Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-15 Thread Robert Picone
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.

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-15 Thread Mike Tintner
And yet you dream dreams wh. are broad-ranging in subject matter, unlike all programs wh. are extremely narrow-ranging. -- From: Michael Swan ms...@voyagergaming.com Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:16 AM To: agi agi@v2.listbox.com Subject: Re:

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Matt Mahoney
Actually, Fibonacci numbers can be computed without loops or recursion. int fib(int x) { return round(pow((1+sqrt(5))/2, x)/sqrt(5)); } unless you argue that loops are needed to compute sqrt() and pow(). The brain and DNA use redundancy and parallelism and don't use loops because their

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Michael Swan
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

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Matt Mahoney
Michael Swan wrote: What 3456/6 ? we don't know, at least not from the top of our head. No, it took me about 10 or 20 seconds to get 576. Starting with the first digit, 3/6 = 1/2 (from long term memory) and 3 is in the thousands place, so 1/2 of 1000 is 500 (1/2 = .5 from LTM). I write 500

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Mike Tintner
Michael :The brains slow and unreliable methods I think are the price paid for generality and innately unreliable hardware Yes to one - nice to see an AGI-er finally starting to join up the dots, instead of simply dismissing the brain's massive difficulties in maintaining a train of thought.

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Mike Tintner
A demonstration of global connectedness is - associate with anO I get: number, sun, dish, disk, ball, letter, mouth, two fingers, oh, circle, wheel, wire coil, outline, station on metro, hole, Kenneth Noland painting, ring, coin, roundabout connecting among other things - language,

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Michael Swan
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 17:51 -0700, Matt Mahoney wrote: Michael Swan wrote: What 3456/6 ? we don't know, at least not from the top of our head. No, it took me about 10 or 20 seconds to get 576. Starting with the first digit, 3/6 = 1/2 (from long term memory) and 3 is in the thousands

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Robert Picone
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

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Michael Swan
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 01:37 +0100, Mike Tintner wrote: Michael :The brains slow and unreliable methods I think are the price paid for generality and innately unreliable hardware Yes to one - nice to see an AGI-er finally starting to join up the dots, instead of simply dismissing the

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-14 Thread Michael Swan
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

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-13 Thread Ben Goertzel
Well, if you want a simple but complete operator set, you can go with -- Schonfinkel combinator plus two parentheses or -- S and K combinator plus two parentheses and I suppose you could add -- input -- output -- forget statements to this, but I'm not sure what this gets you... Actually,

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-13 Thread Michael Swan
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 07:00 -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote: Well, if you want a simple but complete operator set, you can go with -- Schonfinkel combinator plus two parentheses I'll check this out soon. or -- S and K combinator plus two parentheses and I suppose you could add -- input

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-13 Thread Mike Tintner
Michael: We can't do operations that require 1,000,000 loop iterations. I wish someone would give me a PHD for discovering this ;) It far better describes our differences than any other theory. Michael, This isn't a competitive point - but I think I've made that point several times (and so of

Re: [agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-13 Thread Michael Swan
Brain loops: Premise: Biological brain code does not contain looping constructs, or the ability to creating looping code, (due to the fact they are extremely dangerous on unreliable hardware) except for 1 global loop that fires about 200 times a second. Hypothesis: Brains cannot calculate

[agi] What is the smallest set of operations that can potentially define everything and how do you combine them ?

2010-07-12 Thread Michael Swan
Hi, I'm interested in combining the simplest, most derivable operations ( eg operations that cannot be defined by other operations) for creating seed AGI's. The simplest operations combined in a multitude ways can form extremely complex patterns, but the underlying logic may be simple. I wonder