• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Super Artificial Intelligence, a naive approach

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Click the phrase hierarchical causal fabric in the first line.

That is a link to Lu's work.
Click to expand...
That gives a mistake and a lie
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is the third line in the Readme.md.
    There is a ignorant graphic as the first line.
    There is "Description" as the second line.
    There is gibberish as the third line.
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is a lie since that phrase is not in the thesis.
    Not even "causal" or "fabric" appear :eye-poppi!
    There is obviously the word "hierarchical".
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your comment is invalid.
Click to expand...
Your post is invalid. Pay attention to what you actually link to :jaw-dropp!

A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally. That is what the Wikipedia article you link to has
Informal definition
An informal definition is commonly used in physics textbooks and introductory lectures. It defines a supermanifold as a manifold with both bosonic and fermionic coordinates. Locally, it is composed of coordinate charts that make it look like a "flat", "Euclidean" superspace
Click to expand...
Added highlighting of the English and double quotes you are denying.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Your post is invalid. Pay attention to what you actually link to :jaw-dropp!

A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally. That is what the Wikipedia article you link to has

Added highlighting of the English and double quotes you are denying.
Click to expand...

I am particularly interested in the charts, ie this flat euclidean bound space.

This is why 'resultant map sequences' was mentioned.

See the quote below:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
At the day's end, what I am interested in, is essentially the euclidean regime, including euclidean bound operations that may occur over the superspace.

Beyond the above euclidean bound operations, there appears not to be any empirical data.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I am particularly interested in the charts, ie this flat euclidean bound space.

This is why 'resultant map sequences' was mentioned.

See the quote below:
Click to expand...

Yet you're not so interested in the "looks like" aspect of the Wiki entry you keep linking to. Curious.
 
Reality Check said:
That gives a mistake and a lie
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is the third line in the Readme.md.
    There is a ignorant graphic as the first line.
    There is "Description" as the second line.
    There is gibberish as the third line.
  • "hierarchical causal fabric" is a lie since that phrase is not in the thesis.
    Not even "causal" or "fabric" appear :eye-poppi!
    There is obviously the word "hierarchical".
Click to expand...

(A)
The causal is simply a description of how physical systems compose in particle terms, to construe compositional paradigms.

So, laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles under particular constrains is measured.

In the above paradigm, interactions cause particular configurations of the aforesaid compositional paradigms.

The above system is hierarchical, and so, it is a hierarchical causal fabric.

(B)
It is actually the fourth non-empty line, but still the first sentence.
Maybe I should have used the word sentence instead.
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(A)...
Click to expand...
29 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Nonsense irrelevant to a lie of citing a paper that contains nothing on a nonsensical phrase!
Your assertion was a link in the first line:
1
2
3
4 This is the first sentence in the fourth line
Click to expand...
That assertion was wrong.
The link remains a lie - the Christopher Lu paper is not about your nonsensical phrase. It is as much a lie as stating that the Christopher Lu paper is about Earth's atmosphere because it has "laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles".

Which reminds me:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.

See the posts by W.D.Clinger for why the "hypothesis" is invalid math word salad, e.g. ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.
Hausdorff space include real numbers. Not Hausdorff implies no real numbers and thus not Euclidean (without quotes).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
29 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Nonsense irrelevant to a lie of citing a paper that contains nothing on a nonsensical phrase!
Your assertion was a link in the first line:

That assertion was wrong.
The link remains a lie - the Christopher Lu paper is not about your nonsensical phrase. It is as much a lie as stating that the Christopher Lu paper is about Earth's atmosphere because it has "laws of physics amidst the interactions of particles".

Which reminds me:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.

See the posts by W.D.Clinger for why the "hypothesis" is invalid math word salad, e.g. ProgrammingGodJordan is telling us the supermanifold is Euclidean, when it isn't even Hausdorff.
Hausdorff space include real numbers. Not Hausdorff implies no real numbers and thus not Euclidean (without quotes).
Click to expand...


sA6PAz9.jpg


Albeit, your ramblings are irrelevant and garbage, and my prior quote applies:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
This is why the super-m hypothesis encodes that there exists some neighbourhood persisting amidst the euclidean space/superspace.

Pay attention to the use of the word neighbourhood above.
Click to expand...

To minimize your ignorance, I encourage that you observe this text by Bengio et al..

See particularly chapter 5.1.1.3.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
More nonsense does not hide an ignorant statement about supermanifolds: A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.
Click to expand...

Pay attention to my usage of the word neighbourhood, in the supermanifold hypothesis:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
RA3GJle.png
Click to expand...



