--- Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems you could get fairly accurate approximations of Omega for other
languages like C using this approach. For example, there is (AFAIK) only
one
C program of length 64 bits or less that halts:
main(){}
and you could possibly prove upper
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/7/07, Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pattern Recognition, Third Edition (Hardcover)
by Sergios Theodoridis (Author), Konstantinos Koutroumbas (Author)
I have this one too, but the question is, how to apply pattern recognition
Hi Matt
Re Halting/non-halting programs:
This try-out works fine for small values of {program length}. For large values
the problem is essentially unsolvable, though I admit that you could get a fair
feeling for the distribution by simulating a large number of randomly generated
programs. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
