for {set i 0} {$i infinity} {incr i} {
print $i
}
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Jim Bromer jimbro...@gmail.com wrote:
I can write an algorithm that is capable of describing ('reaching') every
possible irrational number - given infinite resources. The infinite is not
a number-like object,
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Steve Richfield wrote:
How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and
automated weapons?
How about a ban on suicide bombers to level the playing field?
1984 has truly arrived.
No it hasn't. People want public surveillance.
Guess I am not people
Samantha: please note that full surveillance means no successful rebellion
no matter how bad the powers that be become and how ineffectual the means
that let remain legal are to change things. Ever
I totally agree that surveillance will become ever more massive - because it
has v. positive as
Matt,
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:56 AM, tintner michael tint...@blueyonder.co.ukwrote:
I totally agree that surveillance will become ever more massive - because
it has v. positive as well as negative benefits. But people will find ways
of resisting and evading it - they always do. And it's
I meant transfinite. Thank you for correcting me on that. However,
your suggestion to post when I actually solve the problem is one of the most
absurd comments I have ever seen in these groups given the absolute
necessity of posting about AI-related ideas that have yet to be solved, and
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:34 AM, deepakjnath deepakjn...@gmail.com wrote:
for {set i 0} {$i infinity} {incr i} {
print $i
}
That's the basic idea, except there are one and a half axes, positive
integers, negative integers and fractional parts for all possible irrational
numbers. (Well it
David Jones wrote:
I've suddenly realized that computer vision
of real images is very much solvable and that
it is now just a matter of engineering. [...]
Would you (or anyone else on this list) be
interested in learning Forth and working on
http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/VisRecog
Samantha Atkins wrote:
No it hasn't. People want public surveillance.
Guess I am not people then.
Then why are you posting your response to a public forum instead of replying by
encrypted private email? People want their words to be available to the world.
I don't think the global brain
Steve Richfield wrote:
Disaster scenarios aside, what would YOU have YOUR AGI do to navigate this
future?
It won't be my AGI. If it were, I would be a despot and billions of people
would
suffer, just like if any other person ruled the world with absolute power. We
will be much better off if
