Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Whether or not you classify Mordred's participation as "ignorance" of my queries, is irrelevant, as Mordred participated in a detailed manner, contrary to your claim, as is observable in the image above.
That babies learn (in relation to machine learning) is not a "trivial fact", and forms crucial studies w.r.t. the hard problem of constructing artificial general intelligence, unbeknownst to you.
When will you learn to produce sensible feedback?
But you did list Mordred's messages to you so: 4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
Mordred describes a tiny bit of the mathematics and physics of QFT. Mordred ignores your work. Mordred mentions one of your citations favorably. He does not mention that this is a year and a half old preprint with no sign of publication. But it is clear that quantum computing should give advantages over classical computing in AI.
4 October 2017 ProgrammingGodJordan: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong.
There are no "manifold learning frameworks" in Disentangling factors of variation in deep representations using adversarial training. There are 3 instances of the word manifold referring to the data. The frameworks are Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) and Variational Auto-Encoders (VAE) which this paper combines.
Comprehension fail. Non trivial comprehension fail betwixt gibberish. Take a few days to read the following:
The claim wasn't that you ignore lists to do with your work, it was that you quoted someone but ignored their work. I assume this is because it doesn't agree with whatever theory you're blathering on about now.
Comprehension fail. Non trivial comprehension fail betwixt gibberish. Take a few days to read the following:
The claim wasn't that you ignore lists to do with your work, it was that you quoted someone but ignored their work. I assume this is because it doesn't agree with whatever theory you're blathering on about now.
I can see why your ideas have no traction in the larger scientific communities. You respond to criticism of your claims with accusations of the other person lacking understanding. You respond not with a coherent rebuttal, but insults. With such an attitude the quality of your ideas is meaningless, as you are actively discouraging people from considering them. It's akin to a chef cooking a steak, then covering it with spittle. Nobody is going to eat it and, as a result, nobody will be able to judge the quality of the steak or its preparation.
You are your own worst enemy and have gone to great lengths to sabotage yourself. It's sad really. If you have any good ideas they'll be ignored until a more competent communicator reinvents them, or palatalizes them from you.
I wonder if there are any mathematicians or AI researchers in this thread who are not above a bit of academic plagiarism. I certainly hope there are not.
Dude, you used the wrong word. Stop embarrassing yourself by looking for a loophole. Everyone uses the wrong word now and then. Accept the criticism and move on.
I can see why your ideas have no traction in the larger scientific communities. You respond to criticism of your claims with accusations of the other person lacking understanding. You respond not with a coherent rebuttal, but insults. With such an attitude the quality of your ideas is meaningless, as you are actively discouraging people from considering them. It's akin to a chef cooking a steak, then covering it with spittle. Nobody is going to eat it and, as a result, nobody will be able to judge the quality of the steak or its preparation.
You are your own worst enemy and have gone to great lengths to sabotage yourself. It's sad really. If you have any good ideas they'll be ignored until a more competent communicator reinvents them, or palatalizes them from you.
I wonder if there are any mathematicians or AI researchers in this thread who are not above a bit of academic plagiarism. I certainly hope there are not.
(1) I had not accused him or her of any such thing, her/his blunder is clearly observable, whether or not I exist to point out such blunder. (See here)
(2) Although I know of recent single author papers that are gaining traction, even without detailed results let alone some substantive ways on how to implement the things proposed in those papers, (an example is this paper by Bengio, one of the pioneers of Deep Learning)
... although thought curvature does more to provide ways to perform experiments, unlike papers like Bengio's above, there is still a lot of work to be done until I can submit the papers to strong journals.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
!
