Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.comwrote: I'd argue that mathematical operations are unnecesary, we don't even have integer support inbuilt. I'd disagree. is a mathematical operation, and in combination can become an enormous number of concepts. Sure, I think the brain is more sensibly understood in a programattical sense than mathematical. I say programattical because it probably has 100 billion or so conditional statements, a difficult thing to represent mathematically. Even so, each conditional is going to have maths constructs in it. Sorry, I meant unnecessary to demonstrate that particular point. There's no need to say you have no innate ability to know what 3456/6 is when you are unlikely to have an innate concept of the number 3456 or any other arbitrary number greater than a few hundred to begin with, you can get by with a few lookup tables upon which you get a vague idea what 3456 of something would be, but if I were to show you a sheet of paper with 3000-4000 dots on it, you would be unlikely to be able to tell me whether it was greater or less than 3456. I don't see any way an evaluator of some sort wouldn't be completely necessary for an AGI, sorry for the confusion. Though, you do bring to mind the point that while can be an extremely useful tool for composing other concepts, our internal comparisons do seem to tend more towards the analog than towards the binary, and while you can compose those analog outputs with and - easily enough, you probably want concepts supported as close to natively as is possible. Remember, there are turing-complete one-dimensional systems of cellular automata, but that doesn't make it feasible to port the Linux kernel to them. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.comwrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 07:48 -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote:
Actually, Fibonacci numbers can be computed without loops or recursion.
int fib(int x) {
return round(pow((1+sqrt(5))/2, x)/sqrt(5));
}
;) I know. I was wondering if someone would pick up on it. This won't
prove that brains have loops though, so I wasn't concerned about the
shortcuts.
unless you argue that loops are needed to compute sqrt() and pow().
I would find it extremely unlikely that brains have *, /, and even more
unlikely to have sqrt and pow inbuilt. Even more unlikely, even if it
did have them, to figure out how to combine them to round(pow((1
+sqrt(5))/2, x)/sqrt(5)).
Does this mean we should discount all maths that use any complex
operations ?
I suspect the brain is full of look-up tables mainly, with some fairly
primitive methods of combining the data.
eg What's 6 / 3 ?
ans = 2 most people would get that because it's been wrote learnt, a
common problem.
What 3456/6 ?
we don't know, at least not from the top of our head.
I'd argue that mathematical operations are unnecesary, we don't even have
integer support inbuilt. The number meme is a bit of a hack on top of
language that has been modified throughout the years. We have a peripheral
that allows us decent support for the numbers 1-10, but beyond that numbers
are basically words to which several different finicky grammars can be
applied as far as our brains are concerned.
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