The reality is, you appear to lack understanding of manifolds in relation to deep learning; thus this appears simply to be beyond your domain...

Furthermore, Christopher Lu's code can be observed to learn some manifold of Rn nature.
https://github.com/HFTrader/DeepLearningBook
http://colah.github.io/posts/2014-03-NN-Manifolds-Topology/
 
Last edited:
 
Reality Check said:
A couple of posts with insults does not make denying what supermanifolds are any more sensible, ProgrammingGodJordan:
A basic point about supermanifolds is they are not actually Euclidean locally.

Or make a thesis contain math word salad:
23 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lies about Christopher Lu's code from Lu's Master's thesis (which does not contain his hypothesis).
24 March 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: A valid hypothesis is not incoherent math word salad as I pointed out yesterday.
Click to expand...

Albeit, supermanifolds may appear in the euclidean regime.

Also, I mentioned that my paradigm exists in the neighbourhood of such a regime, wherein x in ϕ(x,θ,θ`) may denote real numbers.

Derive from that what you shall so desire. (although your desires thus far do not halt the validity of the above)
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
...insults snipped...possible copyright violation by HFTrader snipped...See particularly chapter 5.1.1.3.
Click to expand...
This is the official source for the Deep Learning textbook and includes
FAQ
•Can I get a PDF of this book?
No, our contract with MIT Press forbids distribution of too easily copied electronic formats of the book.

•Why are you using HTML format for the web version of the book?
This format is a sort of weak DRM required by our contract with MIT Press. It's intended to discourage unauthorized copying/editing of the book
Click to expand...
You have linked to a possible copyright violation by HFTrader who did convert the web pages to a PDF.

Chapter "5.1.1.3" does not exist :eek:!
However there is chapter "5.11.3 Manifold Learning". They look at manifolds that are locally Euclidian:
From any given point, the manifold locally appears to be a Euclidean space.
Click to expand...
This is basic stuff that I first learned about 30 years ago in math textbooks and post-graduate physics courses. Since then I have refreshed my knowledge several times.
 
Reality Check said:
That Wikipedia article shows that statement is basically quote mining (close to lying about) the article:

The quotes are there for a reason!
Click to expand...

Your comment above does not alter the instance that supermanifolds may persist in the euclidean regime.

Particularly, euclidean bound operations may occur on points over the superspace.

As long mentioned, such are the operations of interest.


RealityCheck said:
This is basic stuff that I first learned about 30 years ago in math textbooks and post-graduate physics courses. Since then I have refreshed my knowledge several times
Click to expand...

Yet this basic topic appears to elude your understanding/expression, especially the usage of simple words such as neighborhood.


RealityCheck said:
5.1.1.3 does not exist...
there is a chapter 5.11.3.
Click to expand...

Yes that was a typo of mine.
Yes the correct chapter is 5.11.3.
This is perhaps your first sensible criticism.

I typed the chapter number from memory, and so came the possibility such that I entered an extra point...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your comment ...
Click to expand...
Repeating ignorance about supermanifolds does not change that they are not locally Euclidean as everyone reads that Wikipedia article you cited understands.

The phrase "persist in the euclidean regime" sounds like you have no idea about what the "super" part of "supermanifolds" comes from. This is the application of concepts from supersymmetry to manifolds which turns manifolds into explicitly non-Euclidean "regimes" both globally and locally.

Adding insults does not help - I know what neighborhood means in math. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a manifold can be Euclidean. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a supermanifold is never Euclidean.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Repeating ignorance about supermanifolds does not change that they are not locally Euclidean as everyone reads that Wikipedia article you cited understands.

The phrase "persist in the euclidean regime" sounds like you have no idea about what the "super" part of "supermanifolds" comes from. This is the application of concepts from supersymmetry to manifolds which turns manifolds into explicitly non-Euclidean "regimes" both globally and locally.

Adding insults does not help - I know what neighborhood means in math. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a manifold can be Euclidean. The set of points in the neighborhood of any point in a supermanifold is never Euclidean.
Click to expand...


[IMGw=300]http://i.imgur.com/kHuXEPE.jpg[/IMGw]

(A)
Here is a simple example to show that your highlighted text is invalid:

See the paper: "Non-anticommutative N=(1,1) Euclidean Superspace"

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0402062

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superspace


(B)
Try not to use words such as "never", etc.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Please don't develop AI, nothing good will come out of it. Especially for programmers .. especially for those nearest to it ;-)
Click to expand...

Too late.
Google, Microsoft, Baidu etc are in on it.


From what Musk says, maybe we are the biological boot loaders of some superintelligence...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom