• 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.

Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
So, it is about physics.. Did you actually read more than O(log(n)) of the paper?
Click to expand...
Okay, this impressed me. To make a statement like this you need to have both a reasonable grasp as to the implications of a particular set of symbols, and yet be utterly clueless as to what it means or how it's used.

5/10, made me respond.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, let's be fair to Jordan. He can't just go along and prove his own theory wrong, can he? That'd be devastating to him.
Click to expand...


And yet real scientists do it all the time and STILL publish the research.

Perhaps he can partner with old Doc Mills over at BLP to build a Hydrino based quantum computer. It’ll get him about as far as his current track AND get him a cadre of credulous supporters online. Might even get him a Green Card and a steady job.
 
Argumemnon said:
halleyscommet said:
o far I see a LOT of excuses, but no plans.
Click to expand...
Well, let's be fair to Jordan. He can't just go along and prove his own theory wrong, can he? That'd be devastating to him.
Click to expand...

I already approached halley's concern, here:

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
halleyscommet said:
Do you not have enough confidence in the theory to publish it without first having proven it experimentally? Do you have some sort of moral, ethical or philosophical objection to publishing a purely theoretical paper?
Click to expand...
Bengio, a pioneer in Deep Learning can have the leisure of posting papers on major peer reviewed journals, even without any semblance of experimental results. (An example is his recent Consciousness Prior Paper)

I am not a pioneer in machine learning, nor do I have a machine learning degree, so I don't have the same leisure as Bengio.


halleyscommet said:
It occurs to me, the work needed to break your overall theory down into a project that could be executed on a grid computing platform would itself constitute a publishable paper.

You seem to have put yourself in an interesting chicken and egg situation. You’re unwilling to publish a theoretical paper but without a theoretical paper you’re unlikely to get the grants needed to purchase the hardware to do the experiments you want to do. To make progress forward you need either publish a theoretical paper or break down your theory so that it can be run on a grid computing platform.

What is your plan?
Click to expand...
That occurrence is wrong...

An initial, albeit substantial degree of the structure to be tested, shall align with the requirements I priorly mentioned here.
Click to expand...
 
Beelzebuddy said:
BezzleBuddy said:
So, it is about physics.. Did you actually read more than O(log(n)) of the paper?
Click to expand...
Okay, this impressed me. To make a statement like this you need to have both a reasonable grasp as to the implications of a particular set of symbols, and yet be utterly clueless as to what it means or how it's used.

5/10, made me respond.
Click to expand...

Well I don't intend to impress anybody...

I aced analysis of algorithms at university (taught by Prof Daniel Coore) a few years ago (that course has a notorious fear factor, of failure), but some of the concepts have probably escaped me. (I can send you a login to my student administration portal, so you can see the grades)

But what warrants your "utterly clueless" comment above?
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
That's because except to suggest you read his book, he didn't even give you the time of day, let alone debate your rather unique take on English.
Click to expand...

He did spend a brief moment to discuss manifolds, as you saw in the screenshot. (Which was surprising to me, since I don't have a machine learning degree)

He also spent time to briefly talk about other things:


x3RM20F.png



We still exchange words, however brief, to this day...
 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Well I don't intend to impress anybody...

I aced analysis of algorithms at university (taught by Prof Daniel Coore) a few years ago (that course has a notorious fear factor, of failure), but some of the concepts have probably escaped me. (I can send you a login to my student administration portal, so you can see the grades)
Click to expand...
You should ask for your money back.

But what warrants your "utterly clueless" comment above?
Click to expand...
Big O notation is a method of describing the scaling properties of a given algorithm. It has absolutely no meaning when applied to the fraction of a particular document someone may have read.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
He did spend a brief moment to discuss manifolds, as you saw in the screenshot. (Which was surprising to me, since I don't have a machine learning degree)

He also spent time to briefly talk about other things:


[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/x3RM20F.png[/qimg]


We still exchange words, however brief, to this day...
Click to expand...

I'm sure he's a nice guy and pats small children on the head too.

And never kicks kittens.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I can send you a login to my student administration portal, so you can see the grades)

But what warrants your "utterly clueless" comment above?
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ man! I’d say the “utter clueless” applies handily to your grasp of basic computer security.

Christ almighty. How the flying **** did an alleged computer programmer get to adulthood still thinking it’s kosher to offer to hand out god damn personal *********** login credentials to random *********** strangers?

You’re joking. Please tell me you were *********** joking about making the login credentials available to one of us. It was a ********** up joke and the fact that it was a joke was not accurately conveyed in the forum post. Right?

Right?

Jesus *********** tap-dancing Christ dry on a pogo-stick cracker. What the flying acrobatic **** did I just read?
 
fagin said:
But you're not a stranger, you're Hagrid. One of the good guys.
Click to expand...



Oh, don’t get me started on Hagrid. He’s the perfect example of social engineering at work. If Draco had possessed even a fraction of the cunning his inept, inbred family THOUGHT they had, he’d have befriended Hagrid in the beginning to get information his father could use against Dumbledore. Keep dear old Dad in the dark about the source of his information and Lucious would end up being part of a good cop / bad cop game to keep Hagrid trusting Draco even more.

Naturally if Draco had been that cunning he’d have had to keep his dad in the dark, because Lucious was about as non-cunning as a human being could be. The dipstick would have spoiled the game the moment he had to choose between a momentary slight to his ego and preserving the best source of intelligence about Dumbledore’s dealings.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
You should ask for your money back.

Big O notation is a method of describing the scaling properties of a given algorithm. It has absolutely no meaning when applied to the fraction of a particular document someone may have read.
Click to expand...


Unnecesary, Dr. Coore's lectures were well done.

A little about Prof Coore:

He "received the Innovation awards in Science and Technology for a cardiac surgery simulator and the Morris Joseph Levin Memorial Award for best presentation of his Master's thesis work in the semi-annual MIT EECS Master Works Oral Presentations.

His works as seen above, and other works such as his focus in amorphous computation reflects in his elegant lecture style.

An "O(log(n))" joke reported by one of his former students on some forum, has no bearing on his lectures.
 
halleyscomet said:
Jesus Christ man! I’d say the “utter clueless” applies handily to your grasp of basic computer security.

Christ almighty. How the flying **** did an alleged computer programmer get to adulthood still thinking it’s kosher to offer to hand out god damn personal *********** login credentials to random *********** strangers?

You’re joking. Please tell me you were *********** joking about making the login credentials available to one of us. It was a ********** up joke and the fact that it was a joke was not accurately conveyed in the forum post. Right?

Right?

Jesus *********** tap-dancing Christ dry on a pogo-stick cracker. What the flying acrobatic **** did I just read?
Click to expand...

Your words remind me of Dexter Morgan's sister's cursing on the "Dexter" series: "Christ on a ******** cracker".

 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
If I drew a small sample of my exchange with Bengio, it would have been more valuable than almost the sum total/a great majority of my exchanges here.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that tell you something?

I'll bet you didn't use stupid and disrespectful language with him, nor answer with "huh?". You might draw a lesson from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom